What is Digg?250 Comments
- FatHed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+153"but AT&T does not edit or censor performances."
Stop lying, you did, it's not a question of how, you censored a performance, so don't say you don't, *****. - DrummerAndrew, on 10/10/2007, -5/+98Pearl Jam seems like the perfect band for this. If it had been some little known group, we may never hear about it. Let's hope that we can Digg this and stay with it so that this becomes a poster child for net neutrality. This is absolute censorship. Claiming that this was done to protect their 'all-age' viewers is ridiculous, those lyrics don't have any swear words in them. Ideas should be freely communicated, and this seems like it might be a first amendment issue.... which is bad.
What will AT&T do next? I'm not excited to find out. - Raian, on 10/10/2007, -3/+93Or.. maybe someone needs to break up AT&T?
- SprkJonz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+60Just another example of people in power saying, "We know what's best for you so we'll make the decisions for you!" I consider myself to be fiscally conservative, but this kind of action by AT&T makes me wanna puke.
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -5/+53Solution: Don't play concerts for AT&T
- valoss, on 10/10/2007, -3/+40Thanks AT&T! I will commence my boycott immediately.
- farmer448, on 10/10/2007, -3/+32I am so sorry, I cannot stop laughing. At&T aka Southwestern Bell is well on its way to rebuilding the original AT&T telephone monopoly. So to its youngest most influential audience, the AT&T spokesman gives up an answer that sounds like the "Dog ate my homework". And for this he probably got a six figure salary plus bonus plus options.... And so the US will continue to fall behind in the digital revolution as companies are run by the equivalent of the old Keystone Cops....
- randallm, on 10/10/2007, -12/+39It's 1984 lulz
- NeoRevolution, on 10/10/2007, -15/+42George Bush, leave this world alone.
George Bush find yourself another home.
Lets digg this so they know they have no control over us. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+23I want to see everyone with an iPhone to give it up in protest to censorship, and being complicit in the spying of US citizens.
(right, like anyone here has any principles) - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20Luckily, AT&T isn't a virus, it's a monopolistic company. If the government had any balls and wasn't owned by AT&T, this situation would have never existed.
Alas, our Justice system might as well be a branch of the Executive. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Anybody who still uses Yahoo!/AT&T needs to realize that they are supporting this crap. Between them monopolizing (once again) the telecommunications industry, spying on their own customers, and this, they are clearly an evil that needs to go.
Delete your Yahoo! screen names and stop visiting the site. They operate entirely contrary to what America, and freedom, stand for. - ffingers, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19I just have to say.....i was at that concert and it was awesome....granted...the political stuff sort of came from nowhere...but it was cool to see all the people singing the wall and then cheering when vedder said "Bush leave this world alone"....very cool...
on a side note, he had an Iraq war vet up there in a wheelchair who talked about how bad the war was...then Ben Harper and Vedder sung an anti-war song in the vet's honor....
and don't forget that Vedder also sung a song "No Go BP Amoco" in response to BP's dumping into Lake Michigan...seriously...very political concert...even for Vedder...but it was a good show - fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18I really, really hope that Google buys the new spectrum from the FCC, and implements an open national wireless internet. The sooner we can get away from companies like AT&T, the better.
- mille716, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Pearl Jam is well known for being a politically outspoken band. AT&T must have known this before they signed them up and Pearl Jam clearly didn't expect to have their broadcast censored. This would be ok if AT&T told Pearl Jam "we want you to perform for us but just so you know, we will cut out anything overtly political" and Pearl Jam agreed. This didn't happen. They signed up a group of artists then decided to edit their art. Pearl Jam is right.
- jamin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18I recently canceled my AT&T service because I'm tired of their *****. Maybe more people should do the same.
- NewPatriot, on 10/10/2007, -8/+24i wish i was a neutron bomb for once i could go off
- SilkSteel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14These ***** at AT&T need to get off their knees and stop sucking big brother's *****. I'm glad Pearl Jam is making a big deal out of this because it needs to be done. Companies like AT&T who pull ***** like this end up setting precedents for future policies, along with affecting what kinds of laws are passed. We cannot be complacent in this critical period of defining what should and should not be regulated on the internet.
- SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -10/+23This does not involve packet priorities, rejecting traffic from other networks, or giving an unfair amount of bandwidth to some connections. So, why the hell was "network neutrality" called into the picture?
- Ghoztt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Pearl Jam has a RIGHT as an ARTIST and as HUMAN BEINGS to say what they said. This is censorship. This is censorship by an extremely freak'n large corporation. This is tyranny! I say we break up AT&T again, and while we're at it, Walmart, BestBuy, Microsoft, all the Oil Company's and every other monopolistic company out there! RETURN AMERICA TO A FREE MARKET!
- rholloway, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14From an artist's perspective, had censoring the broadcast been in the contract, I don't think PJ would have allowed their show to be on the webcast. That whole business thing cuts both ways. I listened to it on XM, uncensored. But then again, after what they did to Opie and Anthony for what Homeless Charlie said about Laura Bush, who can count on any corporation anymore?
- longbow486, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11and the endless cycle continues, you cant kill a virus
- nk231, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14One more reason not to sell your soul to AT&T for an iPhone.
- GeneralFault, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Did AT&T use public airwaves at any point to transmit the broadcast at any point? If so, then yes, this is a free speech issue. If not, then it is just as clearly not an issue of free speech, but still represents the danger of private censorship in from a company with a near monopoly. And yes,I consider 5 companies that constantly rename, merge and split with each-other a monopoly.
- TheKricket, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11its amazing how so VERY little people know about their rights...
- dezmd, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14referencing a site called 'right wing lunatic' to try and make the 'oh oh liberals do it too' point seems, well, retarded.
Cheers. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11and I wish you'd refrain from talking about things you don't understand.
The taxpayers paid for that damm infrastructure. - coyoteblue, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Yeah I was there, it was a pretty sweet concert.
My favorite part was his song urging fans to boycott BP-AMOCO stations because of their decision to dump ammonia and sludge into Lake Michigan.
A guy behind me started booing when he was talking about the boycott and yelling "Who the f*ck cares?".
It took about ten seconds before he was KTFO. - gernblansted, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"Dugg by a whole lot of people who attended public schools, and who probably have a lot of rent-to-own furniture in their house." - serpicolugnut
My my, aren't we special? I guess your "highbrow" private school didn't teach you much. If AT&T censors based on politics when it isn't even their official policy to do so, which "Pipes" as you specially educated people would say are going to have the "spigot" turned down later on when AT&T gets their way? Or is that too lowbrow for your exceptionally educated self to grasp? - jp007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9It was called into the picture because network neutrality is damaging to at&t. I think the band is probably pretty pissed at at&t for what happened for the censoring of their concert, and educating the populace about network neutrality is really the only way to poke them back in the eye.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11How about give up your iPhone in protest?
- gernblansted, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The problem here is that AT&T claims it doesn't censor except for profanity, but they censored based on politics so they lied. If they lie this time, why should we believe them when they say they'll be "fair and balanced" when it comes to keeping the net neutral? Since they are researching ways to 'tag' copyrighted content coming through their networks, does that mean my sling box will be useless when they engage that technology - that I won't be able to watch my recorded tv programs remotely on my laptop? Will they just call the FBI and arrest me? This corporation can NOT be trusted with anything, except to make a profit at anyones expense but their own. The Internet has become too important to leave in control of people like this.
- maj0rm0j0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I'd say right now it's about 1983 headed to 1984. What happened to activism? Are we all so happy with our governments that we can't march or use our voices? People always deserve the government they get.
- CMuffa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8They did mention that "political lyrics" are against AT&T policy, therefore the 3rd party contractor censored it. But what AT&T and the rest of the corporate world fails to realize is that we have "The People's Policy". It's called the constitution. Rule number 1, freedom of speech. Whether it be offensive or not, we have the right to hear it. It's the corporations (including all media outlets) who have chosen for us, to control what information/music/whatever is passed along to you. Well thanks for nothing. Because even if someone did say "I love to F underage...blah blah blah", I'd still like to hear it and then use my own mind to determine if it was offensive.
"Once upon a time, I could control myself".....now the goverment and corporations are doing it for me. Thanks again for nothing. - charli2na, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You obviously know nothing about the band, they don't play for the paycheck... in fact they only tour every 3 or 4 years. That was their only US show this year.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Is it just me, or isn't it completely ridiculous that this can happen? Why doesn't Digg aggregate a "story" and not links to it? Why the hell can't we bind 8 or 9 URLs that have different point of views or different people reporting on it, to one "Story"?
*sigh*. - TheKricket, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9did you even read the ***** article? at&t has already stated that this was a "mistake" and that it shouldn't have been censored - in fact, they didnt even censor it - it was a 3rd party contractor that was supposed to censor "vulgar" language
- DOUBLEZER00, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9What does Net Neutrality have to do with the media buffering?
- thegodfaughnder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I think musicians have just the same rights as anyone else to voice their oinion. Its ***** to tell any human being to shut up and not disscuss their opinions. Also...... he was singing, and they barely let him do that. But i also believe that the public as a whole has the right to speak their mind against someones opinions, not a big corporation like AT&T. But on the other hand AT&T probably reserved the right to do as such and Pearl Jam should have voiced their opinions when the contract was signed.
- rholloway, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"They can censor it if they so desire, so long as there was nothing in their contract with Pearl Jam about censorship rules. "
That's the point--had censorship language been in the contract, AT&T would have been short 2 hours of content for their webcast. I don't disagree with you--someone failed to either review contracts or honor them. Either way, the content provider was led to believe the broadcaster was to be broadcasting the show in it's entirety--hence the kerfuffle.
For someone who clearly didn't go to public schools, you sure did take a big whiff at the obvious. - mille716, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You're missing the point. AT&T and a small number of other companies are the gatekeepers to massive amounts of news and information. They are deciding what information gets to the masses. Corporate censorship is just as wrong as government censorship.
By the way, great job on trying to make yourself sound smart by knocking public schools and poor people, you smug *****. - bocaJWho, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The top two posters in this reply thread are absolutely correct. This was a webcast by a company wholly owned by AT&T. They have no obligation to broadcast content that they don't agree with. The only way you can strech this to a free speech/net neutrality issue is that AT&T would offer increased bandwidth to their own broadcast to the detriment of those who would broadcast an uncensored version. Sadly, no one else seems to be saying this.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13What a joke. Publicly showing they're morons that don't know what net neutrality means. They have issues with censorship and really think putting the FCC in charge is the solution?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9it's really sad to see that we are in the minority. Just goes to show the saying "common sense is not common" is true.
- rholloway, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6yo mama
- rholloway, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Dude, this story was about Pearl Jam, not REM.
- Albionshores, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah that makes sense, corporation censors an artist and you complain at the artist. You may have Stockholm Syndrome.
- dezmd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Sounds more like the right wing AT&T apologists are trying to jump on the bandwagon.
AT&T was broken up once, looks like they're going for a repeat performance with the re-merging of the Bells.
Cheers. - ruley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4i think what he meant was: these are the people that say they wont censor your information
- abusive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Yeah, that is a dupe one you posted. Good boy.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 250 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is