a large telecom corporation edited/censored a rock and roll concert because of dissent towards the president. not nudity, not profanity, but because of political dissent
it is that clear cut. and it is fucked up. period.
and i dont give a damn if there was a contract or not.
just a piece to the much larger puzzle that has been going on for this entire administartion... dont challenge the authority of the king. these folks have been constantly trying to build an imperial presidency with powers that will last well into the future. and it is working. and the major telecom companies are right in line with this shit
a large telecom corporation edited/censored a rock and roll concert because of dissent towards the president. not nudity, not profanity, but because of political dissent
it is that clear cut. and it is fucked up. period.
and i dont give a damn if there was a contract or not.
just a piece to the much larger puzzle that has been going on for this entire administartion... dont challenge the authority of the king. these folks have been constantly trying to build an imperial presidency with powers that will last well into the future. and it is working. and the major telecom companies are right in line with this shit
its nice to see freedom ringing loudly on this one
It wouldn't surprise me if they might not have done the same thing if they were anti-Hillary comments. They probably do not want their company name affiliated with any party politically.
Since 1990, they've funded both parties pretty equally: the Republicans a bit more. They're probably keen to be on the side that's winning/in charge now, like regular little arselickers.
this is scary. its beginning to show how easily they will be able to censor freedom of speech in the future w/ all the media controlled by one or two companies. There does not seem to be any more enforcement of anti-monopoly laws anymore and its scary when one man or company can control everything we see, hear, and watch.
“Kept in a small bowl, the goldfish will remain small. With more space, the fish can grow double, triple, or quadruple its size.”
-Big Fish
everyone seems so upset about this company... that pearl jam willingly worked with. Eddie has railed pretty significantly against multi media giant corporations, but in the past couple years has worked with AOL/Time Warner, Viacom/MTV/VH1, and now AT&T...
as far as im concerned, AT&T at least showed some balls in agreeing to broadcast the show... im sure more than a couple other companies have "censored" pearl jam by not working with them, just to avoid this situation.
everyone seems so upset about this company... that pearl jam willingly worked with. Eddie has railed pretty significantly against multi media giant corporations, but in the past couple years has worked with AOL/Time Warner, Viacom/MTV/VH1, and now AT&T...
as far as im concerned, AT&T at least showed some balls in agreeing to broadcast the show... im sure more than a couple other companies have "censored" pearl jam by not working with them, just to avoid this situation.
everyone seems so upset about this company... that pearl jam willingly worked with. Eddie has railed pretty significantly against multi media giant corporations, but in the past couple years has worked with AOL/Time Warner, Viacom/MTV/VH1, and now AT&T...
as far as im concerned, AT&T at least showed some balls in agreeing to broadcast the show... im sure more than a couple other companies have "censored" pearl jam by not working with them, just to avoid this situation.
It's not a charity scenario...dey's makin some coin as well.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Just because they did not break a law does not mean they did not censor it. They did. Sure, it may have been their right to do so, but they still censored it.
I really don't care whether it was their right or not. If they broke a contract, the breaking of the contract is fairly meaningless to me. Either way, it's pathetic. AT & T, do some fucking research. They should have known this could happen--Then either show the fucking show or don't. To cut out things that don't happen to coincide with corporate political views is just sad--Ed's little rant won't make a difference to the world, but let people have dialogue. And if the political rant got out, it would be Ed/Pearl Jam, not AT and T that would be criticized for it.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
AT&T at least showed some balls in agreeing to broadcast the show...
Nonsense. AT&T has been broadcasting festivals for years. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because it has advertising value for them. They are using these performances to attract attention to their brand, and if they're obtaining the services of the performers under false pretenses, not informing them that political speech may be censored, then they deserve to be called on that. Notice that they've been backpedaling all the way, because they know what they did was wrong. If the Lolla promoters or any of the individual artists had signed an agreement that stated that AT&T was permitted to censor at will, they'd be waving that all around.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Nonsense. AT&T has been broadcasting festivals for years. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because it has advertising value for them. They are using these performances to attract attention to their brand, and if they're obtaining the services of the performers under false pretenses, not informing them that political speech may be censored, then they deserve to be called on that. Notice that they've been backpedaling all the way, because they know what they did was wrong. If the Lolla promoters or any of the individual artists had signed an agreement that stated that AT&T was permitted to censor at will, they'd be waving that all around.
and other companies broadcast them as well. I guess my point is, a lot of other companies may not even take a chance to broadcast such a politically charged band. And if AT&T was really TRYING to censor him, to the extent being talked about here, wouldnt they have censored Do the Evolution or Worldwide Suicide?
AT&T's story is believeable to me. They gave someone the power to edit, and the person fucked up (either intentionally, or an honest mistake). AT&T has apologized for the mistake, explained it... what else do people want? Are we so jaded that EVERYTHING bad that happens was done intentionally to hurt us? Even if it is, why cant an apology be issued to improve things?
Everyone is so angry, and i cant help but think that is a huge part of our problem.
and other companies broadcast them as well. I guess my point is, a lot of other companies may not even take a chance to broadcast such a politically charged band. And if AT&T was really TRYING to censor him, to the extent being talked about here, wouldnt they have censored Do the Evolution or Worldwide Suicide?
AT&T's story is believeable to me. They gave someone the power to edit, and the person fucked up (either intentionally, or an honest mistake). AT&T has apologized for the mistake, explained it... what else do people want? Are we so jaded that EVERYTHING bad that happens was done intentionally to hurt us? Even if it is, why cant an apology be issued to improve things?
Everyone is so angry, and i cant help but think that is a huge part of our problem.
I'm not seeing the anger you're seeing. I see people wanting to shed light on how easy it is for these corporations to actually control what it is they want us to see and hear. Mistake or not, I think it is obvious the power these kind of people wield.
"I read your article about this and it makes me so angry that AT&T say this is a one time mistake.
"They did the same thing on the webcasts from Bonnaroo in June during the John Butler Trio show when he was talking about the lack of response from our government during Katrina, and also during the Flaming Lips show when the lead singer was talking about how much George Bush had screwed up. I was at both of those live shows and saw the webcasts later. The sound did not cut out at any other time - only when someone was talking about George Bush or the goverment in a negative way.
"It was not a mistake, it is full out censorship."
"I read your article about this and it makes me so angry that AT&T say this is a one time mistake.
"They did the same thing on the webcasts from Bonnaroo in June during the John Butler Trio show when he was talking about the lack of response from our government during Katrina, and also during the Flaming Lips show when the lead singer was talking about how much George Bush had screwed up. I was at both of those live shows and saw the webcasts later. The sound did not cut out at any other time - only when someone was talking about George Bush or the goverment in a negative way.
"It was not a mistake, it is full out censorship."
Nonsense. AT&T has been broadcasting festivals for years. They don't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, they do it because it has advertising value for them. They are using these performances to attract attention to their brand, and if they're obtaining the services of the performers under false pretenses, not informing them that political speech may be censored, then they deserve to be called on that. Notice that they've been backpedaling all the way, because they know what they did was wrong. If the Lolla promoters or any of the individual artists had signed an agreement that stated that AT&T was permitted to censor at will, they'd be waving that all around.
"I read your article about this and it makes me so angry that AT&T say this is a one time mistake.
"They did the same thing on the webcasts from Bonnaroo in June during the John Butler Trio show when he was talking about the lack of response from our government during Katrina, and also during the Flaming Lips show when the lead singer was talking about how much George Bush had screwed up. I was at both of those live shows and saw the webcasts later. The sound did not cut out at any other time - only when someone was talking about George Bush or the goverment in a negative way.
"It was not a mistake, it is full out censorship."
I guess we'll see if this guy is telling the truth.
Well, well, well ... "this guy" has turned out to be "this girl" and she has posted on a couple of threads over on The Porch, and it now seems, thanks to her, that AT&T has admitted to doing this in the past.
ATT Admits To Removing Political Comments from Past Webcasts
By Eliot Van Buskirk August 10, 2007 | 6:47:35 PM
AT&T's removal of Eddie Vedder's anti-Bush sentiments from a webcast was not an isolated incident, according to a response issued by the company to Wired News.
The company's initial response was a mistake, and that it "does not edit or censor performances." However, after confronted with an email sent to Wired News claiming that AT&T had erased artists' political commentary from two previously-webcast shows, the company admitted that it had, in fact, excised political speech from "a handful" of its previous webcasts:
"It's not our intent to edit political comments in webcasts on attblueroom.com. Unfortunately, it has happened in the past in a handful of cases. We have taken steps to ensure that it won't happen again."
I don't doubt that AT&T has fired whoever who hit the mute button every time they heard criticism of the government, and it's highly likely that such editing will cease to occur.
Regardless, AT&T's assertion that in the absence of net neutrality regulation it will not filter information traveling through its network based on political content now rings a bit hollow.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
and was bummed to discover it's now AT&T. I used to have Virgin Mobile but suffered a lot of "drops" and other problems, which was why I switched to Cingular / AT&T.
I was outraged about the censorhip and am writing a letter to AT&T about it, because I feel they need to hear from us citizens. I also will mention their being a part of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program in my letter.
But unfortunately, I'm keeping their service, because it's good and I have no land line.
I suppose this makes me a hypocrite, but I prefer to think of myself as a belligerent customer instead.
and was bummed to discover it's now AT&T. I used to have Virgin Mobile but suffered a lot of "drops" and other problems, which was why I switched to Cingular / AT&T.
I was outraged about the censorhip and am writing a letter to AT&T about it, because I feel they need to hear from us citizens. I also will mention their being a part of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program in my letter.
But unfortunately, I'm keeping their service, because it's good and I have no land line.
I suppose this makes me a hypocrite, but I prefer to think of myself as a belligerent customer instead.
They'll be hearing from me too. I'm planning to get rid of Verizon once my contract is up, and AT&T just took themselves out of the running for my business. Unfortunately, we still have a contract with them for our DSL service for a few more months, but that's gone too once the contract period is up.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
I'm glad to see AT&T acknowledge that this is inappropriate behavior on the part of them or their proxies. Now I just want to see this newfound spirit of freedom in action in the near future.
I'm glad to see AT&T acknowledge that this is inappropriate behavior on the part of them or their proxies. Now I just want to see this newfound spirit of freedom in action in the near future.
There is no newfound spirit of freedom. There is no need to pretend AT&T has been an unruly child. In fact there is no validity in the personification of it in any way. It will "behave" to maximize shareholders' profits, and nothing else.
There is no newfound spirit of freedom. There is no need to pretend AT&T has been an unruly child. In fact there is no validity in the personification of it in any way. It will "behave" to maximize shareholders' profits, and nothing else.
Well, yes and no.
AT&T is probably the most eager participant in the Bush administration (and administrations past) wiretaping, email reading, and violation of privacy organizations in the US. They have been for a long time.
There is no newfound spirit of freedom. There is no need to pretend AT&T has been an unruly child. In fact there is no validity in the personification of it in any way. It will "behave" to maximize shareholders' profits, and nothing else.
I'd like to think AT&T was already an unruly child long before this. After all, it was supposedly punished in the past. Although anti-monopoly actions can arguably be considered attempts to create stealth monopolies and competition in perception only.
One would hope there's more at stake than simply the interests of shareholders. There is, after all, that whole business with one of the FCC's "official" purposes and the need for communications companies to demonstrate that they are being responsible stewards in return for the FCC's approval of their use of isolated bandwidth. Granted, this occurred during a webcast, so such broad-spectrum issues don't necessarily apply, and the FCC isn't directly involved in this particular case. It does, however, reflect poorly on the corporation as a whole.
We get into a complex webwork of various legal and constitutional principles when we go down that road, though.
Please feel free to start a new thread on this if you wish. xo
I would like to know the method for blocking. As in - are they scanning all messages by everyone and blocking things they do not like, or has this group Naral Pro-Choice gone to Verizon to purchase some sort of service and they were turned down. The article isn't very clear. The use of the phrase "rejected their efforts to use..." makes me think it is the latter.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Speaking of Verizon... I saw a Verizon commercial last night with Eddie Vedder's name in it. Has anyone else seen that? His name comes up as part of a multiple choice texting trivia game, I guess.
Comments
a large telecom corporation edited/censored a rock and roll concert because of dissent towards the president. not nudity, not profanity, but because of political dissent
it is that clear cut. and it is fucked up. period.
and i dont give a damn if there was a contract or not.
just a piece to the much larger puzzle that has been going on for this entire administartion... dont challenge the authority of the king. these folks have been constantly trying to build an imperial presidency with powers that will last well into the future. and it is working. and the major telecom companies are right in line with this shit
its nice to see freedom ringing loudly on this one
Since 1990, they've funded both parties pretty equally: the Republicans a bit more. They're probably keen to be on the side that's winning/in charge now, like regular little arselickers.
-Big Fish
as far as im concerned, AT&T at least showed some balls in agreeing to broadcast the show... im sure more than a couple other companies have "censored" pearl jam by not working with them, just to avoid this situation.
I agree with this post too.
It's not a charity scenario...dey's makin some coin as well.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I really don't care whether it was their right or not. If they broke a contract, the breaking of the contract is fairly meaningless to me. Either way, it's pathetic. AT & T, do some fucking research. They should have known this could happen--Then either show the fucking show or don't. To cut out things that don't happen to coincide with corporate political views is just sad--Ed's little rant won't make a difference to the world, but let people have dialogue. And if the political rant got out, it would be Ed/Pearl Jam, not AT and T that would be criticized for it.
and other companies broadcast them as well. I guess my point is, a lot of other companies may not even take a chance to broadcast such a politically charged band. And if AT&T was really TRYING to censor him, to the extent being talked about here, wouldnt they have censored Do the Evolution or Worldwide Suicide?
AT&T's story is believeable to me. They gave someone the power to edit, and the person fucked up (either intentionally, or an honest mistake). AT&T has apologized for the mistake, explained it... what else do people want? Are we so jaded that EVERYTHING bad that happens was done intentionally to hurt us? Even if it is, why cant an apology be issued to improve things?
Everyone is so angry, and i cant help but think that is a huge part of our problem.
I'm not seeing the anger you're seeing. I see people wanting to shed light on how easy it is for these corporations to actually control what it is they want us to see and hear. Mistake or not, I think it is obvious the power these kind of people wield.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
"I read your article about this and it makes me so angry that AT&T say this is a one time mistake.
"They did the same thing on the webcasts from Bonnaroo in June during the John Butler Trio show when he was talking about the lack of response from our government during Katrina, and also during the Flaming Lips show when the lead singer was talking about how much George Bush had screwed up. I was at both of those live shows and saw the webcasts later. The sound did not cut out at any other time - only when someone was talking about George Bush or the goverment in a negative way.
"It was not a mistake, it is full out censorship."
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/has-att-censore.html
I guess we'll see if this guy is telling the truth.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Memories are tricky things when extreme emotions get involved.
Agree with you...
http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/08/att-admits-to-e.html
ATT Admits To Removing Political Comments from Past Webcasts
By Eliot Van Buskirk August 10, 2007 | 6:47:35 PM
AT&T's removal of Eddie Vedder's anti-Bush sentiments from a webcast was not an isolated incident, according to a response issued by the company to Wired News.
The company's initial response was a mistake, and that it "does not edit or censor performances." However, after confronted with an email sent to Wired News claiming that AT&T had erased artists' political commentary from two previously-webcast shows, the company admitted that it had, in fact, excised political speech from "a handful" of its previous webcasts:
"It's not our intent to edit political comments in webcasts on attblueroom.com. Unfortunately, it has happened in the past in a handful of cases. We have taken steps to ensure that it won't happen again."
I don't doubt that AT&T has fired whoever who hit the mute button every time they heard criticism of the government, and it's highly likely that such editing will cease to occur.
Regardless, AT&T's assertion that in the absence of net neutrality regulation it will not filter information traveling through its network based on political content now rings a bit hollow.
I was outraged about the censorhip and am writing a letter to AT&T about it, because I feel they need to hear from us citizens. I also will mention their being a part of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program in my letter.
But unfortunately, I'm keeping their service, because it's good and I have no land line.
I suppose this makes me a hypocrite, but I prefer to think of myself as a belligerent customer instead.
I'm glad to see AT&T acknowledge that this is inappropriate behavior on the part of them or their proxies. Now I just want to see this newfound spirit of freedom in action in the near future.
There is no newfound spirit of freedom. There is no need to pretend AT&T has been an unruly child. In fact there is no validity in the personification of it in any way. It will "behave" to maximize shareholders' profits, and nothing else.
Well, yes and no.
AT&T is probably the most eager participant in the Bush administration (and administrations past) wiretaping, email reading, and violation of privacy organizations in the US. They have been for a long time.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I'd like to think AT&T was already an unruly child long before this. After all, it was supposedly punished in the past. Although anti-monopoly actions can arguably be considered attempts to create stealth monopolies and competition in perception only.
One would hope there's more at stake than simply the interests of shareholders. There is, after all, that whole business with one of the FCC's "official" purposes and the need for communications companies to demonstrate that they are being responsible stewards in return for the FCC's approval of their use of isolated bandwidth. Granted, this occurred during a webcast, so such broad-spectrum issues don't necessarily apply, and the FCC isn't directly involved in this particular case. It does, however, reflect poorly on the corporation as a whole.
We get into a complex webwork of various legal and constitutional principles when we go down that road, though.
Please feel free to start a new thread on this if you wish. xo
I would like to know the method for blocking. As in - are they scanning all messages by everyone and blocking things they do not like, or has this group Naral Pro-Choice gone to Verizon to purchase some sort of service and they were turned down. The article isn't very clear. The use of the phrase "rejected their efforts to use..." makes me think it is the latter.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Sounds like that to me....
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.