Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Original Poster
#1 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 1:21 AM
Default AT&T censors Pearl Jam... net neutrality debate.
Interesting article I received in my morning news:

Quote:
August 9th, 2007

AT&T censors Pearl Jam, sparking up net neutrality debate
Posted by ZDNet Government @ August 9, 2007 @ 9:20 PM Categories: Censorship, Net neutrality Tags: Censorship, Webcast, AT&T Corp., Net Neutrality, ZDNet Government


What does Pearl Jam have to do with net neutrality?

After AT&T censored a supposedly live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert, in which Eddie Vedder tossed off a couple of anti-Bush ad libs during a cover of Pink Floyd’s “The Wall,” the band complained bitterly not only about censorship but about media consolidation and the risks of not having net neutrality.

The band sang “George Bush, leave this world alone” and “George Bush, find yourself another home,” but viewers of AT&T’s Blue Room live webcast from Lollapalooze didn’t hear those lines. The company told the band that their “content monitor” made a mistake in bleeping them.

On their website, Pearl Jam wrote a bitter response:

Quote:
This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media.

AT&T’s actions strike at the heart of the public’s concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.

Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of “NetNeutrality.”

Most telecommunications companies oppose “net neutrality” and argue that the public can trust them not to censor. Even the ex-head of AT&T, CEO Edward Whitacre, whose company sponsored our troubled webcast, stated just last March that fears his company and other big network providers would block traffic on their networks are overblown..

But what if there is only one provider from which to choose?

If a company that is controlling a webcast is cutting out bits of our performance -not based on laws, but on their own preferences and interpretations - fans have little choice but to watch the censored version.

What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and it’s about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band.


Public interest groups agree, reports Ars Technica. Here’s Art Brodsky from Public Knowledge:

Quote:
AT&T is really getting into its role as content nanny in a big way. First, it starts monitoring all sorts of conversations for the National Security Agency. Then it promises to work with the movie studios and NBC to come up with some super software to tag copyrighted material that flows through its network, regardless of how that content is used. Now it puts ‘content monitors’ on its Webcasts.


AT&T responded that the censorship was a mistake — by a vendor not AT&T — and that AT&T’s own policy is simply not to censor. Spokesman Brad Mays:

Quote:
[The censorship was a] mistake by a webcast vendor and contrary to our policy. We have policies in place with respect to editing excessive profanity, but AT&T does not edit or censor performances.


So what does every one think?

1. Did AT&T really make a mistake when it censored the comments on George Bush? Or is this a symptom of a larger problem?

2. Is this a good argument for net neutrality? Can citizens and consumers really trust internet providers to not censor content or avoid preferential treatment to certain customers or groups?

3. Since this point was raised in the article, what are your thoughts on this trend of media consolidation, i.e. media outlets being controlled by fewer and larger companies? Is this a cost effective way to provide better service, or is there a danger that by centralizing media outlets into the hands of a few, that it could ultimately be a threat to free speech?
Advertisement
Lab Assistant
#2 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 1:42 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Reindeer911
1. Did AT&T really make a mistake when it censored the comments on George Bush? Or is this a symptom of a larger problem?

2. Is this a good argument for net neutrality? Can citizens and consumers really trust internet providers to censor content or avoid preferential treatment to certain customers or groups?

3. Since this point was raised in the article, what are your thoughts on this trend of media consolidation, i.e. media outlets being controlled by fewer and larger companies? Is this a cost effective way to provide better service, or is there a danger that by centralizing media outlets into the hands of a few, that it could ultimately be a threat to free speech?


Wow. Good article, Reindeer! This is very disturbing, especially for a country that propagates the 'freedom of speech', a Constitutional right. So...

1. Without a doubt AT&T was in the wrong - the crazy, unbelievable wrong. This is a dangerous, slippery slope - people have the right to free speech, and if we start censoring certain things now, who knows what could possibly follow? Does America want to follow the example of Stalin's Russia, where all negative speech against the government was brutally censored and considered 'sedition'?

2. I think this article is less an argument for net neutrality than it is for inhibiting free speech. At least, that's how I see it. I can kind of vaguely see the argument, but I've seen better examples.

3. I also think that the media being owned by two or three or, even, one company is very dangerous. It strongly inhibits diversity of thought, by its nature, and what if those media corporations were somehow corrupt? They surely wouldn't blow the whistle on themselves, would they? There have also been several troubling instances in the recent past where events have been untouched by all media outlets - until brought to their attention by the public (the Stephen Colbert White House dinner disaster comes to the front of my mind). I believe most American media now is ultimately controlled by what, two or three major outlets? I might be wrong, though, and I am too lazy to go look it up.
Mad Poster
#3 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 3:13 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Reindeer911
So what does every one think?

1. Did AT&T really make a mistake when it censored the comments on George Bush? Or is this a symptom of a larger problem?

2. Is this a good argument for net neutrality? Can citizens and consumers really trust internet providers to not censor content or avoid preferential treatment to certain customers or groups?

3. Since this point was raised in the article, what are your thoughts on this trend of media consolidation, i.e. media outlets being controlled by fewer and larger companies? Is this a cost effective way to provide better service, or is there a danger that by centralizing media outlets into the hands of a few, that it could ultimately be a threat to free speech?


1. I think they definitely made a mistake. Those are not their words to censor and it seems to me that they are inhibiting Americans' Constitutional right to freedom of speech. I can see why they were censoring in an effort to be politically polite, but this is infringing on Pearl Jam's rights to freedom of speech and press. Don't Americans have a right to say what they want about the government without it being considered sedition, as well, somewhere in there with freedom of press? This seems sort of like the punishment the government Constitutionally promises not to give for badmouthing the government... I think AT&T is seriously wrong.

2. No. It seems to me that AT&T is favoring Bush and generally most Republicans by censoring the bad press about him. I, for one, hate censored music and definitely don't support a whole money-grabbing, biased company censoring it for me. If they really want to censor it, they should put up two versions- an uncensored one for people like me who want the real thing and a censored one for people who like their music clean. Don't use preferential treatment- make everybody happy.

3. I don't think companies controlling media outlets is a good idea. Music, as well as a media outlet, is also an art, and attempting to suppress and censor a form of art is one of the most cardinal sins in my book. And if anyone should have the right to censor the media, it should not be ambitious, preferential companies or the oppressive government. It should be up to the people. This is just the latest attempt to oppress citizens and turn people into the mindless drone that the government and media seem to want us to be.

Do I dare disturb the universe?
.
| tumblr | My TS3 Photos |
Theorist
#4 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 5:16 AM
How is what AT&T doing any different than Walmart refusing to sell albums that are Parental Advisory? AT&T is a company, and will do what it deems is in the best interests of AT&T. Perhaps it was a response to the backlash the Dixie Chicks felt for their comments about being ashamed Bush was from Texas, and didn't want to have the same thing happen. There is also the mistake many people make about what counts as Freedom of Speech, and what doesn't. Television stations censor things all the time...remember all of the flack CBS got for the Super Bowl/Janet Jackson nipplegate? The FCC fined Howard Stern MULTIPLE times for things he has said. Freedom of speech only applies in public venues. If you are a customer of AT&T, and signed up to view the Pearl Jam thingie online, thats not a public venue. Thats you going to a company's website to watch something. AT&T is not public airwaves, and as such, can bleep out anything they want. To take this example, and claim that it violates Free speech only means you don't really understand what free speech is. Why shouldn't AT&T, or any other company involved in media of some sort be able to control what they choose to broadcast? Walmart doesn't sell certain videos or CDs, yet, freedom of speech hasn't been squashed, has it? The only way it would be a violation of free speech would be if AT&T was owned by the US Government, and not private citizens. This community is a good example of that...some topics are simply off limits, and its perfectly fine. Sims2Community is a private website, and as such, reserves the right to set its own rules as to what content is allowed, and what content isn't. If you don't like it, go to a different site. Myspace operates the same way. Why is it that Myspace can censor you, but if AT&T does it, somehow rights are being violated???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Test Subject
#5 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 6:37 AM
Sad to say I'm a part of the AT&T family Anyhow they are wrong.I don't see the problem with what he said. Freedom of speech is important and should be protected
Original Poster
#6 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 8:41 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
How is what AT&T doing any different than Walmart refusing to sell albums that are Parental Advisory? AT&T is a company, and will do what it deems is in the best interests of AT&T. Perhaps it was a response to the backlash the Dixie Chicks felt for their comments about being ashamed Bush was from Texas, and didn't want to have the same thing happen. There is also the mistake many people make about what counts as Freedom of Speech, and what doesn't. Television stations censor things all the time...remember all of the flack CBS got for the Super Bowl/Janet Jackson nipplegate? The FCC fined Howard Stern MULTIPLE times for things he has said. Freedom of speech only applies in public venues. If you are a customer of AT&T, and signed up to view the Pearl Jam thingie online, thats not a public venue. Thats you going to a company's website to watch something. AT&T is not public airwaves, and as such, can bleep out anything they want. To take this example, and claim that it violates Free speech only means you don't really understand what free speech is. Why shouldn't AT&T, or any other company involved in media of some sort be able to control what they choose to broadcast? Walmart doesn't sell certain videos or CDs, yet, freedom of speech hasn't been squashed, has it? The only way it would be a violation of free speech would be if AT&T was owned by the US Government, and not private citizens. This community is a good example of that...some topics are simply off limits, and its perfectly fine. Sims2Community is a private website, and as such, reserves the right to set its own rules as to what content is allowed, and what content isn't. If you don't like it, go to a different site. Myspace operates the same way. Why is it that Myspace can censor you, but if AT&T does it, somehow rights are being violated???


Oh I can think of a few differences.

For one thing, who is making the choice? If I wish to buy an album with explicit lyrics, and I know that Wal-Mart doesn't sell them, I still have the freedom to go elsewhere to make the purchase. AT&T on the other hand is making the decision for me as to what I am allowed to watch/listen to. Beings that this was a live broadcast and presumably that AT&T was the only carrier, this obviously would limit my available choices.

Who or what doesn't matter... be it private or the public sector. It still amounts to someone making decisions on my behalf without my consent. Now I will grant that there are certain things such as profanity or nudity that are routinely censored, but these are covered by existing laws. That's why Howard Stern and CBS got in trouble. Even then, as you pointed out, it was the FCC doing the enforcing. As far as I know, there is no law forbidding the type of political commentary that Pearl Jam made (at least not yet). What AT&T did was purely a matter of personal preference, assuming of course that it wasn't a mistake as they claim.

I would also find it extremely irritating as a customer that if I paid to watch the Pearl Jam concert in it's entirety, that I wasn't informed beforehand that they were going to censor out comments that were not otherwise covered by law (i.e. profanity). That's also the big difference between what AT&T did and participating on this site or MySpace. When I signed up to this site (and I'm sure the same applies to MySpace), I knew going in that there were rules and agreed to abide by the TOS in order to participate. Would I be able to say the same thing if I paid to watch the Pearl Jam concert?

Finally, and this gets to the heart of the debate, we hear a lot of commentary about media bias. To bring up the Iraq example, we hear from certain people that the media is deliberately distorting how bad things are over there. Now imagine how bad it would be if the ONLY source of news was CNN? I think we can both agree that CNN is hardly an unbiased source. Granted that it is a big hypothetical, but the point is would it really matter at that point if they were a private entity or a government controlled media source like Pravda? At least for the time being we have some alternatives, primarily the internet. That's why I think the issue of net neutrality is so important.

I'll leave with a quote by Benito Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.".
Field Researcher
#7 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 8:48 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
How is what AT&T doing any different than Walmart refusing to sell albums that are Parental Advisory? ...Why is it that Myspace can censor you, but if AT&T does it, somehow rights are being violated???


I think the big difference here is AT&T is lying. They didn't say, "We won't support any statement against the presidency." "They didn't say "We reserve the right to edit concerts broadcast on our site." They said ~~Oopsy! We didn't mean to bleep that out, our editing guy just slipped....twice.~~ [obviously not a direct quote].

Wal-Mart has always been very clear about what they are doing and what they will and won't sell when it comes to music. AT&T...not so much.
Forum Resident
#8 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 9:35 AM
There are millions of people in China that have to endure the same thing, every day. I bet the Chinese government is watching the net neutrality debate in our country very closely. They find the Internet threatening. I'm sure they would love nothing better than to institute widespread censorship of the backbone if they could. Right now they can't, but if large corporations begin to cooperate with them in this, it might be something they can look forward to.

This reminds me of what happened with Google a couple of years ago. The Chinese government told Google to censor its search engine for its Chinese customers or China would just make Google unavailable. The corporate heads at Google knuckled-under and cooperated. Now, in the Chinese version of Google, when you search for Tianamen Square, you only get a few hits about tourism and history, nothing about the Tianamen Square uprising.
Theorist
#9 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 3:32 PM
Reindeer, The depriving of Freedom of speech would be if the government was censoring CNN, not CNN making its own choices about what content to air. If CNN is deciding what it airs, there is no loss of rights. If the government is deciding what CNN airs, there is. Its the same with AT&T. They made the choice, not the government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#10 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 3:41 PM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
How is what AT&T doing any different than Walmart refusing to sell albums that are Parental Advisory? AT&T is a company, and will do what it deems is in the best interests of AT&T. Perhaps it was a response to the backlash the Dixie Chicks felt for their comments about being ashamed Bush was from Texas, and didn't want to have the same thing happen. There is also the mistake many people make about what counts as Freedom of Speech, and what doesn't. Television stations censor things all the time...remember all of the flack CBS got for the Super Bowl/Janet Jackson nipplegate? The FCC fined Howard Stern MULTIPLE times for things he has said. Freedom of speech only applies in public venues. If you are a customer of AT&T, and signed up to view the Pearl Jam thingie online, thats not a public venue. Thats you going to a company's website to watch something. AT&T is not public airwaves, and as such, can bleep out anything they want. To take this example, and claim that it violates Free speech only means you don't really understand what free speech is. Why shouldn't AT&T, or any other company involved in media of some sort be able to control what they choose to broadcast? Walmart doesn't sell certain videos or CDs, yet, freedom of speech hasn't been squashed, has it? The only way it would be a violation of free speech would be if AT&T was owned by the US Government, and not private citizens. This community is a good example of that...some topics are simply off limits, and its perfectly fine. Sims2Community is a private website, and as such, reserves the right to set its own rules as to what content is allowed, and what content isn't. If you don't like it, go to a different site. Myspace operates the same way. Why is it that Myspace can censor you, but if AT&T does it, somehow rights are being violated???


Peculiar, I didn't know a website and an internet service provider were the same thing. I didn't know AT&T offered discussion about a computer game much like the Sims2Community. Want to know why? Because they don't. AT&T doesn't make or sell the content on the internet, nor do they sponsor it. Also, to compare Wal-Mart and an ISP is ludacrous. Both companies do different things, one sells merchandise, the other gives me access to a global connection of computers. What AT&T has done is comparable to choosing who I talk to on the telephone because they might have an "anti" sentiment against one of their partners.

This problem can be magically fixed with a little competition. If you don't like AT&T, you can always switch to another ISP, right? The problem however is that AT&T holds a monopoly over several regions in the United States and apparently, Anti-Trust laws don't mean shit anymore. Consumers have no choice.
Theorist
#11 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 5:11 PM
Triplea, then I ask you, what is AOL? It it merely an ISP, or do they have their own web content as well? Try googling AT&T Blue Room, the site mentioned as the host of the Pearl Jam webcast. You will get this link:

http://www.attblueroom.com/music/events/lolla.php

Now, after looking at that website, tell me its just an ISP, and doesn't provide web content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#12 Old 14th Aug 2007 at 11:43 PM
I stand corrected
 
Back to top