Comments on: When Oligopolists Interfere with Free Speech http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/ Sun, 23 Aug 2009 21:40:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-2044 Dan Gillmor Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:40:07 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/#comment-2044 We agree on two facts that change nothing about the larger meaning of this situation. In other words, we don't agree at all. We agree on two facts that change nothing about the larger meaning of this situation. In other words, we don’t agree at all.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-2043 Seth Finkelstein Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:01:46 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/#comment-2043 I used the words "roughly" and "approximately", to indicate that it was a close but not truly identical description. Are we agreed that: 1) There was no network-wide ban on the topic of pro-choice messages 2) There was no general ban on Naral sending messages as an ordinary user and 3) What was at issue here was a higher-level service that is sold to relatively few organizations, requires application, and is subject to a certain amount of editorial approval. Inversely, you can call that an instance of "free speech in America is in clear and present danger", but that doesn’t make it so. I used the words “roughly” and “approximately”, to indicate that it was a close but not truly identical description.

Are we agreed that:

1) There was no network-wide ban on the topic of pro-choice messages

2) There was no general ban on Naral sending messages as an ordinary user

and

3) What was at issue here was a higher-level service that is sold to relatively few organizations, requires application, and is subject to a certain amount of editorial approval.

Inversely, you can call that an instance of “free speech in America is in clear and present danger”, but that doesn’t make it so.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-2042 Dan Gillmor Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:05:40 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/#comment-2042 You're calling something advertising that is entirely different. People have to *sign up* to receive those messages. Verizon can call it advertising, and so can you, but that doesn't make it so. You’re calling something advertising that is entirely different. People have to *sign up* to receive those messages. Verizon can call it advertising, and so can you, but that doesn’t make it so.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-2041 Seth Finkelstein Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:18:17 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/#comment-2041 Exactly, there's a big difference. This case was about the ability to use text messaging for <em>advertising</em> (roughly). NOT "Verizon’s position that it can decide what kinds of speech get through", any more that Google is "deciding what kinds of speech get through" with the Adwords content policy. Verizon DID NOT say pro-choice messages can't be sent. They didn't even say Naral couldn't send pro-choice messages like any other user. They said Naral's application to be part of their text messaging ad system (approximately) was being rejected for content policy reasons. I think it was a wrong decision, but plenty of other <em>oligopolist</em> companies do that all the time. However, this matched certain interest keywords, so the hype machine started up. And it's really tedious to see this sort of free-speech-at-risk screaming going on every time a telecom company is involved, since it's so politically manipulative. Exactly, there’s a big difference. This case was about the ability to use
text messaging for advertising (roughly). NOT “Verizon’s position that it can decide what kinds of speech get through”, any more
that Google is “deciding what kinds of speech get through” with the Adwords content policy.

Verizon DID NOT say pro-choice messages can’t be sent. They didn’t even say Naral couldn’t send pro-choice messages like any other user. They said Naral’s application to be part of their text messaging ad system (approximately) was being rejected for content policy reasons. I think it was a wrong decision, but plenty of other oligopolist companies do that all the time.

However, this matched certain interest keywords, so the hype machine started up. And it’s really tedious to see this sort of free-speech-at-risk screaming going on every time a telecom company is involved, since it’s so politically manipulative.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-2040 Dan Gillmor Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:23:26 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/#comment-2040 These are not comparable, though I think Google's policies are big-brotherish and am (and have been) willing to say so. But it's not access to search you're talking about. It's the ability to use Google for advertising. There's a big difference. These are not comparable, though I think Google’s policies are big-brotherish and am (and have been) willing to say so.

But it’s not access to search you’re talking about. It’s the ability to use Google for advertising. There’s a big difference.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-2031 Seth Finkelstein Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:21:31 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/#comment-2031 I'm waiting for someone to say "Google has 65% of the search engine market. We can't let them control who can have access to searchers" Go look at: https://adwords.google.com/select/contentpolicy.html "Advertisements and associated websites may not promote violence or advocate against a protected group." Let's imagine Google was being subjected to a campaign of demonization like the carriers are getting: "Oh my god, the censorship, the censorship. "advocate"? The very essence of politics is advocacy! Google must allow everyone ACCESS TO SEARCH!" [note how this last cleverly distorts the issue by conflating the search index with the advertising] But you don't see this being pushed. The people who do say stuff like it don't get Big Guns using them as poster children. C'mon, nobody was "control[ing] what messages go through the networks.", in the censorware sense. That's not what was happening, and it's a journalistic shame such a misimpression was being created. I’m waiting for someone to say “Google has 65% of the search engine market. We can’t let them control who can have access to searchers”

Go look at: https://adwords.google.com/select/contentpolicy.html

“Advertisements and associated websites may not promote violence or advocate against a protected group.”

Let’s imagine Google was being subjected to a campaign of demonization like the carriers are getting:

“Oh my god, the censorship, the censorship. “advocate”? The very essence of politics is advocacy! Google must allow everyone ACCESS TO SEARCH!” [note how this last cleverly distorts the issue by conflating the search index with the advertising]

But you don’t see this being pushed. The people who do say stuff like it don’t get Big Guns using them as poster children.

C’mon, nobody was “control[ing] what messages go through the networks.”, in the censorware sense. That’s not what was happening, and it’s a journalistic shame such a misimpression was being created.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-2032 Dan Gillmor Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:53:34 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/#comment-2032 We'll have to agree to disagree. What you can set up a pay number for is not seriously different than what you can say. This isn't like a printing company refusing to print political pamphlets the owner doesn't like. There are thousands of printers from which to choose, and it's certain that at least a few will do it. There are a handful of text messaging networks, and we can't let them control what messages go through the networks. We’ll have to agree to disagree. What you can set up a pay number for is not seriously different than what you can say.

This isn’t like a printing company refusing to print political pamphlets the owner doesn’t like. There are thousands of printers from which to choose, and it’s certain that at least a few will do it. There are a handful of text messaging networks, and we can’t let them control what messages go through the networks.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-2033 Seth Finkelstein Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:25:31 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/#comment-2033 Dan, his explanation is basically exactly what Verizon said, note "it was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy.". You've misread the issue. This isn't like "What people can say to each other over the telephone". This is like "What can you set up a pay number for?" - a very different topic, and one pretty commonly argued over. For another analogy. this is about Google adwords, not being thrown out of Google's index.. I know, I know, when the cry of <b>WOLF!</b> gets raised, people <b>GET ATTENTION</b> by chanting the correct rants - regardingless of the accuracy, or even, sanity. This should tell you something very depressing about "citizen media" :-(. Dan, his explanation is basically exactly what Verizon said, note “it was an
incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy.”.

You’ve misread the issue. This isn’t like “What people can say to each other over the telephone”. This is like “What can you set up a pay number for?” – a very different topic, and one pretty commonly argued over. For another analogy. this is about Google adwords, not being thrown out of Google’s index..

I know, I know, when the cry of WOLF! gets raised, people GET ATTENTION by chanting the correct rants – regardingless of the accuracy, or even, sanity.

This should tell you something very depressing about “citizen media” :-( .

]]> By: Raoul http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-2034 Raoul Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:16:05 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/#comment-2034 I don't see why Verizon or any other phone network should provide access to its subscriber list to anyone so they can send any sort of text messages to people uninterested in receiving them. I for one am not interested in getting text messages on my cellphone from anyone but my friends. I'm certainly not interested in getting messages from annoying lobbyists trying to push their point of view down my throat. Heck, if they want to lobby, let them send me snail mail, so I can recycle it upon arrival. I don’t see why Verizon or any other phone network should provide access to its subscriber list to anyone so they can send any sort of text messages to people uninterested in receiving them. I for one am not interested in getting text messages on my cellphone from anyone but my friends. I’m certainly not interested in getting messages from annoying lobbyists trying to push their point of view down my throat. Heck, if they want to lobby, let them send me snail mail, so I can recycle it upon arrival.

]]> By: Dan Gillmor http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-2038 Dan Gillmor Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:38:34 +0000 http://citmedia.org/blog/2007/09/26/when-oligopolists-interfere-with-free-speech/#comment-2038 Sam Simon's justification -- TOS carried to illogical extreme -- is pretty absurd itself. It's not a tough question at all. Phone companies are not liable for the hateful -- or worse (e.g. planning a bank robbery) -- things people say to each other on voice calls, and shouldn't be for what people say to each other in text messages, either. (The exception is spam. If I didn't request the text or don't have a prior relationship (a real one) with the text sender, I don't want to see it, period.) Verizon's insistence that it can decide what is carried on its network is PRECISELY the kind of problem we're facing. Sam Simon’s justification — TOS carried to illogical extreme — is pretty absurd itself.

It’s not a tough question at all. Phone companies are not liable for the hateful — or worse (e.g. planning a bank robbery) — things people say to each other on voice calls, and shouldn’t be for what people say to each other in text messages, either. (The exception is spam. If I didn’t request the text or don’t have a prior relationship (a real one) with the text sender, I don’t want to see it, period.)

Verizon’s insistence that it can decide what is carried on its network is PRECISELY the kind of problem we’re facing.

]]>