WTF?!? Don't touch my text!

In the previous post the focus was primarily on the issue of censorship, the Internet and what’s exactly at stake for communicators. Here, the focus is not on Internet communications, but on the telecommunications system that has just as much of an impact on daily life.

Decision 2008 will most likely be remembered by the rampant use of alternative communications methods to reach younger generations, namely Facebook and text messaging. Putting Facebook aside for once, text messaging is an increasingly popular tool in American politics and abroad. Campaigns now use texts to reach supporters anywhere, with the cooperation of all leading mobile carriers.

Politicians are not the only ones utilizing this tool; issue oriented programs, namely Naral Pro-Choice America, also uses text messaging for the purpose of communicating with their supporters. However, back in September 2007, Verizon, one of the two largest carriers, played big brother.

A New York Times article outlines how Verizon rejected a request from the abortion rights group for a five-digit “short code,” a code that allows interested recipients to sign up to receive text messages from businesses, politicians and advocacy groups. Basically, Naral would have sent messages only to people who asked to receive them.

After a significant show of outrage among Verizon users, the carrier reversed itself on their policy, stating that “the decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect,” and was an “isolated incident,” according to Verizon spokesman Jeffrey Nelson.

So, what does this mean for communications? For one, it goes back to the issue of censorship but in a very different dimension. Since when are our personal cell phones subject to sensor? It would be one thing if advocacy groups began bombarding anyone and everyone asking for monetary support, but users choose to receive the messages.

Verizon customer Wyn Hoag makes an interesting point: “I’m a supporter of abortion rights, but I could be a Christian right person and still be in favor of free speech,” an unalienable right that apparently Americans once enjoyed and took for granted. Especially since Verizon "did not retreat from its position that it is entitled to decide what messages to transmit."

The Fight for Net Neutrality

According to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights :

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Censorship is pretty much a universal problem these days, obviously more prevalent in certain countries versus those in the more forward-thinking, modern and free western world...right? The U.S. media is sure to report instances of censorship and the infringement of human rights, free speech, etc. in countries such as communist Cuba, China, and various countries in the Middle East. The response generated is usually a few minutes of airtime and maybe an expose buried in the International section of the New York Times (see my post below regarding online dissident’s arrests in China).

Americans view these stories with a certain calm, generated by the comforting assumption that issues of censorship simply don’t apply to them; we have an outsider’s perspective of this problem. In reality, we’re fooling ourselves if we go to sleep at night thinking that we’ve had completely free access to all information throughout the day. Censorship is present in the United States just as it is in Cuba or China; we’re simply ignorant of the fact. We don’t have a military police or a dictator in power. Think about it. How would we know what’s being censored?

Censorship is an extremely broad topic, so in order to narrow the focus a bit, the concept up for discussion is “net neutrality,” specifically what it is, who it affects, and why it’s such an issue in the Western world.

According to http://www.savetheinternet.com/, net neutrality is “the principle that protects our ability to go where we want and do what we chose online.” If one compares this definition to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the two statements are indeed complimentary. Until recently, I assumed (like most Americans) that the Internet was free domain and provided full access to any information I needed. However, the Internet is now being regarded as a commodity, up for grabs to the highest bidder. Comcast, AOL Time Warner, Verizon and AT&T have already been busy for years playing gatekeepers in order to discriminate against sites and sources they don’t like.

These communications giants want to tax content providers to “guarantee speedy delivery of their data while slowing and/or blocking their competitors,” according to SavetheInternet.com. So what does this mean for unknowing Internet users?

The major implications affect small businesses, bloggers, grassroots organizations and non-profits who will now be stifled by this new “tiered Internet” with faster service for the select few (i.e. corporate giants) willing to pay. Costs will also skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, putting a muzzle on “citizen journalists” and every-day Internet users like you and me.

This is corporate control of the web. And it’s already becoming a problem. For instance, back in 2006, AOL Time Warner blocked all e-mails that mentioned http://www.dearaol.com/, an advocacy campaign opposing their pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

In August 2007, AT&T censored a live Pearl Jam concert because the lead singer criticized President Bush.

And perhaps the most eyebrow-raising, in September 2007, Verizon screened and censored text messages sent by NARAL Pro-Choice America to its own members. Of course, the phone company later reversed its policy and cried “glitch” after The New York Times published an expose in response to the incident.

So what’s being done? The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008 is currently on the table in Congress, but the above-mentioned companies are viciously lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to “gut” net neutrality and overturn the bill.

Do we really want the Internet to turn into Cable television, screened and monopolized in access and content by corporate America? In this sense we are not like China and Cuba, in that we have the freedom to protest these practices. Speak your mind. We have the right; don’t take it for granted.

Obama vs. Clinton: When words speak louder than actions

That’s right; it’s finally time for a political post.

I’m not focusing on any specific platform or endorsing a particular candidate. I am, however, noticing major differences in communication strategies among the two remaining democratic candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Regardless of what one thinks of either of these individuals, there’s no denying that both are skilled orators. Clinton was on the debate team at Wellesley while Obama is an exceptional rhetorician and best-selling author. Both know how to speak, sway and communicate effectively. However, they’re delivery techniques are drastically different. While critics of Senator Clinton claim she comes off as harsh and abrasive, Obama’s critics are turned off by his repetitive and idealistic messages of ‘hope,’ ‘unity’ and change.’ They claim they need a lot more than an enthusiastic ‘yes we can,’ to win their vote.

The media had a field day with the recent claims of Obama’s friend and pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, most notably that the United States caused 9/11, created the AIDS virus and distributes illegal drugs. Obviously, Obama’s PR team had some major damage control on their hands.

In a speech said to be one of the most pivotal of his campaign, Obama managed to deliver a winner. He might not have gained any votes, but he didn’t lose any either. Carefully and eloquently constructed, it began with personal background in regards to racial issues in America, followed by the condemnation of his pastor’s comments and the interweaving of his usual messages of hope, unity and equality with new statements defending his heritage and race. While the speech was obviously written with the purpose to clean up Wright’s mess, he wasn’t the main focus.

The underlying message was the damaging effects of the racial divide still present in this country. And while he somewhat ‘pulled a Hillary’ by incorporating the personal story of a supporter named Ashley; Obama managed to sound incredibly genuine. He didn’t look at his notes; he spoke about her as if he actually knew her personally and focused on only her story, not three or four blurbs about struggling blue-collar workers and single moms who can’t afford health care. It’s a perfect example of a debate tactic that Obama mastered, but unfortunately generates eye-rolls for Hillary.

Watch the speech and let me know what you think...