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."
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."
3 comments:
First, I love the title! It is very catchy and kind of racey!
Second, can they really censor what texts we get? That is not soemthing I am in support of. I think if someone chooses to recieve something that is their decision and their right!
Get it Leslie!
I read about this in the NY Times also, and I agree. Personal communication should never be censored. Today texting is as common, if not more common, than face-to-face communication.
This is so interesting! Thanks for bringing this to our class!
Post a Comment