Jul. 21, 2005

Comcast censoring Political Content Regarding Impeachment?

This is *extremely* interesting stuff. I say this because I can foresee an incident like this, if shown to have substance, being turned into a story of "scandal" proportions. Naturally, because it contains the subject of impeachment, it will in turn raise the issue up to the level that it currently should have in the publics eye. As yet, it has not been widely talked about in the corporate media for reasons we can easily surmise. But in this instance there exists at least two things going for those persons who want to see an impeachment process take place.

The first is one that was raised awhile ago; that being the almost blind pursuit by corporations of short term profits, even if the long term result is the death of the company. I believe it possible, perhaps even likely, that competing corporations would be happy to use such a scandal to drive Comcast into a hole, eliminating them as a threat to any future customer base, not to mention the possibility of freeing up a bunch of surplus customers as a result of the death of Comcast. The fact that in the long term, their "man in Washington", George W. Bush is out of office would likely take a back-seat to the obvious win/win situation I highlighted above.

And secondly, if there is a conspiracy in corporate America to restrict information regarding Bush, then perhaps the pressure put on Comcast by competing organizations might cause them to attempt to save themselves by throwing overboard whoever has been behind this effort. This may even take the form of an outright betrayal of someone from the administration who might possibly be suggesting that Comcast et al, behave in the manner they have. I need not explain why that would be indeed a glorious day for those looking towards impeaching the President.

So what I am suggesting at this point is to check out whether this assertion regarding whether email containing "www.afterdowningstreet.org" actually do go missing. So.... does anybody have a friend with that domain in their email addy? Check it out and could you please get back to me with the results. And use for any replies, both positive or negative. Either way, I'm sure we would all like to get at the truth of this assertion.


Newsroom-l wrote:

> How Comcast Censors Political Content
> Or Why My Comcast Horror Story Is Better Than Yours
> By David Swanson

> [Excerpt]

> I'm working on a campaign headquartered at www.afterdowningstreet.org > that seeks to draw attention to the Downing Street Minutes and to lobby > Congress to open an investigation into whether the President has > committed impeachable offenses. According to a recent Zogby poll, 42 > percent of Americans favor impeachment proceedings if the President lied > about the reasons for war, and according to a recent ABC News / > Washington Post poll, 52 percent think he did. But this story is nowhere > to be found in the corporate media. So, our website attracts a lot of > traffic. >

> In addition, July 23rd is the three-year anniversary of the meeting on > Downing Street that produced the now infamous minutes, and we are > organizing events all over the country on that day. Or, we're trying to. > But we noticed about a week ago that everyone working on this campaign > was having strange Email problems. Some people would get Emails and some > wouldn't, or they'd receive some but not others. Conference calls were > worse than usual (I can't stand the things anyway) because half the > people wouldnt get the info and know where to call in. Organizing by > internet is super easy, but when you have to follow up every Email with > a phone call to see if someone got it, it becomes super frustrating. > Volunteers have been complaining all over the country  especially now > that we've figured out what the problem was and they know what to > complain about. >

> We didn't know it, but for the past week, anyone using Comcast has been > unable to receive any Email with "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the > body of the Email. That has included every Email from me, since that was > in my signature at the bottom of every Email I sent. And it included any > Email linking people to any information about the upcoming events. >

> From the flood this evening of Emails saying "Oh, so that's why I > haven't heard anything from you guys lately," it seems clear that we > would have significantly more events organized by now for the 23rd if > not for this block by Comcast. >

> Disturbingly, Comcast did not notify us of this block. It took us a > number of days to nail down Comcast as the cause of the problems, and > then more days, working with Comcast's abuse department to identify > exactly what was going on. We'd reached that point by Thursday, but > Comcast was slow to fix the problem. >

> During the day on Friday we escalated our threats to flood Comcast's > executives with phone calls and cancellations, and we gave them > deadlines. Friday evening, Comcast passed the buck to Symantec. Comcast > said that Symantec's Bright Mail filter was blocking the Emails, and > that Symantec refused to lift the block, because they had supposedly > received 46,000 complaints about Emails with our URL in them. Forty-six > thousand! Of course, Symantec was working for Comcast, and Comcast could > insist that they shape up, or drop them. But Comcast wasn't interested > in doing that. >

> Could we see two or three, or even one, of those 46,000 complaints? No, > and Comcast claimed that Symantec wouldn't share them with Comcast either. >

> By the time Comcast had passed the buck to the company that it was > paying to filter its customers Emails, Brad Blog had posted an article > about the situation and urged people to complain to Comcast. > http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001602.htm >

> Brad quickly added Symantec phone numbers to the story on his website, > and we called Symantec's communications department, which fixed the > problem in a matter of minutes. >

> [There's more at ] >

> -- > http://www.cafecancun.com/bookarts

No comments: