Posted on 03/02/2022 5:14:10 PM PST by Angelino97
AI is being used by major tech companies to censor and control what you can see, read, and discuss online. Similar to what human editors are doing on Facebook, Twitter ETC, radicals who have been empowered to block or tag information they subjectively don’t like, are increasingly stopping the flow of information through the Internet.
And T-Mobile has joined other big tech companies by censoring what content they will allow to be included in texts. Links appear to be sent to a family member or friend but the recipient will not receive any texts containing censored links. Those to who the texts were sent don’t know the links were removed.
T-Mobile just admitted that they get more control over text messages by admitting in a Letter to Missouri Attorney General. The T-Mobile network actively stripping out all Gateway Pundit (TGP) news links from Private Text messages, just like Soviet Russia.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2020conservative.com ...
Use Signal or Telegram for political messaging.
https://thenewamerican.com/the-breakup-of-ma-bell/
From the article above...
Enter the Internet
The big problem now plaguing AT&T is the Internet. In 2009, it was estimated that one-quarter of the entire world’s population is connected via the Internet. Interestingly, the Internet has no centralized governance in either technological implementation or policies for access and usage — each constituent network sets its own standards. The only real regulatory power over the Internet is held by non-profit organizations of loosely affiliated international participants that anyone may associate with simply by contributing their own expertise: the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). ICANN is the maintainer organization, while the technical underpinning and standardization of the core protocols are the responsibility of the IETF. In other words, the Internet is a free market. The size and the growth rate of this medium, as estimated by AT&T Labs and Internet World Stats, may be safely attributed to the lack of central administration. As Wikipedia summarizes, this “allows organic growth of the network [and] encourages vendor interoperability and prevents any one company from exerting too much control over the network.”
This lack of control is currently driving the FCC in its quest to regulate this medium. For people with a statist mentality who feel that the government must protect the people, the absence of central control and the benevolent hand of government is a recipe for failure or abuse. As Ronald Reagan put it of the statist mentality: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
Statist commentators want the FCC to step up the regulation of the Internet, despite a recent court ruling preventing it from doing just that. According to the New York Times, “It is untenable for the United States not to have a regulator to ensure nondiscriminatory access, guarantee interconnectivity among rival networks and protect consumers from potential abuse.” It is clear that to statists no roadblock should stand in the way of ever-increasing government regulatory powers — not even court orders against assuming such powers.
So that the FCC can become the Internet regulator despite a court order against it, the author of the New York Times’ article suggests brushing aside the court order by changing official definitions regarding the Internet to define it so that the Internet is a “communications” venue: “The Commission has the tools to fix this problem. It can … [re]define broadband Internet access [from an information service] to a communications service, like a phone company, over which the commission has indisputable authority.” The writer concludes: “Broadband access is probably the most important communication service of our time. One that needs a robust regulator.”
Though it is likely the FCC will follow a path similar to that suggested by the New York Times, some influential people are pointing out both the fallacy that government regulations improve service and the errant belief that better service is what the regulations are intended to accomplish. Michael Powell, former FCC chairman, responded to this incessant drumbeat for more regulation in a presentation he made at the Freedom Forum in Arlington, Virginia, in 1998. He said, “There are only three branches of government set out in the Constitution, and we are not one of them…. Technology makes ever more efficient use of spectrum. Broadcast channels are continually increasing. Cable [and the] internet provide an untold number of outlets for free speech. We must admit to these realities and quit subverting the Constitution in order for the government to be free to impose its speech preferences on the public.” In another speech, this one before the Media Institute, Powell said, “One is left with the undeniable conclusion that the government has been engaged for too long in willful denial in order to subvert the Constitution so that it can impose its speech preferences on the public — exactly the sort of infringement of individual freedom the Constitution was masterfully designed to prevent.” In an interview with Reason magazine, Powell points out that “every day the Internet becomes an increasingly effective tool for democracy [sic] and political organization.”
If regulations on the Internet are put in place, they will fall under the purview of people like Mark Lloyd, the chief diversity officer of the FCC who complained that he was the target of attacks from the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” namely, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and other Internet-enabled communication users.
Increasing numbers of Americans seem to realize that Powell is correct about the intent of the regulation: to control free speech. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 53 percent of Americans oppose FCC regulation of the Internet, and among those who use the Internet every or nearly every day, opposition to FCC regulation rises to 63 percent.
What intended or unintended impact will the regulations have if enacted? Consider again the impact of the consent decree in 1982. As author Tara Seals notes: “Ma Bell gave birth to seven regional Baby Bells in 1984, and the good news is that an era of competitive innovation began that eclipsed the sum total of the previous 108 years since Alexander Graham Bell completed the first telephone call [including]: mobile wireless voice, fiber optics, microprocessors, IPTV and IP video, VoIP, back office and equipment vendor landscapes that are light-years ahead, Wi-Fi, increasing demand for wireless broadband, and mobile broadband services and products like the new IPad from Apple.”
Robert Crandall of the Brookings Institute, taking a slightly different tack, says, “The world that existed in 1984 no longer exists because of [these] changes in technology. The [FCC] had originally wanted to set up long-distance companies that would have provided us with lower long-distance rates. But separate long-distance companies are simply not viable now because of the advent of wireless and VoIP…. Whether we could have gotten to this place today without breaking up AT&T is an interesting question, but it’s largely irrelevant.” What is still very much relevant is the continuing and never-ending battle between the regulators who want to control freedom of speech and the increasing number of free citizens who understand and support their right to freedom of speech guaranteed to them under the First Amendment.
BS!
That is the same as saying: "We surrender, oh mighty masters who rule us..."
When is the last time we have restored a formerly protected freedom via a "lawsuit"?
Lawsuits have become the equivalent to building sandcastles right at the low-tide mark...
Because of what your friends post.
It’s why I buy unlocked phones. You may also be able to take your phone to a repair place capable of unlocking it for you, enabling you to move it between carriers. Call your repair places and ask. If they can’t, they may know of a place which can.
If you’re worried about your privacy, just remember to buy an unlocked phone. You can probably even find the same one refurbished and just move everything over.
I have a question.
My IP is NOIP. So my router is fire walled, my connection with Tmobile is supposed to be encrypted and if the recipient does not use Tmobile or Google or maybe AT&T, where is the actual text vulnerable to censors?
Maybe it is not encrypted on the Tmobile sytem as it leaves my router, but I have always understood from Sprint that it is.
I should add that the emails leave my router through a cell phone data connection. Wifi is not available here.
“It sure would be a shame if something were to happen to your cell phone store there.........”
Just making conversation, this is so bad that republicans get cancelled in so many ways!
I should add that even though the CEO of Tmobile is a wild eyed lib, I just do not believe tis story.
The real danger to us is our government, not Tmobile.
Also the author of this story says T-Mobile admits to the practice, but does not link to the T-Mobile statement which he states was a letter.
I suspect BS.
BFLR
...and we just switched from Verizon to T-Mobile ten months ago. It cut our wireless bill by half. But this REALLY sucks. What’s next? Them beeping out parts of your phone conversation they don’t like?
“Hi. Did you hear the latest about Let’s Go....BEEEEEP...BEEEP...BEEEEP”
That would seem to violate wiretap laws. T-Mobile can no more perform illegal wiretapping than AT&T.
The letter's at the end of the post on that unreadable blog.
A couple of GP links got flagged as spam by an optional T-Mobile spam filter the user chose to turn on.
T-Mobile said it was a mistake and corrected the filter.
I added GWP to my spam filter too.
I just sent a text message on the T-Mobile platform with a link to GWP homepage. It went thru, no problem. FYI.
Thanks for the advice. I’ll have the T-mobile people look at my phone. It’s ruggidized mil-spec Kyocera that I love, but Kyocera isn’t making them anymore AFAIK.
Thanks.
I was pretty sure it was BS.
Can’t fault any carrier for deleting spam. For a while it was predicted that spam would completely choke down the internet.
The T-Mobile CEO is a lib, but my service has already improved over what it was with Sprint, and they are just getting started.
Nope! Likely REALLY illegal!
They are a common carrier and have no rights to change the content they carry! Just like the telephone company isn’t allowed to change what you say on a land-line...oh wait - they ARE a telephone company - thus my point.
In America, phone uses YOU!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.