“a bit odd”…? or

(9M EST – promoted by Nightprowlkitty)



Verizon has a new ad out apparently for their product Droid X …. Article at intomobile says:

We’ve seen some pretty wild phone advertisements in our time, but this latest from Verizon seems to be a bit odd. The Motorola Droid X ad itself doesn’t seem to make much sense, but what’s worse is that it bears some similarity to the Abu Ghraib torture images we saw a few years ago. Is this just some slip up on Verizon’s part, or did the carrier’s marketing and advertising team decide to stir up a little controversy? Or did they just go through with the ad and watch the final product and say, “This looks so familiar, but why?”

hat tip to CommonDreams.org


Holy shit. I mean, seriously, what the fuck are they doing? Dog whistle???

NPR today:

Americans will be forgiven for presuming that the fight to maintain equal access to the Internet, or “net neutrality,” could not possibly be as consequential as our wrangling over matters economic, social and military. It’s hard to get charged up for a fight on behalf of “neutrality.” Yet if citizens do not engage – and fast – decisions made now about how we communicate could warp every political debate in the future. This is why tech-savvy activists are so unsettled by an arrangement between Google and Verizon to subdivide the Internet in a manner that serves their corporate purposes but cheats the promise of digital democracy.

Google and Verizon want the FCC and Congress to allow media giants to transform wireless communications into a digital version of a bad cable TV package. Instead of a free and open Internet that will take Americans where they want to go – thanks to the longstanding neutrality principle, which guarantees equal access to all websites and applications – the Google-Verizon deal would permit Internet service providers to speed up access to some content while leaving the rest behind. Such “pay for priority” would allow big business to buy speed, quality and other advantages – which would not be merely commercial. Now that the Supreme Court has afforded corporations electioneering rights equal to those of citizens, decisions about how we communicate have a profound political component to them.


That scenario could strangle the Internet’s civic and democratic promise while supercharging corporate dominance of the digital discourse about our nation’s future. But it doesn’t have to happen. The most wired members of Congress, led by Democrats like Edward Markey and Anna Eshoo, have urged the FCC to reassert its authority – by altering flawed Bush-era classifications that narrowed regulator options – and define broadband as a telecommunications service. Such a move would restore the legal framework for net neutrality and protect the rights of citizens and consumers. Markey gets it exactly right when he says, “No private interest should be permitted to carve up the Internet to suit its own purposes. The open Internet has been an innovation engine that has helped power our economy, and fiber-optic fast lanes or tiers that slow down certain content would dim the future of the Internet to the detriment of consumers, competition, job creation and the free flow of ideas.” The FCC must move immediately and comprehensively to assure that the public interest, as opposed to corporate greed, defines our digital destiny.

grrrrr grumble grumble pissing me off … here’s an ACTION link to Save the Internet. Like signing a petition is gonna affect anything. Where’s the movement?


Skip to comment form

  1. doucherocket

    A word to describe an asshole or more commonly, a douche. There are 5 rungs of the douche hierarchy: asshole, douche, douche bag, douche nozzle and right at the top, (displaying unfettered amounts of douche), douche rocket.When someone is so douchey they can no longer be described as a douche nozzle, the big guns are brought out and douche rocket is used.

  2. It’s only “net neutrality” that gives the internet any character other than that of the shopping mall.  Like malls, it is entirely private property, it creates a false sense of the commons while lacking any of the legal, social or cultural reality that a commons creates and defines.  Given the proclivities toward enclosure and corporatization of everything, up to and including the state itself, I cannot imagine net neutrality as something with much chance of survival even in the near term, never mind for the long run.

  3. …. to the government Homeland Security snoopy people, and Congress did vote to not charge them(the telecoms)  with anything after this was found out about.

    Guess we should work on having “New Verizon Ad Condones War Torture” come up on teh Google.

    Meanwhile, try to engage with your local libertarians, not the national ones, and sic them on the Republicans who are trying to deny them internet access unless it’s as bad and expensive as your cable access.  A few of them “get” this after they find out how expensive satellite is.  

    Don’t forget to tell your incumbents why you aren’t voting for them, using specific examples-  easier for me with a teabagger flat earther, but this goes for any Dems taking the big telecom $ who aren’t into net neutrality.  

  4. …It’s a negative aversion ad to get everyone to go wireless.

  5. were so gallantly streaming.  It strikes me as a wash.

Comments have been disabled.