nanog mailing list archives
Re: [External] Re: Google Abuse
From: jkinney23--- via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 21:13:04 +0000 (UTC)
Someone in this discussion has a good mindset for security. Everyone in it has responsibilities towards protecting users from harm. Thank you. Jason Jason Kinney Ethical Technologist Surrey, BC, Canada jkinney23 () yahoo ca On Wednesday, August 17, 2022, 09:22:33 a.m. PDT, Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote: some might conclude that "T-Mobile filters links to right-leaning news outlets. That conclusion, based on the methodology described, would be wrong, and that should be called out. On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 12:09 PM Hunter Fuller <hf0002+nanog () uah edu> wrote: Sure, that's why I said that in my third paragraph. But once we know that they do, in fact, filter messages, we can understand why it might *seem* like they filter based on political content. For example, if a left-leaning news outlet uses bit.ly URLs, and a right-leaning one uses goo.gl URLs, and T-Mo filters all goo.gl URLs, some might conclude that "T-Mobile filters links to right-leaning news outlets." -- Hunter Fuller (they) Router Jockey VBH M-1C +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Network Engineering On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 11:06 AM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
Spam filtering is clearly not the accusation that was laid out. On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 11:48 AM Hunter Fuller <hf0002+nanog () uah edu> wrote:I wouldn't call it a serious claim. By their own admission T-Mobile filters messages based on content. https://community.t-mobile.com/accounts-services-4/can-t-send-receive-texts-that-contain-goo-gl-7776 Now, there is no indication I'm aware of, that it is political in nature. But they do, factually, throw away messages based on their content. -- Hunter Fuller (they) Router Jockey VBH M-1C +1 256 824 5331 Office of Information Technology The University of Alabama in Huntsville Network Engineering On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:46 AM Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:It's a pretty serious claim to say that cell providers were selectively not delivering messages based on content. Unless you have some more concrete evidence beyond "I sent a few texts" , this list is no place for such things, nor the insinuation of political agendas. On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ethan O'Toole <telmnstr () 757 org> wrote:They may tell you they are not but there is no doubt in my mind they are and if they got caught their response would be “Oopsie, my bad”. -richeyDuring Covid hysteria cellular carriers were definitly scrubbing text messages that contained things against whatever the agenda was. There was no errors from the cellular carriers that the message didn't go through, it just never arrived to the destination. Tested it first hand, T-Mobile to Verizon, T-Mobile to AT&T and vice versa. Payload was links to a few websites that weren't popular with the left, like that Doctor Robert Malone guy. These were not using URL shorteners that are sometimes considered spam. - Ethan
Current thread:
- Re: Google Abuse, (continued)
- Re: Google Abuse Mark Seiden (Aug 16)
- Re: Google Abuse richey goldberg (Aug 16)
- Re: Google Abuse Peter Beckman (Aug 16)
- Re: Google Abuse Mel Beckman (Aug 16)
- Re: Google Abuse Ethan O'Toole (Aug 17)
- Re: Google Abuse Tom Beecher (Aug 17)
- Re: [External] Re: Google Abuse Hunter Fuller via NANOG (Aug 17)
- Re: [External] Re: Google Abuse Tom Beecher (Aug 17)
- Re: [External] Re: Google Abuse Hunter Fuller via NANOG (Aug 17)
- Re: [External] Re: Google Abuse Tom Beecher (Aug 17)
- Re: [External] Re: Google Abuse jkinney23--- via NANOG (Aug 18)
- Re: Google Abuse Mark Seiden (Aug 16)