Hello! The Technology Liberation Front is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- It's clear that you need to brush up on the facts before commenting. No, Level3 is not an ILEC. Qwest is, of course. And, no, Internet access is not at all like POTS. We are, most emphatically,...
- I totally agree with you that we all need to put down our pens (or rather our keyboards for this matter), and understand that we are doing great harm to those journalists, institutions, or other...
- Your issue as I understand it is with Level 3 - are they an ILEC? Isn't Qwest (or a local coop) the ILEC there in Laramie? Two - you provide services a lot like a local exchange - I would guess...
- Yes, I will agree that you are not "getting me." First of all, I do not buy unbundled network elements (UNEs), nor am I a CLEC. I am a wireless ISP -- a true last mile provider and an...
- <i>I'd buy a newspaper that reported substance over he said/she said stenography mixed with tabloid fluff.</i> You might, but I think most of the evidence suggests that not very...
The Technology Liberation Front
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
The Technology Liberation Front » Archive » Sinclair Backs Down; National Catastrophe Avoided
Started by TLF · 10 months ago
No excerpt available. Jump to website »
4 years ago
I don't understand your objections. If the market for this film really exists, then you can see it/buy it with ease commensurate with the demand, yes? Hell, the filmmakers can send you a DVD gratis if they want to. Your vacuous cries of "censorship" remind one of the Monty Python & The Holy Grail peasant: "Help, help! I'm being oppresssed!"
Maybe what happened here is that Sinclair -- a profit-oriented business -- made a stupid business decision that blew up in their faces when advertisers indicated a disinclination to be associated with the station owners' political POV. Are you suggesting that instead a) the advertisers should not be able to exercise such judgment about where & how to spend their money, or that b) Sinclair could not have gone ahead and, the loss of revenue notwithstanding, shown the film as a matter of principle?
I just love it that the market is always right, except when it disagrees with you.