T-Mobile actively blocks incoming "thedonald.win" texts from Verizon.

submitted by Orangutan from (streamable.com)

all 40 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 17 insightful - 7 fun17 insightful - 6 fun18 insightful - 7 fun -  (10 children)

Fuck, this is ISP level censorship. If they get away with this, kiss the internet as you know it goodbye.

[–]bobbobbybob 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

mate, try living in NZ. Our commie leader is PROUD that she's built us a china like internet firewall.

Coming to the world soon. Totalitarian globalists love control.

work arounds are to hack Dns over https into your network stack, use them to access tor services, although that's just saying "hi kikes, monitor me"

Even so, can't post to some sites, cloudflare seems to be working with our government to filter.

Citizen meshes seem like a viable strategy in non-rural areas, but then the 5G rollout puts a rouge AP killing death beam on every streetlamp. Not much you can do if they cook your hardware.

And the Sheeple are being distracted with 'net neutrality' memes, not understanding that's a different issue and any victory there is meaningless if the underlying censorship is not also dealt with. You understand the difference, right?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think so, this is a Section 230 issue.

[–]hennaojichan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What's a Section 230 issue? Good to see you again, dude.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's nice to see you too. Section 230 is what sets up the publisher vs. platform distinction for US law. Platforms don't have any liability for content created by their users, like a text message (as long as they act in good faith, yada yada).

[–]hennaojichan 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks. There is no good faith here, for sure.

[–]F--K_BIDEN 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

mate, try living in NZ.

wait.. i thought that you were a "top in your class" navy seal? and now you live in new zealand and your leader is a "commie"?

lolololol..

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

woooosh

[–]F--K_BIDEN 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

are you still coming to kill me? i left the porch light on.

[–]VirgilGriff 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This is real. My friend's on Verizon and I'm on T-mobile. He can't send me https://thedonald.win but I can send it to him

[–]johnnybravo 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Does this not violate any "traffic neutrality" laws? I remember in my country they fined a bunch of operators because they deliberately gave lower priority (slower internet, more dropped calls) to traffic from their new and very hot competitor.

Also, just a thought, do other URLs work? Could it be that there is some kind of spam filter? If there have been enough cases of people being scammed through SMSs, some operators may temporarily ban URLs. Unfortunately, .win differs from the usual .com and .org, and might be accidentally flagged as spam. I am sure not many of you will click on a link to www.google-search.win

[–]Haikuchebag 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

"Net neutrality"

Is the term you're looking for.

And we don't have it.

[–]xv_xx 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We don't have it because Ajit Pai killed it.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yeah, this is free speech, not net neutrality

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Biden promised to restore Net Neutrality.

[–]bobbobbybob 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

not net neutrality, this is active filtering of key words, so a free speech issue

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Net neutrality protects against these kinds of shenanigans.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Show me where, in the legislation, thanks

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Dude I'm not your legal clerk. But the principle of net neutrality is you tell the ISP to send these packets and they send the damn packets. If they are filtering packets for any reason, including a keyword filter, then they are violating net neutrality.

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

That's your principle of net neutrality.

Our net is already censored to remove illegal content, such as CP etc. (Or are you also advocating for illegal content? Because if this is some diehard libertarian thing, you can just stop now), so the idea that all data should be treated equally will never be met, nor should it.

If we go by wikipedia, which represents the 'liberal democratic' world view:

"Network neutrality, most commonly called net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication.[4][5]

With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service.

The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003, as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier, which was used to describe the role of telephone systems.[6][7][8][9] Net neutrality regulations may be referred to as "common carrier" regulations.[10] Net neutrality does not block all abilities that Internet service providers have to impact their customers' services. Opt-in/opt-out services exist on the end user side, and filtering can be done on a local basis, as in the filtration of sensitive material for minors.[11]"

Which has a focus on commerce, and that's where the debate that i've been watching in governments has been heading.

Hence me asking you for a source, not 'to be my legal clerk', but to establish the grounds of the fucking debate, you feckless cunt

[–]AcceleratedWallops 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Wow calm the fuck down. But also:

"...not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication."

Isn't this exactly what were talking about? An ISP blocking traffic (here, texts) based on content.

Also, AFAIK it's not up to the ISP to deal with child pornography, and I think they may even be protected from it as "common carriers."

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

nice mental gymnastics

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Lol ok.

QED then.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The ISP openly sells your data too.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can confirm it also blocks links to Coco flu information

Edit: When I send the message an error pops up stating:

Message not sent: unsupported content

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That person's hands look a little browner than your typical Trump fan, guess they think Trump hates those other dark skinned fellows.

[–]Tarrock 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Contact their corporate office. I can guarantee you someone lower leveled did this and once corporate hears about it, they'll do something since it puts them at risk.

[–]xv_xx 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It doesn't. They're a private company. Free speech is protected from the government, not from private companies.

[–]Tarrock 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This isn't a fucking free speech issue. TMobile doesn't have section 230 protection either. It is literally illegal for telecomms to be blocking sites. There was a huge shitstorm when AT&T blocked 4chan a decade ago, even though they did it temporarily due to a DDOS attack.

[–]xv_xx 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It isn't illegal for them to block sites.

[–]Tarrock 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It is :)

Source: I work in the industry.

[–]xv_xx 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Well, I did look up whether it was illegal and I couldn't find anything. Can you point me to the right laws?

[–]Tarrock 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know the exact law, but it's related to older laws preventing Telecomm companies from blocking phone numbers without your consent, since it would start restricting information. There's a reason why the whole robocall thing took so long to even start being addressing that issue since laws had to be amended to even do something about it.

Btw, do you want your phone company to have the power to restrict your communication? Someone like me could decide you're an undesireable and restrict anyone from calling you. Good luck getting a job when no one can call you.

[–]xv_xx 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a bit of a leap a telecomm blocking me specifically as opposed to preventing the dissemination of material that is controversial at best and seditious at worst. And there are a number of federal laws that do apply to blocking websites, so it is not impossible. But I would like to read the law you mention myself.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Libertarianism is useless.

[–]hennaojichan 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I thought it was peculiar that my Yahoo (Rocketmail) went all wonky about two months ago, just after posting mail with Mossad in the subject line. If you have a similar problem, I recommend ProtonMail.com .

[–]dissidentrhetoric 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Use telegram or signal