-
Website
http://www.mathewingram.com/work -
Original page
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/07/07/protests-over-verizon-deal-with-1938media/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
I wonder how amusing he would have found "Tech Kyka"...not very considering his reaction to Guy Kawasaki for stating he learned to sell from his Jewish friends in the jewelry industry - which is actually a hat tip if you ask me. If a guy told me he learned the best restaurant management techniques from his Greek friends, I'd be fine with that. It's commerce, it's a good thing.
The good news, according to him, is that he doesn't care what anybody thinks as long as clients supposedly keep paying him to provide consulting work.
I personally doubt that. The guy thrives on attention and clearly has aspirations of grandeur that won't be fulfilled outside of the comedy circuit. The only place that might accept his brand of whatever he does.
Yes, I do agree that his content should be accessible from anywhere, at anytime. Just don't expect corporate America to help push distribution for him on their dime.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I don't understand how it would be a big deal if Verizon sends him along his merry way. It's not like they are preventing him from distributing his racist...uh...radical ideas elsewhere.
They have not pulled his books of the shelves or removed his CD from the record stores. If there is a huge protest against Verizon carrying his content, why would they want it anyway?
If you're music is crap and there is no demand for it, are they forced to carry it in a record store? Does a movie theater absolutely have to play your bad movie that nobody really wants to see?
something, then I would have no problem with someone not carrying it
in their store or on their service. But I don't like the idea of
companies like Verizon removing content from someone after protests by
a couple of lobby groups, based on a single video from someone like
Loren -- a video that was designed to be satirical (whether you think
it succeeded or not).
I have never had Verizon, so I have never experienced the beauty that is VCast. My point is that Verizon is a business, which means it's about money. Part of the fact that people give them money is their reputation. If they become associated with some guy that a large number of people feel is an ass...well, that's not good for business.
This was all over the radio this morning. Everybody and their grandma was calling in saying they would cancel their accounts. We're talking about businesses cancelling, not just individuals. It's unfortunate that this video is old, but somebody dug it up and now this dude's moment of stupidity on the internet could cast a shadow on an entire corporation.
Karma.
This isn't a discussion of freedom of speech but corporate responsibility and "political correctness."
Freedom of speech protects Loren (and all of us) from the government telling us what we can and can't say. Verizon, on the other hand, has every right to censor Loren. They aren't limiting Loren's freedom of speech if they decide not to pay him for his content.
However, I thought the technigga videos were not only in bad taste, I didn't think they were even slightly funny, which is why I stopped watching his videos long before he started playing with puppets.
I guess I'm not much of a genius, because I just don't see a lot of what Loren does as funny, even though others think he's hysterical. Steve Gillmor considers him a comedic genius. I think he's inconsistent, and resorts to the easy slam to make the joke.
But that's me. I'm not a fan of humor at others' expense unless the 'other' is a willing participant.
Beyond that, I will not pay the kind of rates the cell companies want to watch video content that they decide is suitable to cross their network. The big companies are getting greedy with these 'extra charges', and I think it will come back to bite them and their content providers in the days to come.
about it. As for your point about mobile video, I couldn't agree more
-- that isn't funny at all.
And if this news ever goes mainstream I think that everyone outside Web 2.0 and the racial grievance industry will be wondering: Who is Loren Feldman and what is Project Islamic Hope?!?!
i personally do not find him funny, nor do i think howard stern is entertaining, but there is a large segment of the population that does - so maybe there is a chance for loren to be appreciated by the same sort of people who like howard, in fact, the technigga video seems like it should be on howard's show, it fit s that whole unenlightened buffoonery perfectly..
Anyone can put on a wig and gold teeth and act out a stereotype. But can you do it an not be offensive? Thats Imus' problem and that was Feldmans problem.
That said I think people are overreacting to the video. Poor taste does not mean poor talent. I enjoy the provocative videos, especially in this web world full of awkward geeks.
Does it make him a horrible person? No, I don't think so. An err in judgment perhaps. What the Internet viewing public must understand is that history lives FOREVER on the Internet and just because the content exists and is still viewable by the public doesn't mean that we should judge the content creators each time it surfaces.
At some time or another, many of us have produced "unfortunate content". I use the term "content" loosely here. Imagine having half naked drunk cottage pics out there that your "friends" have uploaded, viewable by a prospective employer.
Maybe the Internet needs a statute of limitations...?
loren felt like making the videos in the first place, verizon no longer feels like distributing them. i mean, what's the alternative? forcing verizon to pay loren to distribute the vidoes?
"free speech gets chipped away in all sorts of ways" is just a slippery slope fallacy away from the government rounding all of us free speech advocates up and shipping us off for interrogation in guantanamo.
First, let me revise my claim -- it's not a freedom-of-speech issue in the same way as it is when your right to express an opinion is legally impaired. It seems to me that there's an enormous difference between placing restrictions on the expression of certain ideas tout court, on the one hand, and the restriction of the venues in which those ideas can be distributed and promulgated, on the other. In this case, Feldman is of course free to continue making all the vile, racist videos he wants, with or without a distribution deal with Verizon, so there's no impairment to his "freedom" in any absolute sense. But you're right, of course, that whenever someone clamps down on the free flow of ideas because of the potential for giving offense, then there is a different sort of free speech issue involved, and we lurch a bit in the direction of greater self-censorship as a society. Point taken. It's a trade-off. Personally, if I were an executive at Verizon, and I were looking at the situation in the wake of these protests, I'd check out the TechNigga videos, and I'd probably say, "This is not a guy we want our company associated with." Looked at from that perspective, I have a hard time shedding a lot of tears for Feldman. But of course it's all about the bottom line in the end. You can't really expect Verizon, or any other for-profit company, to go to bat for some vlogger's right to express himself at the cost of losing business.
The other point you make, though, is the comparison to removing CDs from stores. That got me thinking about the differences between different kinds of distribution channels. When I walk into a big record store (yes, that's still what I call them, and yes, I still do frequent them), I have a reasonable expectation that I'll be able to find a representative selection of the music that's "out there." If one CD among thousands is removed, that smells like censorship to me, and it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. On the other hand, I have no expectation that a TV network is going to make available to me a representative selection of all the video out there -- I don't expect to see, for example, foreign-language TV shows, or two-hour-long documentaries. I expect a careful selection of the best stuff that fits the market they're trying to serve. Given that, the absence of one show doesn't seem quite as obnoxious.
Anyhow, that's just a personal reaction to your comments. Sorry to have gone on so long, but I'm fairly new to this kind of thing.
Seriously, I'm curious. I really don't see where the controversy is here.
It's not a freedom of speech issue. He is still free to produce whatever content he wants.
"We regularly review and refresh content on our service, V Cast. Clips from 1938 Media were removed from our service this morning." -- Jan Morris, Verizon spokesperson.
Personally I don't see it as a free speech issue, either. I wouldn't expect that any yahoo can just shoot some video and expect Verizon to carry it.
So the Cnet deal's in the dumper, Verizon throws him overboard, and the clock's reading 14:59...
In this case (and this video) I think Loren was foolish and out of line - but I fully support his right to do so.
Regards,
George
One moment he's on Shel Israel like a pitball, Andrew Baron of Rocketboom the next second. What an exhausting waste of time it is to gain a rare chuckle or two.
Verizon exercised their right not to be associated with Loren's idea of free speech. Just like "others are free not to watch it," Verizon is free not to associate themselves with it and the activists are free to protest what they felt was offensive.
As far as I can see here, everyone has exercised their rights quite effectively.
Who would want to deal with them after this? Not me.
There is no place for racism in the world... pretending that its comedy is like putting lip stick on a pig.. its still a pig and its still raciest.
There is no place for racism and there is no place for you. Please go away and do something good and stop existing on demeaning other people.
As for freedom of speech, Feldman still has the same forum the rest of us have. If Verizon does not carry my text, does that mean my freedom of speech has been abrogated? No, and neither has Feldman's. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone watches any of his stuff, he really isn't very good.
But he has gotten some publicity from this event. So have others. Again.
As you note, Loren still has his freedom of speech. He can make videos. He can post them. We all can view them. You don't need a 'cabaret card' to work the Internet.
Do you that's an accident?
Adding 1938 media was a non-event for Verizon. They do lots of content deals with web video. Verizon media relations only got involved when Loren got booted.
The people who found his content unfunny, racist, and inappropriate exercised their free speech rights by letting a corporation know they wouldn't be customers if they disapproved of the content.
Loren Feldman's supporters are free to exercise their free speech rights as well, to contact Verizon and let them know they do want his content. As opposed to just visiting all the blog comment sections and accusing everyone who disagrees with them as being "politically correct" or "humourless".
Someone at Verizon thought that having 1938media on the roster would earn money for them. Now someone at Verizon has concluded it would be a net loss. That's business.
Loren's videos are freely accessible on his site and on YouTube. He's still free to make more of them.
Anyone who thinks this is free speech is what Loren would call, "a dope."
http://www.1938media.com/guy-kawasaki-is-an-ass...
on a couple of videos from a year ago -- don't you think that's a
little unfair? Aren't there any of your videos that you feel a little
uncomfortable about looking back on them? Would you want to lose your
livelihood because of that? I realize Loren is free to make his
videos, but he's still suffering from a form of censorship I think.
on a couple of videos from a year ago -- don't you think that's a
little unfair? Aren't there any of your videos that you feel a little
uncomfortable about looking back on them? Would you want to lose your
livelihood because of that? I realize Loren is free to make his
videos, but he's still suffering from a form of censorship I think.
on a couple of videos from a year ago -- don't you think that's a
little unfair? Aren't there any of your videos that you feel a little
uncomfortable about looking back on them? Would you want to lose your
livelihood because of that? I realize Loren is free to make his
videos, but he's still suffering from a form of censorship I think.
a) bazillions of people start, for the first time since towns were small enough that everyone knew and could talk to everyone, really *using* their right to free speech on the internet and on future systems of digital distribution.
b) companies and services that have scale and built in audiences (and therefore are focal points for free speech) realize how much leeway they have, and consequently how carefully they have to tread, with what goes up on their services.
At the end of the day, I agree that free speech has to be free speech whether you think it's funny/agree with it/or hate it, but Shey is right in his comment that Verizon isn't obligated to broadcast something they disagree with.
And as he himself is saying: ” It’s not insulting an ETHNIC group, but a SOCIAL group, in this case: rappers/ganstas.” I am in a complete agreement with him here, and have a hard time understanding where the racism comes in, or is it just the fact that a white man used the ”N-Word” and that where not social accepted? Well if that is the case then we are not talking about racism but just different standards of what people is ”Allowed” by the social norms to do, and as I said before it is the comedians job to push the limited of that social norm.
As for whether "TechNigga" is racist - maybe, maybe not - but it does display an arrogant amount of racial insensitivity that could very easily be perceived as latent racism. As I said above, he used a negative cultural stereotype to describe "black guys" (his words) - not gangsters. He was effectively calling all black people gangsters.
Whether or not Feldman feels this way is largely irrelevant - I would tend to think he does NOT. The point is he tried to be controversial (perhaps in the vein of Lenny Bruce) - and because he botched his execution he simply came across as ignorant. And usually ignorance will get you fired - unless you are running for office.
You're just a scumbag offering apologies for some semi-notable Jew racist.