It seems that the so called discussion guidelines on the Now We Are Talking website go right out the window in some cases.
Cases where Telstra’s rather absurd agenda is being supported by the uninformed.
Forums like Whirlpool, allow discussion based solely on the rules they set. People can post what they like to, anything at all, however, if it breaches the rules, it might get moderated.
The theory here: Users behave to get their content to stay live on the website, and keep the privilege to continue posting content on the Whirlpool.net.au website.
However, Now We Are Talking take a different approach.
Users can message in anything, anything they like. They have a set of discussion guidelines that users can choose to view and adhere to. Users can make any comments they like, so long as the discussion guidelines are met.
The comments are added to a queue, where they can be selectively allowed or denyed depending on the editor’s mood, or whether you expose anything that is too truthful for their liking. They want to ensure shareholders read it, and believe the focus for Telstra remains to be that the company will succeed in any challenge it makes.
Despite, in recent times, losing 3 significant objectives, such as the Regional Broadband funding, the case with the ACCC over the pricing model, and the repayment of $16 million dollars to iiNet, the giant of ADSL2+ services.
Back to it, the post that I find questionable, and I am seriously looking at this from a general perspective, is this comment here, by n00b, Craig Breen:
Jason Torrento shows what a complete ignoramus he really is when he seeks to blame Telstra even for “placing limits’ on what levels of service can be provided over copper. It’s called the laws of physics Jason. There are physical limits on what the technology can deliver over certain distances. Go on, blame Telstra if it makes you feel better. What hope is there for informed debate in this country when supposedly “informed” debate is shaped by people like Mr Torrento, the Whirpool website and people of their ilk. No wonder Minister Coonan can survive in her job and “industry expert” Paul Budde is seen as a visionary.
If you can’t find the obvious problem with this comment, you are blind as a bat.
For those that are not yet familiar with the discussion guidelines set by the ever so hypocritical Telstra, here is the most relevant bit on the entire page:
Contributors may not submit content that:
is threatening, abusive, defamatory, indecent, menacing, harassing, offensive, infringes any person’s intellectual property rights, including copyright, impersonates anyone, misrepresents a relationship with any person or organisation, encourages others to commit unlawful acts, harasses anyone or is unlawful in any way.
Looking at his comment, the use of the word “Ignoramus”, can be included as “indecent”, or “abusive”, or “menacing”, or “offensive”.
Is the so called moderator blind?
I wonder if the result would be the same if one were to say post a comment that went something like:
What kind of fat jerk is Phil Burgess anyway? I wonder who makes the Lard’s pants each time he splits them? Does he employ an emergency tailor to stitch his rear each time that over payed salary feeds his lard ass too much Hungry Jacks?
Naturally, one wouldn’t post that. It doesn’t contribute to the discussion, and doesn’t do much to enhance the discussion, or do anything for Telstra.
If I posted:
I disagree with Phil Burgess’s comments as a whole, everything I have read from him suggests that he is uninformed, has little idea of what is going to happen if they threaten the commonwealth government as they have been, little idea of the outcomes from attacking a regulator, or my favourite, little idea of what is going to be the overall outcome from attacking a regulator that protects australian consumers, and attacking the australian elected government.
I can’t keep count of the number of people I either know personally, or have had read on the internet, or have seen the feelings towards Telstra they have.
The majority are in at: “I am going to be so happy to get every dollar I can away from them.”.
Is it any guess why that is? Maybe they should look to the biggest loud mouth of them all ?
Anyway, back to topic here.
I find it absolutely poor form if they allow that.
What are they blocking? Must be all the comments explaining why people don’t want to deal with Telstra, they don’t want shareholders seeing that, it’ll devalue the company too much, won’t it.
6 Responses to Telstra: Now We Are Talking: Discussion, or personal attacks?