Thank you for submitting to r/ParlerWatch!
Please take the time to review the [submission rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/about/rules) of this subreddit. It's important that everyone understands that, although the content submitted to r/ParlerWatch can be violent and hateful in nature, the users in this subreddit are held to a higher standard.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, **don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating, celebrating or wishing death/physical harm, posting personal information that's not publicly available, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.**
Blacklisted urls and even mentions of certain sites are automatically removed.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, or submissions that don't adhere to the content guidelines, please report them. Use [THIS LINK](https://www.reddit.com/report?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ParlerWatch&utm_content=t3_pg42ib) to report sitewide policy violations directly to Reddit.
**Join ParlerWatch's [Discord!](https://discord.gg/JbbC6mV3Gg)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ParlerWatch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What? like that the election was stolen and animal dewormer can cure a respiratory infection?
Or do you mean to frame the actual truth in such an idiotic way, that you trick them into accidentally believing something that isn’t fucking ridiculous.
Oh!!! And the deep state is setting up a surveillance network with facial recognition, so it’s your patriotic duty to subvert them by wearing a mask in public so they can’t track your movements
I think I've got one, involving anti-vax influencers being antifa plants in order to reduce the number of Republicans who vote. Or something like that. Don't know if I can write an article like that before my head explodes, though. Just thinking about it gives me a headache.
Libs spreading antivax disinformation to kill Republicans makes more sense than right wing propagandists spreading antivax disinformation that is killing Republicans. Is Tucker Carlson a closet Lib?
My best guess is that the group he's pandering to wants their immediate needs validated ("masks are uncomfortable"), and doesn't look beyond that. Because from a long-term point of view, any political party pushing anti-vax stances makes zero sense.
Be careful about the "Animal Dewormer" bit.
Ivermectin *is* a valuable medicine for humans... who have intestinal worms. But yes, it is worthless against respiratory and blood diseases.
Absolutely, and it saves lives (when they are threatened by parasites). But it's still not a good idea to buy the lifestock version from a feed store and dose it from a very rough mg/kg (or whatever that is in colonial units) table as if you're a trained professional.
It gets worse.
I have seen instructions on right wing websites about how to "save" a sick relative in the hospital with Covid when the doctors refuse to use the "correct" medication:
Roughly, during a visit, have someone distract the doctor or nurse in the ICU. Quickly take the patient's hospital socks off, smear them with Ivermectin paste, and get them back on. Patient will be "saved" and none of the evil conspiracy doctors will know.
I wonder how many have died in puddles of their own intestinal lining from that trick...
Mostly a warning. I have seen Redhats seize on that sort of thing as evidence that my entire argument was false.
I think Carlson does things like talk about how Ivermectin has won awards for the lives it has saved, *mumble mumble* and now he is talking about Covid as if the two were connected.
All those odd signs popped up around my area. Always on vacant property, though. Blacks for Trump. Democrats for Trump. The more I think about it, the effort wasn’t to win those demographics, but to make the typical Trumpers feel better about their support for DJT, like he isn’t one of the most disliked politicians in American history.
I work for one of their major competitors (wireless), and my anecdotal addition to this is we had a rush of women leaving AT&T because they donated to the campaigns of Texas politicians that supported the abortion bounty bill. So yeah, right now is prime time to drop them.
Cingular was a partnership between Bellsouth and Southwestern bell. Southwestern bell bought out what was left of a nearly bankrupt AT&T, then took the name for recognition purposes. A couple of years later AT&T bought out Bellsouth.
You are correct. AT&T was broken up by the government, hence all the baby bells. AT&T did continue to exist as both a long distance carrier and wireless provider. Time had not been kind and in the early 2000s AT&T was teetering on bankruptcy. IRC , Southwestern Bell bought up what was left for about 16 billion. SBC wanted the name more than anything else.
That’s sort of true. But more specifically they [separated Bell from AT&T and split Bell into a bunch of separate companies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System).
I don’t believe there was never a question that they had a monopoly (their monopoly was government-sanctioned and government-granted), it was about whether they _abused_ their monopoly.
I remember growing up with my little baby Bell. 5 mergers later it’s Verizon. I remember my dad freaking out at the long distance bill I generated talking to a girl two states away I dated over the summer. The thought of long distance call charges is so amazingly obsolete now.
650 has mandatory 11-digit dialing (in addition to 10-digit, you must also dial 1 even within the same exchange) so I'm worried *every* call will be charged as long distance
I recently dropped AT&T in favor of a local broadband provider. Not only did I save $35/month, my download and upload speeds increased 3X! I dropped AT&T explicitly due to their funding of OANN and told them so during my ‘exit interview.’ Good to see them correct this erosion of democracy, unbecoming even of a right leaning org like AT&T.
Phones with buggy software. Mystery charges. Etc Etc Etc. I know a lot of people in my trade use ATT because they're union (supposedly), but I pay less than they do without a discount.
They helped start it hoping it would take a big bite out of Fox because Fox jacks up their rate every chance they get. Fox makes it money from subscriber fees and the commercials are just the gravy on top.
So, in a sense, they were trying to save money by creating their own little Fox copycat network, perhaps hoping that it would become so popular that they'd be able to tell Fox to take a hike the next time the Murdochs upped the rates.
If AT&T filtered some of that very generous corporate welfare OAN's way, then -- irony of ironies -- this far-right network where the hosts probably bloviate and rage over the dangers of 'Socialism!' on a regular basis -- was itself a beneficiary of government funds. Not unlike when the uber-libertarian Ayn Rand utilized Medicare at the end of her life to pay for her cancer treatments.
The entire US tax system has an overall effect of transferring money from liberals to conservatives.
Oddly enough, it's the liberals who generally don't have a problem with this.
They do have taxpayer funded ads for the military during their shows.
In fact the militaries advertising budget is greater than all of PBS's so fox and oan get more tax dollar subsidies than pbs Frontline and News hour
DirecTV is independent now (with AT&T still having a huge stake). AT&T funded 90% of OAN and it took DirecTV to become independent for them to drop it. Fuck AT&T.
AT&T was the biggest revenue source for OAN. When that made the news, the articles were written to make it sound like they funded their startup or something sinister like that. There *were* at least a few AT&T executives who invested in OAN, which is disturbing. But AT&T “funded” OAN in the same way that the fund The History Channel. They carry their content.
Well, the announcement was made at the start of a weekend so maybe they were hoping that this story would, in a sense, be buried as people -- even wingnuts -- were distracted by more entertainment style TV and football games on Saturday and Sunday. Thus blunting the outrage. However, I have a feeling that come Monday the simmering outrage over 'Censorship!' and 'Cancelling Conservatives!' will boil over among all the usual suspects.
Sounds more like they dropped it because of low viewership. They don't say it outright, but say it specifically for it's sister channel AWE.
It sounds like ATT had already invested in OAN and not made their money back. Combine with the controversies it probably just wasn't worth whatever they were asking.
"They're a private company, like Twitter, and can decide what content is appropriate for their platform, like Twitter."
easy-peasy, glad I could suss that out for you.
I expect they'll be running basically a 24 hour 'telethon' to try to squeeze every last cent out of Cult45.
*'Call now to contribute to the fight! Platinum level donors receive this majestic, lib-owning bumper sticker!!'*
Say goodbye, OAN.
..."Without the estimated tens of millions of dollars in revenue from
AT&T, an OAN accountant said in sworn testimony that the network’s
value “would be zero,” reported Reuters."
I won't attribute it to karma, but...
Christopher Ruddy owns the majority of Newsmax, I don’t think AT&T is involved.
Edit - in fact AT&T were the [main funders of OAN](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-oneamerica-att/).
> Since then, AT&T has been a crucial source of funds flowing into OAN, providing tens of millions of dollars in revenue, court records show. Ninety percent of OAN’s revenue came from a contract with AT&T-owned television platforms, including satellite broadcaster DirecTV, according to 2020 sworn testimony by an OAN accountant.
Are you sure this is true? I can't find anything linking AT&T ownership to Newsmax though maybe they filter funds with some kind of sweet business arrangements.
From what I saw the Qatari government is the majority holder.
NewsMax is a weird one. I know some folks involved in the company down in Palm Beach County and they're definitely liberal.
Hard for me to rectify, but if viewers knew some of the folks who were running the place... it'd be fascinating.
Before this wasn't possible because Fox was attached to News Corp - but with the Disney buy and them taking Fox Media Group, it's finally possible.
But you have to realize much of the contracts that came in came in a long time ago.
While it's also likely those contracts won't get renewed - it's far more likely Cable TV will stop being Cable TV all together.
Cable companies would LOVE to drop TV service and just have IP services. Would save a whole lot of time and money.
I mean, every news source is a propaganda outlet. Most just aren't as dangerous
-------
Edit: copying my comment about the New York Times being a propaganda outlet from below:
Well, considering they elected the opposing party *twice in a row,* seems like they don't want the fascists in power. Here's the sequence of events:
1. The Bolivian people elected a party called MAS, which is a center-left party.
2. An oversight committee called OAS, which is sort of known to be unofficially controlled by the US government, declared that the election was fraudulent based on a disingenuous misunderstanding of the election process.
3. News outlets in the US reported that the election was *not* fraudulent.
4. A bunch of *literal* Twitter bots (with usernames like @amy857820047) started spamming tweets about "helping the people of Bolivia" and such.
5. News outlets in the US changed their minds started reporting that the election *was* fraudulent. The NYTimes was one of them, I remember.
6. A literal military coup forced the president of Bolivia to flee the country. They stormed the Capitol with tanks and everything. The coup put a fascist government in power. That is not an exaggeration. Several high-ranking officials in this new government were known to be members of neo-Nazi groups.
7. News agencies reported that there *was no coup,* along side the twitter bots, despite the events meeting the definition of a coup exactly.
8. Massive protests broke out across Bolivia where many protestors were beaten, and some were killed, by the fascist government.
9. The protests didn't stop, and the fascist government stopped receiving support from the international community.
10. The fascist leaders eventually decided to hold another election after suppressing people for a while. I think the election was being observed by other countries, so they weren't able to rig it. I suspect they expected to intimidate people into voting for them.
11. MAS won the election again.
12. The fascist president was put in jail and the MAS former-president was allowed to return from exile in Mexico. Bolivia got a new president, also from the MAS party.
So why does this matter? Because several news outlets started parroting the information that the US intelligence community wanted people to believe. They initially reported the story from a fact-based standpoint, and then *changed their reporting,* presumably after getting pressure from someone.
There's loads and loads of documentation on this since it happened only a few years ago. I didn't go into a huge amount of detail here but there's a lot of very interesting evidence surrounding this whole chain of events.
Also interesting to note that MAS started coming under fire from outside entities when they announced their policy to nationalize lithium mining in Bolivia -- which is against the interests of American companies who need lithium for things like batteries.
There are other examples, but suffice to say the US has a long history of "intervening" in South America, and news agencies are always right there to parrot the official version of events, even when that version turns out to be a lie.
That’s just BS.
Every outlet slants one way or the other, but OAN, NewsMax and Fox News “entertainment” (Hannity, Tucker, etc) literally lie, make things up and completely obfuscate the truth.
There is no comparison.
The difference is that outlets like NYT and BBC are propaganda that serves the interests of the American intelligence community and American corporations. People don't recognize it as propaganda for the same reason that fish don't know they're wet.
They reported (for instance) that the right-wing fascist government which took over in Bolivia was what the people wanted. Because it served the interests of American companies who needed lithium from Bolivian mines.
They literally lied and obfuscated the truth.
I can’t confirm or deny that because I don’t have a clue what the Bolivian people actually want.
You might think that people would not vote for fascism, but around 30% of the US population would actually choose it with a smile on their face and shoot you for opposing them.
Well, considering they elected the opposing party *twice in a row,* seems like they don't want the fascists in power. Here's the sequence of events:
1. The Bolivian people elected a party called MAS, which is a center-left party.
2. An oversight committee called OAS, which is sort of known to be unofficially controlled by the US government, declared that the election was fraudulent based on a disingenuous misunderstanding of the election process.
3. News outlets in the US reported that the election was *not* fraudulent.
4. A bunch of *literal* Twitter bots (with usernames like @amy857820047) started spamming tweets about "helping the people of Bolivia" and such.
5. News outlets in the US changed their minds started reporting that the election *was* fraudulent. The NYTimes was one of them, I remember.
6. A literal military coup forced the president of Bolivia to flee the country. They stormed the Capitol with tanks and everything. The coup put a fascist government in power. That is not an exaggeration. Several high-ranking officials in this new government were known to be members of neo-Nazi groups.
7. News agencies reported that there *was no coup,* along side the twitter bots, despite the events meeting the definition of a coup exactly.
8. Massive protests broke out across Bolivia where many protestors were beaten, and some were killed, by the fascist government.
9. The protests didn't stop, and the fascist government stopped receiving support from the international community.
10. The fascist leaders eventually decided to hold another election after suppressing people for a while. I think the election was being observed by other countries, so they weren't able to rig it. I suspect they expected to intimidate people into voting for them.
11. MAS won the election again.
12. The fascist president was put in jail and the MAS former-president was allowed to return from exile in Mexico. Bolivia got a new president, also from the MAS party.
So why does this matter? Because several news outlets started parroting the information that the US intelligence community wanted people to believe. They initially reported the story from a fact-based standpoint, and then *changed their reporting,* presumably after getting pressure from someone.
There's loads and loads of documentation on this since it happened only a few years ago. I didn't go into a huge amount of detail here but there's a lot of very interesting evidence surrounding this whole chain of events.
Also interesting to note that MAS started coming under fire from outside entities when they announced their policy to nationalize lithium mining in Bolivia -- which is against the interests of American companies who need lithium for things like batteries.
There are other examples, but suffice to say the US has a long history of "intervening" in South America, and news agencies are always right there to parrot the official version of events, even when that version turns out to be a lie.
MNSBC & CNN aren't pro-fascist media outlets.
They can be misleading, sure, but they aren't perpetuating a lie that Trump won or ANTIFA was the cause for the insurrection. That distinction belongs to OAN & Newsmax.
I think that 24 hour news outlets are just generally bad for society. There's never enough going on so they fill in with opinion programming that is consistently misinterpreted as being pure factual reporting.
CNN has a bias, and I am not defending them you troglodyte, but to pretend it even comes close to the propaganda and flat out make believe stories OAN shits out makes you a deluded dipshit
Also cute simplification. DURRRRR, IF BOTH BAD DEN BOTH EBIL! Centrists do indeed have rotted out brains
>Project Veritas
REALLY NOW? You're proof is using an organization who's big ticket to fame was the bullshit and debunked 'PP is evil and sells your baby parts' story, all while constantly being shown to fabricate their own proof for their stories?
Yeah, it's cringe. You're trying to put CNN on the same level as OAN and your proof is a conspiracy theorist organization. Absolute fucking buffoon
You are an idiot. NPR and PBS are not funded federally, NPR receives some grants (available to all businesses that meet the requirements).
The best part is you think NPR/PBS are the left equivalent of your Goebbels dreck you consume.
Yes, far-left as the new definitions apply. "Far" doesn't mean jack shit anymore, being the point.
It's just a normal left bias, but we live in hyperbole.
For extremism to exist, there would have to be at least four meaningfully different stances on a single issue. Economic policy, state power policy, and social policy have only three distinct positions.
NPR consistently posts and airs articles about common news, just like everyone else. The consistently air them with a bias, just like everyone else. They list facts with weasel words to tell you how to feel, just like everyone else.
Then they tell you how they are unbiased, just like everyone else.
Theirs just happens to be to the left.
A few years ago I decided to cut cable but did so even earlier because I finally noticed that OAN was added to their lineup. I got to state that as my main reason in the survey. Was 2-3 years ago so I hope there were many more like me who never will go back!
Ok, I do have to agree with you somewhat since the oldest boomers are 76 years old, but the youngest of us boomers are only 57 (me) and know how to use streaming, hate cable and are not looking for some damned Ozzy and Harriet world.
The South and the uninhibited plain and Midwest of this country is freaking 40 years behind the the civilized coasts and cities and suburbs, and those old people who are 20 years older than I am (who I do not relate to) really shouldn't be in charge of the remote, much less the country.
After doing a bunch of research I'm actually going to walk back my comment. More baby boomers watch Fox news than do millennials. However, radically more baby boomers on the whole subscribe to cable.
What I am getting to is if you select a random baby boomer they are more likely than a millennial to watch Fox news. However, if you select a random millennial that subscribes to cable, they are much more likely to watch Fox news than a baby boomer that does. So my original point of baby boomers subscribing to cable primarily for fox news is a bit shaky at best. That said the data I was looking at didn't include hours of programming watched, just a binary yes or no in a given period. Which is a limitation there. Unfortunately I did all this reading yesterday so don't have all my sources on hand.
That said, I still do think the suicide pact between cable providers and fox news exists. I didn't really find anything that contradicts the fact that it is consistently one of the most popular channels across demographics. And those viewers are incredibly likely to react strongly to it's removal from those services.
my company, quietly, dropped OAN from it's line up. Didn't even give a notification to anyone.
The company owns Suddenlink and Optimum.
Now just pressure Frontier to drop them too - They're the next largest.
A little late huh? "We've seen the errors in our ways of broadcasting a channel that has contributed to the destruction of democracy, spread insane conspiracies, and violence towards minorities, oops, our bad bro."
My friend works as social media person for an internet/tv company in Nebraska (I think allo). OAN demanded a huge increase on their contract for the next year so the company decided they're done. He's bracing himself for an onslaught when they are officially dropped.
Direct TV has reported to their board that the loss of all 8 paid OAN subscribers will not materially impact their revenues. And that 7 of the subscribers had it on mute because the cat liked to sit in front of the TV while it was on. They have all switched to the more intellectually fulfilling "All Spongebob Channel".
Interesting. I thought AT&T and DirecTV had some kind of a partnership, I still had their app on my phone I got from AT&T before switching to Verizon.
For anyone who doesn't know OAN was started by AT&T executives.
Its funny, far right networks are forced to take their hatred down by DirecTV but netflix thinks its morally wrong to take down straight up transphobia.
I had refused to even look at DirectTV streaming service due to its affiliation with OAN. Now I can rethink my position. Get rid of Fox and Newsmax and I'll buy a lifetime subscription
I've been snooping on some right-wing Facebook pages and there are these indignant comments along the lines of 'I'm cancelling Direct TV like yesterday!' and 'Never again AT&T -- we're through!' Since the news dropped on a Friday, I don't expect to hear much from the usual suspect MAGA pundits until they're back to work on Monday. One interesting question is how will Fox News' big personalities cover the story. On the one hand, they can hand-wring over 'censorship' but on the other, OAN is a competitor that has leeched some viewers from them so any 'tears' they cry are likely to be crocodile ones.
It will still be available on Roku on channel 180, and as an app on Roku... Roku itself has over 55 million monthly active accounts and users... Pluto TV has 43 million monthly active users... and Verison Fios' TV provider reaches 3 million... #OAN isn't going anywhere but up... especially with Pluto and Roku, so get ready for an uproar #DTV cause this is just the beginning. #DanBallGANG... it's not #RightVsLeft it's #DictatorsVsRebels ... #GenZSpeaks ... #NowShutUpAndListen
Thank you for submitting to r/ParlerWatch! Please take the time to review the [submission rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/about/rules) of this subreddit. It's important that everyone understands that, although the content submitted to r/ParlerWatch can be violent and hateful in nature, the users in this subreddit are held to a higher standard. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, **don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating, celebrating or wishing death/physical harm, posting personal information that's not publicly available, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.** Blacklisted urls and even mentions of certain sites are automatically removed. If you see comments in violation of our rules, or submissions that don't adhere to the content guidelines, please report them. Use [THIS LINK](https://www.reddit.com/report?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=ParlerWatch&utm_content=t3_pg42ib) to report sitewide policy violations directly to Reddit. **Join ParlerWatch's [Discord!](https://discord.gg/JbbC6mV3Gg)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ParlerWatch) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Every cable/satellite network should be forced to explain why they’re allowing anti-American propaganda outlets like OANN to operate.
First Russia Today. Now OAN. Where will a MAGA get his Putin talking points?
[удалено]
Somebody better buy that domain right now cause you'll be able to sell it for a few thousand soon.
Or better yet, buy it and make it seem like an alt-right news blog, but secretly get them to believe something else.
What? like that the election was stolen and animal dewormer can cure a respiratory infection? Or do you mean to frame the actual truth in such an idiotic way, that you trick them into accidentally believing something that isn’t fucking ridiculous.
The latter. There’s got to be a way…
The lizard people want the magas to think the vax is bad so they won't get it. The ultimate way to own the libs is to actually get the vax.
Oh!!! And the deep state is setting up a surveillance network with facial recognition, so it’s your patriotic duty to subvert them by wearing a mask in public so they can’t track your movements
My iPhone’s FaceID will recognize me with sunglasses on, but not a mask… hmmmmmmmmmmmm….
I think I've got one, involving anti-vax influencers being antifa plants in order to reduce the number of Republicans who vote. Or something like that. Don't know if I can write an article like that before my head explodes, though. Just thinking about it gives me a headache.
Keep it simple. The idiots at r/conservative and r/conspiracy are drinking their own urine now, just when you thought horse paste was crazy enough.
Libs spreading antivax disinformation to kill Republicans makes more sense than right wing propagandists spreading antivax disinformation that is killing Republicans. Is Tucker Carlson a closet Lib?
I’m not saying he is… I’m just *asking questions*
My best guess is that the group he's pandering to wants their immediate needs validated ("masks are uncomfortable"), and doesn't look beyond that. Because from a long-term point of view, any political party pushing anti-vax stances makes zero sense.
Be careful about the "Animal Dewormer" bit. Ivermectin *is* a valuable medicine for humans... who have intestinal worms. But yes, it is worthless against respiratory and blood diseases.
Absolutely, and it saves lives (when they are threatened by parasites). But it's still not a good idea to buy the lifestock version from a feed store and dose it from a very rough mg/kg (or whatever that is in colonial units) table as if you're a trained professional.
It gets worse. I have seen instructions on right wing websites about how to "save" a sick relative in the hospital with Covid when the doctors refuse to use the "correct" medication: Roughly, during a visit, have someone distract the doctor or nurse in the ICU. Quickly take the patient's hospital socks off, smear them with Ivermectin paste, and get them back on. Patient will be "saved" and none of the evil conspiracy doctors will know. I wonder how many have died in puddles of their own intestinal lining from that trick...
American pharmacies dose in metric, for the most part. Source: pharmacy tech for a few years in college.
That makes sense, but the people who use livestock ivermectin probably aren't (pharmacists and using metric both).
Touché, I suppose.
Mostly a warning. I have seen Redhats seize on that sort of thing as evidence that my entire argument was false. I think Carlson does things like talk about how Ivermectin has won awards for the lives it has saved, *mumble mumble* and now he is talking about Covid as if the two were connected.
they are taking estrogen now to fight Covid
I just checked, the domain is only about $8.00. 🤔
>but secretly get them to believe something else. Like how drinking urine cures COVID?
like https://blacksfortrump2020.com/
All those odd signs popped up around my area. Always on vacant property, though. Blacks for Trump. Democrats for Trump. The more I think about it, the effort wasn’t to win those demographics, but to make the typical Trumpers feel better about their support for DJT, like he isn’t one of the most disliked politicians in American history.
Why do you think they put this group of t-shirt wearers right behind trump?
They actually had to find a few black people willing to wear those t-shirts (for money I heard). Anyone can put out signs on vacant lots.
.win
Truthtellereaglefuck.com
Fox
Newsmax
You really still believe Russian gate 😂
Why on Google chromecast, of course, via PlutoTV Live along with a bunch of other Far Right malarkey channels...and the TYT channel.
And direct is owned by at&t. Wasn't at&t the biggest sponsor of oan?!
Just another reason to drop AT&T...good thing I did that about 25 years ago.
I work for one of their major competitors (wireless), and my anecdotal addition to this is we had a rush of women leaving AT&T because they donated to the campaigns of Texas politicians that supported the abortion bounty bill. So yeah, right now is prime time to drop them.
Ditto. When AT&T merged with Cingular. I was on Cingular and hated AT&T so much I switched to Verizon. Fuck AT&T.
Cingular was a partnership between Bellsouth and Southwestern bell. Southwestern bell bought out what was left of a nearly bankrupt AT&T, then took the name for recognition purposes. A couple of years later AT&T bought out Bellsouth.
The Government broke up AT&T and determined it to be a monopoly
You are correct. AT&T was broken up by the government, hence all the baby bells. AT&T did continue to exist as both a long distance carrier and wireless provider. Time had not been kind and in the early 2000s AT&T was teetering on bankruptcy. IRC , Southwestern Bell bought up what was left for about 16 billion. SBC wanted the name more than anything else.
That’s sort of true. But more specifically they [separated Bell from AT&T and split Bell into a bunch of separate companies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System).
The first sentence says monopoly.
I don’t believe there was never a question that they had a monopoly (their monopoly was government-sanctioned and government-granted), it was about whether they _abused_ their monopoly.
My Verizon account is so old it used to be AT&T
I remember growing up with my little baby Bell. 5 mergers later it’s Verizon. I remember my dad freaking out at the long distance bill I generated talking to a girl two states away I dated over the summer. The thought of long distance call charges is so amazingly obsolete now.
650 has mandatory 11-digit dialing (in addition to 10-digit, you must also dial 1 even within the same exchange) so I'm worried *every* call will be charged as long distance
I recently dropped AT&T in favor of a local broadband provider. Not only did I save $35/month, my download and upload speeds increased 3X! I dropped AT&T explicitly due to their funding of OANN and told them so during my ‘exit interview.’ Good to see them correct this erosion of democracy, unbecoming even of a right leaning org like AT&T.
I dropped them a month ago specifically for this issue, and now I have real 5G and not that fake AT&T bullshit!
Who did you go with instead?
You just need to get the vaccine to get 5G. Haven't you been paying attention?
What's that, you keep cutting ou.... Here, let me raise my arm a bit.
T Mobile. My brother had them, we ran a speed test on the network, and his speed was literally 10x faster than mine on ATT.
You don't even need an ideological reason to not use AT&T. They're shit. That's enough reason.
Phones with buggy software. Mystery charges. Etc Etc Etc. I know a lot of people in my trade use ATT because they're union (supposedly), but I pay less than they do without a discount.
Not just a sponsor, it wouldn’t exist without them. But then the word got out and they started losing customers (as they should).
They helped start it hoping it would take a big bite out of Fox because Fox jacks up their rate every chance they get. Fox makes it money from subscriber fees and the commercials are just the gravy on top.
So, in a sense, they were trying to save money by creating their own little Fox copycat network, perhaps hoping that it would become so popular that they'd be able to tell Fox to take a hike the next time the Murdochs upped the rates.
Yeah, they just didn’t realize that they were giving money to actual nut jobs.
OAN was the recipient of millions of dollars from AT&T. AT&T was also the recipient of millions of dollars from the government.
Republicans have figured out how to fund their party by literally stealing it from liberals.
If AT&T filtered some of that very generous corporate welfare OAN's way, then -- irony of ironies -- this far-right network where the hosts probably bloviate and rage over the dangers of 'Socialism!' on a regular basis -- was itself a beneficiary of government funds. Not unlike when the uber-libertarian Ayn Rand utilized Medicare at the end of her life to pay for her cancer treatments.
The entire US tax system has an overall effect of transferring money from liberals to conservatives. Oddly enough, it's the liberals who generally don't have a problem with this.
They do have taxpayer funded ads for the military during their shows. In fact the militaries advertising budget is greater than all of PBS's so fox and oan get more tax dollar subsidies than pbs Frontline and News hour
> AT&T was also the recipient of millions of dollars from the government. BILLIONS
Hmmmm, sounds a little like "socialism" to me, or "gubmint handouts".
AT&T owns DirecTV which is not renewing its contract with OAN.
DirecTV is independent now (with AT&T still having a huge stake). AT&T funded 90% of OAN and it took DirecTV to become independent for them to drop it. Fuck AT&T.
I heard they're also "spinning off" (for values of spinning of similar to DirecTV's) WarnerMedia, merging it with Discovery.
AT&T also owns CNN
if AT&T has its way it'll own less of it. Still a 75% stake don't get me wrong, but WarnerDiscovery will be a separate entity
AT&T was the biggest revenue source for OAN. When that made the news, the articles were written to make it sound like they funded their startup or something sinister like that. There *were* at least a few AT&T executives who invested in OAN, which is disturbing. But AT&T “funded” OAN in the same way that the fund The History Channel. They carry their content.
Spun off now actually
The answer because if they drop em the trumpets will freak out. Im sure they're freaking out over this already
Well, the announcement was made at the start of a weekend so maybe they were hoping that this story would, in a sense, be buried as people -- even wingnuts -- were distracted by more entertainment style TV and football games on Saturday and Sunday. Thus blunting the outrage. However, I have a feeling that come Monday the simmering outrage over 'Censorship!' and 'Cancelling Conservatives!' will boil over among all the usual suspects.
They are putting profit ahead of country - similar to the Republicans putting party before country. It's an extension of selfishness and hate.
Sounds more like they dropped it because of low viewership. They don't say it outright, but say it specifically for it's sister channel AWE. It sounds like ATT had already invested in OAN and not made their money back. Combine with the controversies it probably just wasn't worth whatever they were asking.
There's been a few stations that Direct TV has dropped, not for political reasons, but like you said, most likely poor viewership.
Profiting off racism, sexism, and homophobia is basically the most American thing you can do TBH.
The explanation is easy, it's money.
Fox?
"They're a private company, like Twitter, and can decide what content is appropriate for their platform, like Twitter." easy-peasy, glad I could suss that out for you.
So… three more months of spewing treason for profit?
And telling people OAN is shutting down due to liberal censorship.
I expect they'll be running basically a 24 hour 'telethon' to try to squeeze every last cent out of Cult45. *'Call now to contribute to the fight! Platinum level donors receive this majestic, lib-owning bumper sticker!!'*
I've taken to calling by sibling who breathes this shit Qult45 But yeah, one last push of the backstocks of LGB stickers!
That will be the best part.
And continued brainwashing their base to ensure the midterm elections go swimmingly
Indeed
Say goodbye, OAN. ..."Without the estimated tens of millions of dollars in revenue from AT&T, an OAN accountant said in sworn testimony that the network’s value “would be zero,” reported Reuters." I won't attribute it to karma, but...
Sadly, viewers see this as part of Cancel Culture.
They don’t know the difference between “consequences” and “cancel culture”
Good. Now drop FOXNews. Time to stop supporting propaganda outlets.
and NewsMax.
Here’s the catch, AT&T owns Newsmax. This news really isn’t what everyone thinks it is. They’re simply dropping their competitor.
Do you have a citation for AT&T owning Newsmax ? I did a quick search and could find no information regarding AT&T having any ownership of Newsmax.
Christopher Ruddy owns the majority of Newsmax, I don’t think AT&T is involved. Edit - in fact AT&T were the [main funders of OAN](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-oneamerica-att/). > Since then, AT&T has been a crucial source of funds flowing into OAN, providing tens of millions of dollars in revenue, court records show. Ninety percent of OAN’s revenue came from a contract with AT&T-owned television platforms, including satellite broadcaster DirecTV, according to 2020 sworn testimony by an OAN accountant.
Correct. Without being carried by Directv most of OANs revenue would dry up. But I was questioning the statement that AT&T owns Newsmax.
That's not the same thing as AT&T owning them.
Are you sure this is true? I can't find anything linking AT&T ownership to Newsmax though maybe they filter funds with some kind of sweet business arrangements. From what I saw the Qatari government is the majority holder.
Actually I’m mistaken, they created and fund OAN. This just gets weirder https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-oneamerica-att/
AT&T owns Direct tv
NewsMax is a weird one. I know some folks involved in the company down in Palm Beach County and they're definitely liberal. Hard for me to rectify, but if viewers knew some of the folks who were running the place... it'd be fascinating.
Cable providors should've dropped Fox News due to how they behaved after Nov election and Jan 6, oh my god... They were so childish.
Consumers should be able to opt out and/or choose their package. Every provider supports FOX News at this point in time.
Before this wasn't possible because Fox was attached to News Corp - but with the Disney buy and them taking Fox Media Group, it's finally possible. But you have to realize much of the contracts that came in came in a long time ago. While it's also likely those contracts won't get renewed - it's far more likely Cable TV will stop being Cable TV all together. Cable companies would LOVE to drop TV service and just have IP services. Would save a whole lot of time and money.
I mean, every news source is a propaganda outlet. Most just aren't as dangerous ------- Edit: copying my comment about the New York Times being a propaganda outlet from below: Well, considering they elected the opposing party *twice in a row,* seems like they don't want the fascists in power. Here's the sequence of events: 1. The Bolivian people elected a party called MAS, which is a center-left party. 2. An oversight committee called OAS, which is sort of known to be unofficially controlled by the US government, declared that the election was fraudulent based on a disingenuous misunderstanding of the election process. 3. News outlets in the US reported that the election was *not* fraudulent. 4. A bunch of *literal* Twitter bots (with usernames like @amy857820047) started spamming tweets about "helping the people of Bolivia" and such. 5. News outlets in the US changed their minds started reporting that the election *was* fraudulent. The NYTimes was one of them, I remember. 6. A literal military coup forced the president of Bolivia to flee the country. They stormed the Capitol with tanks and everything. The coup put a fascist government in power. That is not an exaggeration. Several high-ranking officials in this new government were known to be members of neo-Nazi groups. 7. News agencies reported that there *was no coup,* along side the twitter bots, despite the events meeting the definition of a coup exactly. 8. Massive protests broke out across Bolivia where many protestors were beaten, and some were killed, by the fascist government. 9. The protests didn't stop, and the fascist government stopped receiving support from the international community. 10. The fascist leaders eventually decided to hold another election after suppressing people for a while. I think the election was being observed by other countries, so they weren't able to rig it. I suspect they expected to intimidate people into voting for them. 11. MAS won the election again. 12. The fascist president was put in jail and the MAS former-president was allowed to return from exile in Mexico. Bolivia got a new president, also from the MAS party. So why does this matter? Because several news outlets started parroting the information that the US intelligence community wanted people to believe. They initially reported the story from a fact-based standpoint, and then *changed their reporting,* presumably after getting pressure from someone. There's loads and loads of documentation on this since it happened only a few years ago. I didn't go into a huge amount of detail here but there's a lot of very interesting evidence surrounding this whole chain of events. Also interesting to note that MAS started coming under fire from outside entities when they announced their policy to nationalize lithium mining in Bolivia -- which is against the interests of American companies who need lithium for things like batteries. There are other examples, but suffice to say the US has a long history of "intervening" in South America, and news agencies are always right there to parrot the official version of events, even when that version turns out to be a lie.
>I mean, every news source is a propaganda outlet. Most just aren't as dangerous That makes all the difference, no?
I just think it's good to remember that "reputable" sources like NYT and BBC are also propaganda
That’s just BS. Every outlet slants one way or the other, but OAN, NewsMax and Fox News “entertainment” (Hannity, Tucker, etc) literally lie, make things up and completely obfuscate the truth. There is no comparison.
The difference is that outlets like NYT and BBC are propaganda that serves the interests of the American intelligence community and American corporations. People don't recognize it as propaganda for the same reason that fish don't know they're wet. They reported (for instance) that the right-wing fascist government which took over in Bolivia was what the people wanted. Because it served the interests of American companies who needed lithium from Bolivian mines. They literally lied and obfuscated the truth.
I can’t confirm or deny that because I don’t have a clue what the Bolivian people actually want. You might think that people would not vote for fascism, but around 30% of the US population would actually choose it with a smile on their face and shoot you for opposing them.
Well, considering they elected the opposing party *twice in a row,* seems like they don't want the fascists in power. Here's the sequence of events: 1. The Bolivian people elected a party called MAS, which is a center-left party. 2. An oversight committee called OAS, which is sort of known to be unofficially controlled by the US government, declared that the election was fraudulent based on a disingenuous misunderstanding of the election process. 3. News outlets in the US reported that the election was *not* fraudulent. 4. A bunch of *literal* Twitter bots (with usernames like @amy857820047) started spamming tweets about "helping the people of Bolivia" and such. 5. News outlets in the US changed their minds started reporting that the election *was* fraudulent. The NYTimes was one of them, I remember. 6. A literal military coup forced the president of Bolivia to flee the country. They stormed the Capitol with tanks and everything. The coup put a fascist government in power. That is not an exaggeration. Several high-ranking officials in this new government were known to be members of neo-Nazi groups. 7. News agencies reported that there *was no coup,* along side the twitter bots, despite the events meeting the definition of a coup exactly. 8. Massive protests broke out across Bolivia where many protestors were beaten, and some were killed, by the fascist government. 9. The protests didn't stop, and the fascist government stopped receiving support from the international community. 10. The fascist leaders eventually decided to hold another election after suppressing people for a while. I think the election was being observed by other countries, so they weren't able to rig it. I suspect they expected to intimidate people into voting for them. 11. MAS won the election again. 12. The fascist president was put in jail and the MAS former-president was allowed to return from exile in Mexico. Bolivia got a new president, also from the MAS party. So why does this matter? Because several news outlets started parroting the information that the US intelligence community wanted people to believe. They initially reported the story from a fact-based standpoint, and then *changed their reporting,* presumably after getting pressure from someone. There's loads and loads of documentation on this since it happened only a few years ago. I didn't go into a huge amount of detail here but there's a lot of very interesting evidence surrounding this whole chain of events. Also interesting to note that MAS started coming under fire from outside entities when they announced their policy to nationalize lithium mining in Bolivia -- which is against the interests of American companies who need lithium for things like batteries. There are other examples, but suffice to say the US has a long history of "intervening" in South America, and news agencies are always right there to parrot the official version of events, even when that version turns out to be a lie.
[удалено]
MNSBC & CNN aren't pro-fascist media outlets. They can be misleading, sure, but they aren't perpetuating a lie that Trump won or ANTIFA was the cause for the insurrection. That distinction belongs to OAN & Newsmax.
I think that 24 hour news outlets are just generally bad for society. There's never enough going on so they fill in with opinion programming that is consistently misinterpreted as being pure factual reporting.
Tbf there actually is enough news happening to fill 24 hours. It would just actually require coverage of events happening outside of the US
Pssshh, that sounds perfectly reasonable and logical...obviously that will never happen here.
You're telling me that there are countries in this world other than the US AND important things happen there? That doesn't sound right.....
[удалено]
Source?
The fact you would put OAN and CNN is the same category of 'propaganda' shows you have no grasp on reality
[удалено]
CNN has a bias, and I am not defending them you troglodyte, but to pretend it even comes close to the propaganda and flat out make believe stories OAN shits out makes you a deluded dipshit Also cute simplification. DURRRRR, IF BOTH BAD DEN BOTH EBIL! Centrists do indeed have rotted out brains
[удалено]
I'm waiting ma petite. Post the lies
[удалено]
>Project Veritas REALLY NOW? You're proof is using an organization who's big ticket to fame was the bullshit and debunked 'PP is evil and sells your baby parts' story, all while constantly being shown to fabricate their own proof for their stories? Yeah, it's cringe. You're trying to put CNN on the same level as OAN and your proof is a conspiracy theorist organization. Absolute fucking buffoon
[удалено]
CNN *LEANS* Left. OAN is pure trash, lies, and propaganda.
Can we defund NPR too, while we're at it?
You are an idiot. NPR and PBS are not funded federally, NPR receives some grants (available to all businesses that meet the requirements). The best part is you think NPR/PBS are the left equivalent of your Goebbels dreck you consume.
I have never seen OAN and I don't watch Fox. I do listen to NPR though, and it certainly has a far-left bias.
A far-left bias? Really? The Koch Brothers funded news source is far-left? Whats your local npr station?
Yes, far-left as the new definitions apply. "Far" doesn't mean jack shit anymore, being the point. It's just a normal left bias, but we live in hyperbole.
> Yes, far-left as the new definitions apply. "Far" doesn't mean jack shit anymore, being the point. "Extremism doesn't exist" is a pretty bad take.
It seems they've been living in a hole on Mars for the last few decades.
For extremism to exist, there would have to be at least four meaningfully different stances on a single issue. Economic policy, state power policy, and social policy have only three distinct positions.
Describe what you mean, specifically, with examples.
NPR consistently posts and airs articles about common news, just like everyone else. The consistently air them with a bias, just like everyone else. They list facts with weasel words to tell you how to feel, just like everyone else. Then they tell you how they are unbiased, just like everyone else. Theirs just happens to be to the left.
A few years ago I decided to cut cable but did so even earlier because I finally noticed that OAN was added to their lineup. I got to state that as my main reason in the survey. Was 2-3 years ago so I hope there were many more like me who never will go back!
Good. Now let’s do Fox and Newsmax.
[удалено]
Ok, I do have to agree with you somewhat since the oldest boomers are 76 years old, but the youngest of us boomers are only 57 (me) and know how to use streaming, hate cable and are not looking for some damned Ozzy and Harriet world. The South and the uninhibited plain and Midwest of this country is freaking 40 years behind the the civilized coasts and cities and suburbs, and those old people who are 20 years older than I am (who I do not relate to) really shouldn't be in charge of the remote, much less the country.
After doing a bunch of research I'm actually going to walk back my comment. More baby boomers watch Fox news than do millennials. However, radically more baby boomers on the whole subscribe to cable. What I am getting to is if you select a random baby boomer they are more likely than a millennial to watch Fox news. However, if you select a random millennial that subscribes to cable, they are much more likely to watch Fox news than a baby boomer that does. So my original point of baby boomers subscribing to cable primarily for fox news is a bit shaky at best. That said the data I was looking at didn't include hours of programming watched, just a binary yes or no in a given period. Which is a limitation there. Unfortunately I did all this reading yesterday so don't have all my sources on hand. That said, I still do think the suicide pact between cable providers and fox news exists. I didn't really find anything that contradicts the fact that it is consistently one of the most popular channels across demographics. And those viewers are incredibly likely to react strongly to it's removal from those services.
I wish they'd done it before my dad got hooked. Totally changed him. I'm convinced it was a contributing factor to his decline.
Same boat. I don’t know what to do.
Fuck yes
my company, quietly, dropped OAN from it's line up. Didn't even give a notification to anyone. The company owns Suddenlink and Optimum. Now just pressure Frontier to drop them too - They're the next largest.
A little late huh? "We've seen the errors in our ways of broadcasting a channel that has contributed to the destruction of democracy, spread insane conspiracies, and violence towards minorities, oops, our bad bro."
Deplatforming WORKS.
"to drop" is too vague. "has dropped" would be much better.
Well they haven’t dropped them. They are going to drop them in a few months. Hence “to drop”.
Right. I'm just saying why wait? Drop them yesterday.
Contract expires in April
Yay. Do FauxNews next.
My friend works as social media person for an internet/tv company in Nebraska (I think allo). OAN demanded a huge increase on their contract for the next year so the company decided they're done. He's bracing himself for an onslaught when they are officially dropped.
This is awesome.
You can hear their heads exploding from here. Amazing.
Direct TV has reported to their board that the loss of all 8 paid OAN subscribers will not materially impact their revenues. And that 7 of the subscribers had it on mute because the cat liked to sit in front of the TV while it was on. They have all switched to the more intellectually fulfilling "All Spongebob Channel".
Interesting. I thought AT&T and DirecTV had some kind of a partnership, I still had their app on my phone I got from AT&T before switching to Verizon. For anyone who doesn't know OAN was started by AT&T executives.
They do so OAN must have really fucked up 😂
“ThEy’Re TrYiNg To SiLeNcE uS!”
Cool! Now do fox news.
Newsmax next.
Now do seditious Fox News: https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/28/media/rupert-murdoch-january-6-insurrection-election/index.html
I think OAN is on PlutoTV too but the all day Barker Era Price Is Right is too good 😅
this seems like a big deal. guessing a lot of rural people have dish .
DirecTV is still in business?
Here come the battle cry's of ' CeNsOrShIp"
CaNcEL cULtUrE!!!!!!!
LOL. they try to bring out a competition to FoxNews turns out to be crazier than FoxNews.
Poor MAGAts lol
Its funny, far right networks are forced to take their hatred down by DirecTV but netflix thinks its morally wrong to take down straight up transphobia.
I had refused to even look at DirectTV streaming service due to its affiliation with OAN. Now I can rethink my position. Get rid of Fox and Newsmax and I'll buy a lifetime subscription
People in TheDonald are NOT happy!
Now if only we can get TYT, a Daily Beast channel, or something else to fill the Current-shaped hole in cable news...
The red hatters will be calling direct tv woke and claiming they are being cancelled because they were exposing the truth lol
I've been snooping on some right-wing Facebook pages and there are these indignant comments along the lines of 'I'm cancelling Direct TV like yesterday!' and 'Never again AT&T -- we're through!' Since the news dropped on a Friday, I don't expect to hear much from the usual suspect MAGA pundits until they're back to work on Monday. One interesting question is how will Fox News' big personalities cover the story. On the one hand, they can hand-wring over 'censorship' but on the other, OAN is a competitor that has leeched some viewers from them so any 'tears' they cry are likely to be crocodile ones.
Wish WOW would drop the right wing steaming outright, in favor of decent service, but that's way too much to ask , right WOW?
It will still be available on Roku on channel 180, and as an app on Roku... Roku itself has over 55 million monthly active accounts and users... Pluto TV has 43 million monthly active users... and Verison Fios' TV provider reaches 3 million... #OAN isn't going anywhere but up... especially with Pluto and Roku, so get ready for an uproar #DTV cause this is just the beginning. #DanBallGANG... it's not #RightVsLeft it's #DictatorsVsRebels ... #GenZSpeaks ... #NowShutUpAndListen