Using digital manipulation to literally erase any critic of the administration is a pretty great way to stifle any kind of dissent, and it's pretty easy when you're in control of the national networks. It's also scary, reminiscent of the "memory holes" from 1984 and a startling sign of an oppressive government.

It's not just politicians and talk shows that are affected, either.

Televizor, a rock group whose name means TV set, had its booking on a St. Petersburg station canceled in April, after its members took part in an Other Russia demonstration.

When some actors cracked a few mild jokes about Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev at Russia’s equivalent of the Academy Awards in March, they were expunged from the telecast.

Indeed, political humor in general has been exiled from TV. One of the nation’s most popular satirists, Viktor A. Shenderovich, once had a show that featured puppet caricatures of Russian leaders, including Mr. Putin. It was canceled in Mr. Putin’s first term, and Mr. Shenderovich has been all but barred from TV.

It's a pretty scary reminder that while we usually see technology as fun and convenient, a neat diversion from our daily lives, new digital video editing tech allows for some pretty horrible things to take place. [NY Times]

China now boasts the world's largest mobile phone and Internet user base—about 574 million have cellphones and 221 million are regularly logged online. Chinese witnesses to the Sichuan quake's wreckage are flooding websites with videos, first-hand accounts and—most impressively—criticism of government-sponsored rescue attempts. Even the state-controlled media has gained the freedom to show distressing images without having to go through the usual censorship bodies.

Though there is little hope that the Chinese government will stay as hands-off as it has been the last week, its behavior is a far cry from the last time China encountered such a devastating natural disaster. In 1976, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake hit Tangshan province. Chinese censors clamped down immediately and the actual death toll from the event (anywhere between 240,000 to 779,000) is still up in the air. [AP]

(photo from Agence France-Presse — Getty Images)

They did the same thing on the webcasts from Bonnaroo in June during the John Butler Trio show when he was talking about the lack of response from our government during Katrina, and also during the Flaming Lips show when the lead singer was talking about how much George Bush had screwed up. I was at both of those live shows and saw the webcasts later. The sound did not cut out at any other time—only when someone was talking about George Bush or the goverment in a negative way.

When we asked AT&T for a comment, they released the following statement, essentially fessing up to past censoring but promising to not do it in the future:

It's not our intent to edit political comments in webcasts on attblueroom.com. Unfortunately, it has happened in the past in a handful of cases. We have taken steps to ensure that it won't happen again.

This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media.

AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.

Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of "NetNeutrality." Check out The Future of Music or Save the Internet for more information on this issue.

Most telecommunications companies oppose "net neutrality" and argue that the public can trust them not to censor..

Even the ex-head of AT&T, CEO Edward Whitacre, whose company sponsored our troubled webcast, stated just last March that fears his company and other big network providers would block traffic on their networks are overblown..

"Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider." (Marguerite Reardon, Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: March 21, 2006, 2:23 PM PST).

But what if there is only one provider from which to choose?

If a company that is controlling a webcast is cutting out bits of our performance—not based on laws, but on their own preferences and interpretations —fans have little choice but to watch the censored version.

What happened to us this weekend was a wake-up call, and it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band.

The editing of the Pearl Jam performance on Sunday night was not intended, but rather a mistake by a webcast vendor and contrary to our policy. We have policies in place with respect to editing excessive profanity, but AT&T does not edit or censor performances. We have that policy in place because the blue room is not age-restricted.

We regret the mistake and are trying to work with the band to post the song in its entirety.

Vice Admiral Robert Murrett, head of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, recently stated that the government is increasingly uncomfortable with the images being available online. They might take steps such as cutting funding of satellite companies that provide Google with the images, which would be a pretty weak move on their part. No word on whether or not they'll ban YouTube in the U.S. until they agree to take this video down. You know you're in trouble when you're taking free speech cues from North Korea. –Adam Frucci

Information Week [via Boy Genius Report]

While our brothers-in-arms at Kotaku seem to only care about gardens, neighbourhoods and doing "cute little waves" with their Sixaxis in Sony's upcoming PlayStation Home, here in Gizmodo we only care about one: sex the naughty bits. Apparently, Sony has decided to actively monitor public spaces for profanity and "inappropriate behaviour". And while they won't be policing private areas, they are going to enforce those "inappropriate behaviour" rules there too, following any complaints they may receive from users.

For sure, they want to protect kids and avoid the usual suspects, but wouldn't you like to be able to do and say whatever you want at your own Home's home? And what I really want to know: would people be able to show their privates in private spaces? What about some other kind of «cute Sixaxis waving»? Your answers, after the jump.–Jesus Diaz

HOME - MORE QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM SONY [Threespeech via Playfuls]

For clarification, here's part of the original Q&A that Threespeech had with Sony:

How much freedom will people have in their private spaces?

"Our policy is not to actively police private areas, and a user cannot be invited to another user's private space until they have accepted an invitation to be on their buddy list. However, the complaints process will still operate in these private spaces, so if people feel that they have been subjected to inappropriate behaviour while in someone's private space, they will be able to lodge a complaint by the usual process."

What means of moderation will be in place for abusive language?

"We will have a basic text profanity filter, though, as noted above, text and voice will be turned off for users not of age."

You can read it the rest following the link.

The videos you'll actually be able to see are ones that have been "selected and approved by the companies...that [have] the broadest appeal and highest entertainment value." Um, isn't that the very definition of censorship? And what are the odds that some of the selected videos you'll see are ads for soap?

I would think that the massive popularity of YouTube can be attributed to videos that might not exactly meets Verizon's "editorial and taste" guidelines. Translation: don't expect too many video saying, "Verizon Sucks!"

Both Google, the new owners of YouTube, and Verizon are just thrilled to be offering us an anemic version of the popular video sharing Web site. But fear not, non-Verizon Wireless users: YouTube will only remain exclusive to Verizon for a "limited period of time."

So, who's willing to pay $15 per month for a censored, anemic version of YouTube that you can enjoy on a 1-inch screen? – Nicholas Deleon

YouTube Coming Soon to Cellphones [New York Times]

We Gizmodians like our gadgets shiny and our movies uncut, but lots of folks want to censor movies, cutting them up the way they see fit. But a federal judge in Colorado sided with the Directors Guild of America, saying no, third parties can't edit and then re-release movies with the naughty words removed. He chewed up and spit out prude-infested companies such as CleanFlicks, CleanFilms and Family Flix USA, telling them they can't sell or rent these "cleaned-up" movies any more.

Rightfully so. These movies already had one editor. That job was done by a trained professional. As a director, the whole idea of some hack editing my work and then re-selling it makes my skin crawl. If someone doesn't want to hear certain words or phrases, the movies containing such language are well-marked. They can simply choose not to watch those movies.

Justice is done. The judge said it's up to the moviemakers to decide what's in their content. CleanFlicks plans to appeal that ruling. To those who want to censor movies, cleaning them up for their own prudish devices, here's a choice phrase, specifically edited just for them: fuck you. – Charlie White

Sanitizing movies illegal says judge [ars technica]