We've reached out to Zune to see if there's a way to adjust settings to switch it off, but if that's how Microsoft rolls, well, what a b%tch move.

UPDATE: That is how Microsoft rolls, at until they fix it. A spokesperson provided us with the following response:

"The recently released Twitter for Zune HD application has been abbreviating some explicit words in tweets when viewed on the device; however these explicit words do appear in their full text on the Twitter site or on any other Twitter client. We have identified the issue and are taking steps to update the application as soon as possible to ensure Twitter for Zune HD users are able to view tweets in their original state."

So looks like there's no way to view your tweets as written for now, but we'll keep you posted as soon as we hear about a successful update. [Engadget]

McLaughlin, a major supporter of net neutrality rules, made the comment in a telecom law conference last Thursday by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln law school. Reaction was swift from AT&T's chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi:

"It is deeply disturbing when someone in a position of authority, like Mr. McLaughlin, is so intent on advancing his argument for regulation that he equates the outright censorship decisions of a communist government to the network congestion decisions of an American ISP. There is no valid comparison, and it's frankly an affront to suggest otherwise," Cicconi said.

Maybe so, but it's a slippery slope. At any rate, the bottom line is that ISPs are going to end up screwing us one way or another—either with some sort of tiered internet, or pricey data caps. [Washington Post]

Google claims their site automatically removed the search listing because of perceived malware threats, and had nothing to do with what People's Daily actually published. People's daily though feels as though they were the victim of an unfair attack, calling the event "malicious."

Pot. Kettle. Black. [The Register]

Hollow, because China's still got a national content firewall, which pretty much precludes access to naked folks and Tibet's Wikipedia page, or whatever it is that the government wants blocked. Hollow, because lots of Chinese citizens don't own PCs, and depend on internet cafes for access. Hollow, because it sounds like this drawdown was due to logistical concerns, and doesn't reflect a change of philosophy in the government, which keeps hatching more and more plans to keep "true things" (and evidently, "sexting") from its citizens:

The government recently proposed a requirement that all users of online chat rooms and bulletin boards use their real names when posting comments, a move that would stifle the sometimes-freewheeling debate on many sites. Until now, government censors have played a cat-and-mouse game with anonymous Internet users who posted comments that flout approved positions.

That's mildly terrifying, for Chinese e-people! [NYT]

Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org. To prevent this attack from disrupting service for the impacted AT&T customer, and to prevent the attack from spreading to impact to our other customers, AT&T temporarily blocked access to the IP addresses in question for our customers. This action was in no way related to the content at img.4chan.org; our focus was on protecting our customers from malicious traffic.

Overnight Sunday, after we determined the denial-of-service threat no longer existed, AT&T removed the block on the IP addresses in question. We will continue to monitor for denial-of-service activity and any malicious traffic to protect our customers.

I'm sure that won't stop the 4chan retaliation, but it's good to know censorship hasn't taken hold at AT&T. Yet.

Update: 4chan's Moot says:

Unfortunately, as an unintended consequence of the method used [to filter a DDoS attack against 4chan], some Internet users received errant traffic from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers.

In response, AT&T filtered all traffic to and from our img.4chan.org IPs (which serve /b/ & /r9k/) for their entire network, instead of only the affected customers. AT&T did not contact us prior to implementing the block. Here is their statement regarding the matter.

In the end, this wasn't a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T's part. Whoever pulled the trigger on blackholing the site probably didn't anticipate [nor intend] the consequences of doing so.

[AT&T, 4chan]

Whatever the reason, the fact that AT&T won't officially comment on the matter virtually confirms that they were taking some action against 4chan earlier today. If there wasn't a valid security reason for blocking access to the site, then AT&T's actions are deeply troubling, to say the very, very least.

Access has since been restored, but expect the reprisal from 4chan—like planting the story that AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson died outside his house—to continue. 4chan's Moot says AT&T has yet to contact them. [4chan, TechCrunch]

The core of the regime's online efforts is a process called deep packet inspection, which essentially scans nearly all internet traffic for offending material and can give authorities the ability to block the offending communications or, more importantly, identify where they came from. As you can imagine, this is quite a terrifying prospect for protesters, journalists and dissidents.

Here's how it happened: In 2008, the Iranian government contracted Nokia Siemens Networks, among others, to help update its communications infrastructure, predictably requesting power to monitor and control internet traffic. With the government's full monopoly on the industry and poor human rights record in full view, Nokia Siemens Networks obliged, installing a cutting-edge "monitoring center", which the WSJ calls one of the "most sophisticated" in the world.

Obviously Nokia and Siemens couldn't have foreseen this exact outcome, but honestly, what did they expect? For a government to use powers like this for good? [WSJ]

First, potentially explicit images and video content will now be coming from a separate single domain, explicit.bing.net. This is invisible to the end customer, but allows for filtering of that content by domain which makes it much easier for customers at all levels to block this content regardless of what the SafeSearch settings might be. This makes it much easier for filtering software to block unwanted content if SafeSearch has been turned off.

In addition, we will begin returning source url information in the query string for images and video content so that companies who already use this method of filtering will be able to catch explicit content on Bing along with everything else they are already blocking for their customers.

So no, it won't affect your ability to get some bada-bing in the privacy of your own home, but your company or school will be able to filter all of it easily. Kudos to Microsoft to think about those who care about these things without affecting those who don't care. [Bing]

If you guessed "crazy Chinese software engineer who wants to censor all Chinese computers," you're right and remarkably prescient! The Chinese government hired Jinhui Computer System Engineering Co., the CEO of which uttered the quote above, to develop software that blocks pornography and various other things they find dangerous. But China wants this software to be packaged with every computer sold in the country, which makes me feel a little guilty for attacking comparatively benign DRMed music files for all those years.

The software will block pornography but will also have the ability to block anything else the Chinese government wants, which will probably include any pro-Tibet independence sites, any anti-Communist Party sites, and almost certainly Gizmodo. Zhang, said CEO of Jinhui, said the software will allow the user to uninstall it or modify it, though who knows how easy that'll be. But regardless, all primary and secondary schools have been forced to keep this software on their computers, starting at the end of last month. Way to be lame, China. [AP]

So, it appears that Apple has caved in to the criticism, further illustrating that their approval system is all kinds of messed up. All that aside, I'm just happy it's on it's way. [Twitter]

And just what was the bad, potty-mouthed content? Why, it was a reference to The Downward Spiral, hence the ridiculous references in the lead of this post.

That's about all we know for now, but sadly this is yet another example of the increasingly wonky Apple App Store approval/rejection process. Late last month, there was the infamous baby shaking app, which inexplicably managed to get through the approval process, before getting quickly pulled.

Perhaps that major gaffe has made Apple's trigger finger a bit more itchy as of late? Perhaps.

Update: Trent Reznor responded to this story with a little more detail in the official NIN forums. Be careful, kids, it gets a bit blue!

Now, "The Downward Spiral" the album is not available anywhere in the iPhone app. The song "The Downward Spiral" I believe is in a podcast that can be streamed to the app.

Thanks Apple for the clear description of the problem - as in, what do you want us to change to get past your stupid fucking standards?

And while we're at it, I'll voice the same issue I had with Wal-Mart years ago, which is a matter of consistency and hypocrisy. Wal-Mart went on a rampage years ago insisting all music they carry be censored of all profanity and "clean" versions be made for them to carry. Bands (including Nirvana) tripped over themselves editing out words, changing album art, etc to meet Wal-Mart's standards of decency - because Wal-Mart sells a lot of records. NIN refused, and you'll notice a pretty empty NIN section at any Wal-Mart. My reasoning was this: I can understand if you want the moral posturing of not having any "indecent" material for sale - but you could literally turn around 180 degrees from where the NIN record would be and purchase the film "Scarface" completely uncensored, or buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto where you can be rewarded for beating up prostitutes. How does that make sense?

You can buy The Downward Fucking Spiral on iTunes, but you can't allow an iPhone app that may have a song with a bad word somewhere in it. Geez, what if someone in the forum in our app says FUCK or CUNT? I suppose that also falls into indecent material. Hey Apple, I just got some SPAM about fucking hot asian teens THROUGH YOUR MAIL PROGRAM. I just saw two guys having explicit anal sex right there in Safari! On my iPhone!

Come on Apple, think your policies through and for fuck's sake get your app approval scenario together.

[Trent Reznor's Twitter via Slashdot]

Search functionality is also affected, allegedly, as the banned books will not show up in search even when the exact name is entered.

From LiveJournal user and Amazon Advantage member Mark Probst's entry on the censorship of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered reading material (Note: Amazon's PR response was bolded by the author of the diary entry):

On Amazon.com two days ago, mysteriously, the sales rankings disappeared from two newly-released high profile gay romance books: "Transgressions" by Erastes and "False Colors" by Alex Beecroft. Everybody was perplexed. Was it a glitch of some sort? The very next day HUNDREDS of gay and lesbian books simultaneously lost their sales rankings, including my book "The Filly." There was buzz, What's going on? Does Amazon have some sort of campaign to suppress the visibility of gay books? Is it just a major glitch in the system? Many of us decided to write to Amazon questioning why our rankings had disappeared. Most received evasive replies from customer service reps not versed in what was happening. As I am a publisher and have an Amazon Advantage account through which I supply Amazon with my books, I had a special way to contact them. 24 hours later I had a response:

In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude "adult" material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists. Since these lists are generated using sales ranks, adult materials must also be excluded from that feature.

Hence, if you have further questions, kindly write back to us.

Best regards,

Ashlyn D
Member Services
Amazon.com Advantage

Well, happy Easter everyone! As the author notes later in his journal, Harold Rollins' and Jackie Collins' steamy romance novels remain unaffected. A quick Twitter search on the current Amazon hashtag protest #amazonfail revealed that lesbian parenting books are also banned from search and best seller lists, yet Sex and the City the movie is not (but the book is!).

Truly, a PR clusterfuck for the ages.

P.S. - With the new filter in place, a 5:40 p.m. EST search on "homosexuality" over at Amazon search turned up nothing but, well, mostly anti-homosexuality garbage.

Update 2: The system by which books are banned and which ones remain is something akin to Amazon randomly reaching into a Scrabble bag and throwing out whatever tiles they can get ahold of. Except all the titles are LGBT books. More from Valleywag. [LiveJournal and Twitter and FP.net - Thanks, David]

The Australian Communications and Media Authority's blacklist already contains 1370 sites, only 674 of which actually relate to child porn. The others are legal to view for those 18-and-over, but would have been blocked under the censorship proposal – such as an anti-abortion website that showed photographs of allegedly aborted fetuses (Sure, it's gross and unnecessary-but pro-lifers have the right to use those disgusting, low-blow tactics if they want).

Plus, there was no evidence that internet-filtering would have been effective in the first place. Though Communications Minister Stephen Conroy had started trials with six ISPs, the three largest internet providers were not involved, rendering any results from the trials more or less useless.

So, in the end, a combined opposition of the Australian Liberal Party, Greens and two Independent senators laid the smack-down on the "unworkable censorship measures," and now it's not going through. Hurrah! [Sydney Morning Herald via Boing Boing]

The building that caught fire was the Rem Koolhaas designed companion to the CCTV angular marvel. Named the Television Cultural Center, it was supposed to be a more lighthearted companion to its hulking sister. Besides a 300 room luxury hotel (The Mandarin Oriental), it would have also held restaurants and spas, recording studios and a 1,500-seat theater.

The design was equally as fascinating as the CCTV headquarters (nicknamed Big Underpants or Big Hemorrhoids by the Chinese public). The Office of Metropolitan Architecture, Koolhaas' firm, drew inspiration from giant termite mounds.

The first four floors protruded from the building's facade like randomly-arranged boxes and the entire building was to be wrapped in a unique titanium zinc alloy. OMA had chosen the material, ironically, because it would "endure time better than other metal buildings."

Right now the official story is that the Mandarin Oriental, which was located at the top, caught fire from the myriad of fireworks set off to mark the Lantern Festival. Beijing usually bans the fireworks from its downtown area, but eases restrictions during the Spring Festival period (we really, really love our fireworks). But did you see how that building burned? Has anyone ever seen a skyscraper light up like that without... you know, being hit by a jet?

But what weirds me out the most is the government response. This notice went out to news websites, BBS and blogs telling moderators to stop reporting on the CCTV fire. That means posting no more pictures, videos and only using the officially-sponsored Xinhua report.

Why? Some say it's because the CCP doesn't want anybody to know about it until they've determined the cause of the fire – having millions assume that Beijing was under terrorist attack would be damaging to the country's harmony. But wouldn't a "The CCTV building caught fire last night. Cause is unknown, but terrorism is unlikely" blurb solve that?

I know I'm living in a country that doesn't find anything wrong with censorship. And sometimes, considering the scarily huge masses of people they have to deal with, I can understand why. Nonetheless, my jaw's really on the floor right now. I never thought that something this newsworthy, and this hard to hide, would get the silent treatment. I eagerly await what they government say when they finally hold a press conference on it.

The pictures are from Flickr user fuzheado. Here's another amazing gallery of the TVCC building by Ai De Ke.

Right now, satellite television is still technically illegal in China, thanks to a 1993 regulation that said only hotels, media outlets and apartment buildings that are specifically for foreigners are allowed to use satellite dishes. Because of that, there's no China-branded satellite company and most TVs come with just the smattering of local regional Chinese channels and, of course, the CCTV.

There's a way around it though. A gray market has popped up in most cities to provide satellite cable services – including cable boxes and regularly updated encryption cards – for anyone willing to pay. Roughly $300 a year will get you channels like BBC World and CNN, HBO and (my personal favorite) the Discovery Channel.

The cards catch satellite signals from the Philippines, which are usually good at not crapping out and give you the added bonus of occasionally glimpsing a crazy mirror world of good ol' American pop culture. Did you know the Philippines had a Project Runway of their own called... Project Runway Philippines?

But I digress. Illegal Filipino satellite equipment saved me from what local Chinese had to watch: The CCTV's live (up until a certain moment) broadcast of the President's inauguration address.

Oh crap! Did he just say “fascism and communism”?! CUT CUT CUT. Um... so, person translating the broadcast... uh... what kind of problems do you think Obama will be facing with regards to the U.S. economy?

The rest of the address was only broadcast later in government-approved snippets.

I suppose I should also take time to be thankful that I speak English, since translations of his speech also had offending parts edited out.

Andy Burnham wants the US and UK governments to work together to police the internet to keep it safe for kids. In addition to his brilliant ratings idea, he also wants to force ISPs to offer services that only serve kid-friendly websites and "take-down times" that require sites to remove "harmful" content in a designated time period.

Beyond the obvious logistical problems here (Who rates the websites? What websites would assent to this? Where's the line between kid-friendly and kid-unfriendly?), this is clearly an attack on freedom of speech rights. Luckily, I'm pretty sure the chances of pro-net-neutrality Barack Obama agreeing to these idiotic plans are slim to none, so we'll just let Burnham talk all he wants. As long as they stay on his side of the pond, he can say whatever he likes. [Reuters]

I guess it shouldn't be too shocking coming from a country with a Censorship Minister, but this is still pretty ridiculous. Said minister Stephen Conroy posted on his department's blog recently that they were planning to test new filters to block BitTorrent traffic country-wide.

Australians, what do you have to say about this? Why are you electing jackasses like this that are turning your country into a less productive version of China? [Slashdot via News.com.au]

"There are things you cannot do in China because of certain regulations," says Wang. "TV is simply off limits. If you take away TV you didn't have a large market, so I began thinking how to bring entertainment to China, where there were already 10 to 20 million broadband users and I knew it would build up."

Of course, the 10 to 20 million figure is from 2004. Now, China boasts almost the same amount of internet users as the population of the United States. Tudou, which as grown threefold since just last year, now serves 100 million videos a day and garners about 75 million unique users a month. Though only about 5 percent of the videos on the site generate advertising revenue, that's already better than Youtube's 3 percent figure.

The biggest problems Tudou faces is, not surprisingly, the Chinese government. Wang employs about 100 people that focus just on vetting videos that are uploaded to the site – lest they be copyrighted... or, more importantly, contain banned political content. After all, since his servers and staff are all in China, a company shut down notice is literally always one uncensored clip away. [Guardian UK]

Now if only the Chinese government could censor that damn song... [China Channel via MAKE]