Yahoo Blocked Emails About Wall Street Protests

itwbennett writes "People trying to email information about the Wall Street protests on Monday using Yahoo mail, found themselves on the receiving end of messages from Yahoo claiming 'suspicious activity'. ThinkProgress.org has a YouTube video of users trying to send emails that mention the 'OccupyWallSt.org' web site, which seemed to be the magic phrase to get your email blocked. Via Twitter, Yahoo announced the blockage was now fixed, but 'there may be residual delays.'"

Comments

If you send spam, that's what happens

[Anonymous Coward]

Mail containing the same URL hit a bunch of spamtraps and caused a lot of complaints. That's the sort of thing that gets your mail blocked.

Nothing to see here, no grand conspiracy of censorship, just spam filters doing what they do.

Re:If you send spam, that's what happens

[wierd_w]

I was going to ask how this url got blacklisted by the spam filter, but it it was unsolicited and mass mailed, then by definition it WAS spam, and the black listing happened automagically when users flagged it as such.

This scenario makes me wonder if a crowdsourced disruption campaign could disrupt email from major corporations intended for end user inboxes ("special offers" ahem...) simply by having the participants mass email each other a bulk list of urls relating to the target, then have them all report the chain letter as spam.

That would get a large number of corporate urls blacklisted for suspicious activity. (Assuming there aren't any sweetheart deals in place to specifically whitelist such web addresses, of course.)

So that's what all the fuss is about

[kervin]

I guess that's what I get for getting all my news from Slashdot.

I work in the Wall Street Area and for the last few days there's been literally dozens of cops, barricades, and they've blocking the subway stop ( at least the "J" which I use ). Coming to think of it, I did see a demonstration go by and a few people holding signs. But there are always demonstrations in the Wall Street area. It's just a common place for the cops to give demonstration permits in Manhattan I think.

If that what that was, I hate to break it to you guys, but the movement was a huge failure. At least so far. Besides the Authorities toughening security, it was business as usual

Re:So that's what all the fuss is about

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

The media did the same thing with the demonstrations in Wisconsin against the Anti-Union law that was hastily passed. Thousands of demonstrators but little coverage, but how strange, any little Tea Party gathering of 20-30 people got national coverage. I guess the rarity of that type of demonstration makes it News (or for the racist and defamatory signs)., whereas large demonstrations against corporate greed are more commonplace and not worthy of note. Or the liberal media really is now the corporate media.

Re:Talk about hypocrisy

[geekoid]

Since when is Yahoo a government agency?

Dumbass.

Only if you had Yahoo's spam protection enabled

[stox]

Accounts which did not have Yahoo's spam protection enabled did not have this blocked.

Re:Yahoo mail?

[geekoid]

It hit a spam trap. No conspiracy, no shadowy people preventing you from yahooing. Not big afroed white dude following you around.

Re:No censorship on youtube

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"Unless the people benefit, economic growth is a subsidy for the rich."
-- Richard Falk
"Post-Mubarak Revolutionary Chances", Aljazeera English 22nd Feb 2011

In related news...

[arielCo]

My corp antivirus is blocking OccupyWallSt.org:

Trend Micro OfficeScan Event

URL Blocked

The URL that you are attempting to access is a potential security risk. Trend Micro OfficeScan has blocked this URL in keeping with network security policy.
URL: http://occupywallst.org/
Risk Level: Dangerous
Details: Verified fraud page or threat source

Yay

Re:Talk about hypocrisy

[milbournosphere]

I'm also referring to the general communications blackout going on at this protest. Agreed, I guess yahoo can do whatever the fuck they want. But all the big media networks are conveniently looking the other way and ignoring protests up 10k + people. And people on the ground are getting arrested, cameras are being seized, and I've already seen several video accounts of police brutality. Yahoo may not be a government agency, but there are blatant violations of civil rights going on here, and the government doesn't seem interested in protecting peaceful protestors against those violations.

As if Yahoo were big enough to have any effect

[Timmy D Programmer]

I doubt they would knowingly censor emails (other than if it had the earmarks of spam). Why bother I'm sure the percentage of those protesters that use Yahoo as their email is quite small. So blocking them would have little to no effect.

Re:Talk about hypocrisy

[circletimessquare]

the USA is a corporatocracy.

The corporations are its government.

Yahoo is a de facto government agency in this regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

Empty Gestures

[morari]

I have yet to see any real protest come from this. You don't change policy by willingly confining yourself to the "free speech zones" that the police have set up. You don't change policy by going limp and zipping your mouth when confronted. You certainly don't change policy by loitering around a park eating pizza all weekend.

Instead of disrupting Wall Street, this group has done little more than create a weekend spectacle. They've largely played by the rules, and while that's great at making cops look like bullies, it doesn't actually achieve anything beyond a brief morning headline.

We need real protest. We don't need empty gestures and symbolic marches. We need action. We need rioting, and yes, even outright violence. The system is hostile toward us, why not repay the favor?

Re:No censorship on youtube

[jahudabudy]

At it's core, capitalism is that you own your own labor and your own product (if you produce something)

Until I take it from you b/c I have a bigger army. What's that, the government should prevent that from happening? So you think government should provide the services YOU want (protect your property and wealth), of course by taxing people. But government definitely shouldn't provide any services to anyone else that you disapprove of, b/c then taxation is theft.

I never said that the rich aren't getting a larger portion of the pie. I said that the pie is (has been) growing and everyone's portion is larger.

Except everyone's portion ISN'T getting larger. Proportionally, the middle class's portion is getting smaller, and the super-rich's portion is getting larger. How long do we have to wait until we complain about this? Until their larger portion has grown to 75% of the pie? 80%? 90%? As long as the rest of us has a subsistence level of existence (which not everyone does now)?

and I'll be damned if I let some lazy bastard with an entitlement complex demands I share because I have taken an unfair advantage.

Why is it that anyone that feels our current system is unfair must be a lazy slob that simply can't compete? Maybe I feel the system is unfair and that simply working harder to make sure I get mine would be contributing to a system that, again, I disapprove of. Maybe any system that has some people living in luxury while others literally die for lack of resources strikes me as immoral.

As for your assertion that capitalism is responsible for the overall better lifestyle (some) people enjoy, that's laughable. Technology has improved our lifestyle. Capitalism has supported some technological development, sometimes it has inhibited it. Government has supported some technological development, government has inhibited some.