29 ms·

FYI if you read on in the twitter thread cited by the story, this has been walked back as bad communication by the company. They say they intended to allow any

FYI if you read on in the twitter thread cited by the story, this has been walked back as bad communication by the company. They say they intended to allow any customer who wants FB and Twitter to be blocked by the ISP to reply to that email and that's what would happen. Not that it would be universally blocked for all customers. Owner does not seem to be the best communicator, he admits this and says in his defense it has been three days of nonstop emails and calls that he answers even in the middle of the night. So maybe he's not thinking clearly. Still, pretty ridiculous.

hundchenkatze 6y ago
Sure, they can try to claim that now. It's pretty clear that they blocked it for everyone and people have email them to be whitelisted. "So we have a solution if you or your family would still like to be able to connect to Facebook or Twitter please let us know and we can add you to the allowed list to be able to not be blocked [...]"
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  That isn't a miscommunication. There are two phrases in that sentence with the same intent.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bawolff 6y ago
Lol, that makes even less sense
munificent 6y ago
No, their initial email is clear that they will be blocking the sites for all customers unless the customer asks it to be unblocked.
- godshatter 6y ago
  From what I gather, they apparently blocked FB and Twitter because they were getting too many customers asking them to block those sites. It was presumably less time consuming to block them all than to handle all those requests individually. Until it blew up, anyway. Suddenly they are losing business and scrambling to enable it for those that want it, so they backtracked on it. They could have saved a lot of time and anguish if they had simply said "no" to those who originally wanted them blocked.
  - masonic 6y ago
    they apparently blocked FB and Twitter No, they hadn't blocked anything yet. It was a proposed feature to begin the 13th.

hundchenkatze 6y ago

Sure, they can try to claim that now. It's pretty clear that they blocked it for everyone and people have email them to be whitelisted. "So we have a solution if you or your family would still like to be able to connect to Facebook or Twitter please let us know and we can add you to the allowed list to be able to not be blocked [...]"

MattGaiser 6y ago
That isn't a miscommunication. There are two phrases in that sentence with the same intent.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bawolff 6y ago

Lol, that makes even less sense

munificent 6y ago

No, their initial email is clear that they will be blocking the sites for all customers unless the customer asks it to be unblocked.

godshatter 6y ago
From what I gather, they apparently blocked FB and Twitter because they were getting too many customers asking them to block those sites. It was presumably less time consuming to block them all than to handle all those requests individually. Until it blew up, anyway. Suddenly they are losing business and scrambling to enable it for those that want it, so they backtracked on it. They could have saved a lot of time and anguish if they had simply said "no" to those who originally wanted them blocked.
- masonic 6y ago
  they apparently blocked FB and Twitter No, they hadn't blocked anything yet. It was a proposed feature to begin the 13th.