Search posterous

Search all posts and users. Type a name, type a favorite song title, whatever! See what comes up.
  

More posterous blogs











More recommended blogs »

Here are posterous posts filed under boycott...

imsaar says...

In my opinion web applications (or website that require you to register with a password) that send your password in clear text back in a confirmation email as a courtesy are bete noire of the internet.

There is absolutely no need to send me back my password that I just set unless I hit a forgot my password link. Even then it would be pretty bad to send me my password back in an email rather than a link to reset the password.

Email is not the most secure means of communication as many time people read there email without using a secure link (https) and what this means is all your email text is traveling back and forth over the network in clear text and can be easily sniffed (read from the connected computer on the network). I highly recommend people using secure https with their webmail (yet another reason to switch to gmail if your webmail provider does not support secure connection).

But it does not end with your password in your email which can be read or seen by others. Anybody sending you back your password in clear text is also storing it that way in their database hence anybody who has access to the database (legitimately or maliciously) can see all the account passwords for all individuals. A lot of the time people use the same password for different accounts on the internet (which is not a great idea but is convenient to remember just one password for which I recommend a variation of your base password based on the website name or something like that).

That being said I have finally decided to not take it anymore and expose all website that store and send password in clear text and recommend to boycott them until they fix it or at least change your password. Fixing this is not very expensive and is a common practice with boiler plate code available for anybody inclined to spend a few minutes caring about their users' security.

Here is a list of webapps that I have encountered so far (I will add to it as I find new ones, I encourage you to add new ones in the comments):

http://www.codertakeout.com

http://www.geekchart.com/

http://www.oclc.org/ (Ask Librarian system on KCLS.org website)

http://www.netfirms.com/

http://ToolsToLife.com

http://www.paltalk.com

http://qvisory.org

http://www.ShoZu.com

http://www.scanlife.com

http://sbfantasyportfolio.com

http://www.spongecell.com/

http://www.ahm-ownerlink.com/

http://www.greatfunsite.com/

http://www.macworld.com/

Some of these don't even have a place to change password which is insane. Try finding that on talkr.com or spongecell.com (My Profile is broken right now) or even macworld.com.

Some of these might be or get out of date as these website fix this problem or upgrade. Please let me know in that case and I will update this entry.

Filed under: boycott

MarkEdwards says...

Attack on Obama riles Beck's advertisers

By DAVID BAUDER (AP) – 7 hours ago

NEW YORK — Glenn Beck returns to Fox News Channel after a vacation on Monday with fewer companies willing to advertise on his show than when he left, part of the fallout from calling President Barack Obama a racist.

A total of 33 Fox advertisers, including Walmart, CVS Caremark, Clorox and Sprint, directed that their commercials not air on Beck's show, according to the companies and ColorofChange.org, a group that promotes political action among blacks and launched a campaign to get advertisers to abandon him. That's more than a dozen more than were identified a week ago.

While it's unclear what effect, if any, this will ultimately have on Fox and Beck, it is already making advertisers skittish about hawking their wares within the most opinionated cable TV shows.

The Clorox Co., a former Beck advertiser, now says that "we do not want to be associated with inflammatory speech used by either liberal or conservative talk show hosts." The maker of bleach and household cleaners said in a statement that is has decided not to advertise on political talk shows.

The shows present a dilemma for advertisers, who usually like a "safe" environment for their messages. The Olbermanns, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Maddows and Becks of the TV world are more likely to say something that will anger a viewer, who might take it out on sponsors.

They also host the most-watched programs on their networks.

"This is a good illustration of that conundrum," said Rich Hallabran, spokesman for UPS Stores, which he said has temporarily halted buying ads on Fox News Channel as a whole.

Beck can bring the eyeballs. With the health care debate raising political temperatures, his show had its biggest week ever right before his vacation, averaging 2.4 million viewers each day, according to Nielsen Media Research.

He was actually on another Fox show July 28 when he referred to Obama as a racist with "a deep-seated hatred for white people." The network immediately distanced itself from Beck's statement, but Beck didn't. He used his radio show the next day to explain why he believed that. He would not comment for this article, spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said.

ColorofChange.org quickly targeted companies whose ads had appeared during Beck's show, telling them what he had said and seeking a commitment to drop him. The goal is to make Beck a liability, said James Rucker, the organization's executive director.

"They have a toxic asset," Rucker said. "They can either clean it up or get rid of it."

It's not immediately clear how many of the companies actually knew they were advertising on Beck's show. Sometimes commercial time is chosen for a specific show, but often it is bought on a rotation basis, meaning the network sprinkles the ads throughout the day on its own schedule. Sometimes ads appear by mistake; Best Buy said it bought commercial time for earlier in the day, and one of its ads unexpectedly appeared in Beck's show.

One company, CVS Caremark, said it advertises on Fox but hadn't said anything about Beck. Now it has told its advertising agency to inform Fox that it wanted no commercials on Beck.

"We support vigorous debate, especially around policy issues that affect millions of Americans, but we expect it to be informed, inclusive and respectful," said spokeswoman Carolyn Castel.

Besides the unpredictability of the opinionated cable hosts, the rapid pace of today's wired world complicates decisions on where to place ads, said Kathleen Dunleavy, a spokeswoman for Sprint. She said she was surprised at how fast the Beck issue spread across social media outlets and how quickly advertiser names were attached to it.

UPS' Hallabran said the decision to pull commercials "should not be interpreted as we are permanently withdrawing our advertising from Fox." He said the company wants to reach viewers with a wide spectrum of opinions.

Except for UPS Stores, there's no evidence that any advertisers who say they don't want to be on Beck's show are leaving Fox. Network spokeswoman Irena Briganti said the companies have simply requested the ads be moved elsewhere and that Fox hasn't lost any revenue.

She wouldn't say whether Fox was benefiting from any anti-anti-Beck backlash, with companies looking to support him. Some Beck supporters have urged fans to express their displeasure at companies for abandoning their man.

Beck supporters have suggested that retaliation might have something to do with ColorofChange.org's campaign. One of the group's founders, Van Jones, now works in the Obama administration and has been criticized by Beck. But Rucker said Jones has nothing to do with ColorofChange.org now and didn't even know about the campaign before it started.

Beck's strong ratings — even at 5 p.m. EDT he often outdraws whatever CNN and MSNBC show in prime-time — make it unlikely Beck is going anywhere even with the list of advertisers avoiding him approaches three dozen.

But it could mean advertising time becomes cheaper on his show than such a large audience would normally command. Some of his show's advertisers last week included a male enhancement pill, a law firm looking to sue on behalf of asbestos victims, a company selling medical supplies to diabetics and a water filter company.

Rucker said ColorofChange.org has contacted about 60 companies regarding Beck, and is heartened by the response.

"It's causing a certain conversation around Beck, which I think is important," he said.

On the Net:

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Steely silence from Beck's radio syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks, part of the Clear Channel empire, in regards to any advertisers pulling out of his radio show. Hmmmmmmmmm.

Filed under: boycott

gellenburg says...


An online campaign against Fox News editorialist Glenn Beck is working.

Web site ColorofChange.org, reacting to a long line of racial comments about President Barack Obama, has managed thus far to knock loose from Beck's fold Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, Progressive, S.C. Johnson, GEICO, Men's Wearhouse and, just Wednesday morning, Sargento.

**UPDATE: On Thursday, ConAgra, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis and RadioShack all backed out of sponsoring Glenn Beck's programs, according to a media advisory.

"We applaud GEICO and all of the other companies who have stepped forward to pull their ads from Glenn Beck," said James Rucker, executive director of Color of Change, in a Tuesday media advisoryrelease. "Beck’s rhetoric is dangerous to the fabric of our democracy, and we are heartened that so many big companies feel the same way. We won’t stop here — we’re going to continue our fight to see that as many of Beck’s advertisers pull their support as possible."

And video clips like this may have something to do with it ...

Watchdog group Media Matters, which has emphatically joined in the crusade to knock Beck from cable television, notes that many of the advertisers who refused in 2006 to support progressive-tilted Air America radio are still backing Beck.

According to the group, those companies are: General Electric, Farmers Insurance, Office Depot, Nestlé (Gerber), Red Lobster, State Farm, Travelocity, the U.S. Postal Service, Walmart and Wyeth.

Media Matters includes of controversial, provocative (some would say shocking) segments on Beck's television program that, for the sake of brevity, is excerpted below:

Beck talks about "put[ting] poison" in Speaker Pelosi's wine. On his Fox News show, Beck gave a glass of wine to a person wearing a Pelosi mask, encouraged her to drink it, and then said: "By the way, I put poison in your -- no, I -- I look forward to all the policy discussions that we're supposed to have." [Glenn Beck, 8/6/09]

Beck: Obama is a "racist" and "has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture." Beck said: "This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy -- over and over and over again -- who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture -- I don't know what it is. But you can't sit in a pew with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff and not have it wash over." He later added, "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. He has a -- this guy is, I believe, a racist. Look at the way -- look at the things he has been surrounded by." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]

Beck: "Everything that is getting pushed through Congress, including this health care bill" is "driven by President Obama's thinking on ... reparations" and his desire to "settle old racial scores." According to Beck, "Everything that is getting pushed through Congress, including this health care bill, are transforming America. And they are all driven by President Obama's thinking on one idea: reparations." Beck later added that Obama's "goal is creating a new America, a new model, a model that will settle old racial scores through new social justice." [Glenn Beck, 7/23/09]

ColorofChange.org has created a simple form for media activists: just enter your name and off an objection goes, directly to Beck's remaining advertisers.

Whether the campaign will be successful remains to be seen. And while the conservative Fox News channel still appears resolute in keeping Beck, at this point there's bound to be some discussion of how to stem the tide of advertisers pulling their support.

-- Stephen C. Webster

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 12th, 2009 at 10:24 am and is filed under Uncategorized, business, entertainment, media, nation, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Filed under: boycott

gellenburg says...

Filed under: boycott

gellenburg says...

By Kenneth Hein

NEW YORK (Nielsen Business Media) - Some of the nation's biggest advertisers are distancing themselves from Fox News host Glenn Beck after he called President Obama a racist during a July 28 broadcast.

Geico has pulled its ads from Fox News Channel's "The Glenn Beck Program." Lawyers.com, which is owned by LexisNexis, also has vowed not to advertise during the program, according to Color of Change, an African-American online political organization that has been urging advertisers to stop supporting the show.

Additionally, Procter & Gamble, Progressive Insurance and SC Johnson all said their ad placements during the broadcast were made in error and that they would correct the mistake.

The controversy stems from Beck's comment that President Obama is a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people."

Geico spent more than a half-billion dollars on ads last year, according to the Nielsen Co. It spent more than a quarter-billion dollars in the first half of 2009.

A Fox representative noted that Geico is dropping its ads from the show but was quick to note that it was shifting dollars to other programs. "The advertisers referenced have all moved their spots from Beck to other programs on the network, so there has been no revenue lost," the rep said.

Beck's show pulled in an average of slightly more than 2 million viewers for each of its 19 telecasts in July, according to Nielsen.

Progressive Insurance representative Cristy Cote said that there has been a lot of confusion surrounding the company's involvement with the program. "We had not bought advertising on the show in the first place," she said, "so when we learned that our advertising had appeared on the show by mistake, we contacted the network to correct the error."

She said Progressive tries to "avoid programing that we believe our customers and potential customers might find extremely offensive."

A Procter & Gamble representative echoed that sentiment: "At times our ads are run by mistake on shows that they were not meant to ... Any of our ads that ran did so by mistake, and we'll try to make sure that doesn't happen in the future."

(Editing by SheriLinden at Reuters)

(please visit our entertainment blog via www.reuters.com or on blogs.reuters.com/fanfare/)

Filed under: boycott

An awful group has been in the news recently targeting (and slandering) stores for carrying Israeli products. A difficult challenge has emerged since the end of the recent Gaza War in January of how to counter the numerous boycotts launched against suppliers, vendors, and retailers throughout Europe who distribute or sell Israeli products. A major contributing factor to the difficulty in combating these boycotts was and remains the relatively small Jewish population throughout Europe, as compared to the much larger and growing Muslim population.

Very sadly, the tactic employed against Israeli products in Europe has now made its way to the United States, with an eye toward a grocery retailer that many of us patronize, Trader Joe's. In the United States there is a significantly larger Jewish population then there is in Europe and we now find ourselves in a position to actually be able to make an immediate and POSITIVE impact on Israel's behalf.

Trader Joe's has been targeted by anti-Israel groups for boycotts (and picketing) early this summer because of their refusal to bow to pressure by anti-Israel groups who have sought to have the store's management remove Israeli products from their shelves. The group spearheading this effort nationwide is the BOYCOTT DIVESTMENT CAMPAIGN, a coalition of anti-Israel groups that is based in Pittsburgh, PA. They are working in concert with the Northern-California-based South Bay Mobilization Group.

Together with other groups comprising this sinister coalition that aims to cast Israel as an Apartheid State in the vein of South Africa - a baseless charge that reflects ignorance and, most often, anti-Semitic sentiments, those targeting Trader Joe's seek to bring harm to Israel's economy and to tarnish its standing in American public opinion by mobilizing intimidating boycotts in a most offensive manner.

June 20 was their initial nationwide World Refugee Day where their website stated that "We invite you to organize in your community and deshelve, sticker, boycott, and protest the presence of Israeli products!" Fortunately, this first effort did not bare much fruit - The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles covered this story - http://tinyurl.com/ma3hcy

Here's what we can do:
* Learn more about this by reading the report issued on StandWithUs.com, an Israel-advocacy organization
* Shop at Trader Joe's - and introduce yourselves to store-managers and to let them know that one of the reasons that you are patronizing their store is precisely because of their principled and courageous determination to continue selling Israeli products. Let them know that you know of many others who feel this way, who might not choose to introduce themselves personally, but who have determined to support Trader Joe's all the more so because of its decision.
* Wherever you may shop - consider going out of your way to purchase Israeli products and thanking store-managers or proprietors for carrying Israeli products.
* Forward this post to help show how Jews in the USA, unlike in Europe can make a huge difference together on Israel's behalf. This will strengthen the Jewish community and uphold principles of freedom and decency that strengthen the United States on the whole as well.

Some of this material was derived from StandWithUs, NerTamid, Jewish Journal, Snopes

Filed under: boycott

Riker17 says...

Recently, I flew from Missoula, Montana to Fresno, California via Delta Airlines.  My journey was pleasant and, for the most part, uneventful.  The employees were all very polite and helpful and the worst that happened was them not getting one of my two checked bags back to me until the next day.  My first flight by myself and they misplace one of my checked bags.  Not a big deal, 'cause when I did get it back, all was in order and no complaint needed to be filed.  Not so for Dave Carroll.  Watch the video he created and follow his story.


An airline destroying a guitar and then not paying for its negligence is absurd and cause for a boycott.  You won't see me on United anytime soon.
Will Robertson of Livermore, CA

Filed under: boycott

Lee says...

I've seen some silly ideas in my time but this one really takes the biscuit.

On December 15th the members of a Facebook group of the same name will boycott Facebook for one day in a pathetic attempt to show their displeasure in the changes being made to Facebook.  The group administrator poses the question "What will happen if we all decide not to login on facebook for 1 day !".  Not sure when it became OK to punctuate questions with exclamation marks...  I digress...  I know exactly what will happen if a couple of hundred thousand people don't use the site for a day.  The servers will run under less load and work better for everyone else.

Protest FAIL.

Idiots.

Filed under: boycott

catchmikey says...


Over the past couple of weeks, you can read more and more about countries and even athletes that are threatening to boycott the opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. Of course there are a several reasons, but the main one has to do with the perception that China has been unable to improve human rights conditions. Here's a boycotting Beijing Olympics website.

People grouping together to send a message can be noble, but I question the effectiveness of boycotting the opening ceremonies. What's really going to result from such an action? Let's take the German Olympic judo champion Yvonne Boenisch for example. She plans to boycott the opening ceremonies because she wants "to send a signal" (Article) What kind of signal is she sending? That people really want China to change it's policies? Sure. But will anything change?

Changing policies could be the idea, but then you must ask her how motivated she is to getting China to change. I'm not sure how she was asked, but I believe the journalist in the article asked if she would boycott the entire games. She replied, ""For every athlete taking part in the games is the biggest thing. If there were a boycott, thousands of dreams would be ruined."

I would agree with her, especially being a former athlete and once hoping to play for the Italian baseball team.

But there is a lacking passion to get China to change it's policies. I agree that she's sending a message, but will it do much if anything? Going back to certain countries that are planning to do the same thing, what are they trying to accomplish? Send a message? Big deal.

If people want to really use the Olympics to make China change its human rights policies, I feel that stronger motives much be used. Sending a public message doesn't create policy change. The boycott must touch someone economically and create a long-term fear. If countries threatened to stop trading or significantly lessen foreign investments, which they never would, or something of the sort that could hurt China economically, then maybe these protesters might see the actions that they desire. But I don't think protesting the opening ceremonies but then allowing athletes to play in games, which will bring money and tourism into China's economy will affect human rights policies.

Rather than condemning China for its manufactured AK-47s that are being used in Darfur, just one example, why don't these same countries take stronger actions within this region? Don't send messages, send sources to induce change.

Please, I'd love to hear people's thoughts. It's a topic that interests me.

Filed under: boycott

thejackb says...

Hat Tip to the Deadhead by the Bay.

Look the reality is that it is always easy to point fingers. No country is without blame, but the question comes back to a question of balance and in this situation the Brits lack that.

Filed under: Boycott