A decision by Verizon Wireless — later reversed — to restrict a text-messaging advocacy campaign by Naral Pro Choice America is being called “astonishing” by Nancy E. Schwartz, a nonprofit marketing consultant, in her blog, Getting Attention.
“Over the past few years, text messaging has become a core organizing tool for advocacy organizations,” she writes.
Yet Verizon Wireless rejected the abortion-rights advocacy group’s request to allow its supporters to participate in a Verizon text-messaging program that provides a simplified method for Verizon users to voluntarily sign up to receive text messages from organizations. The reason for the rebuff: a company policy that forbids organizations from participating if they “promote an agenda” that’s “controversial” or “unsavory,” according to an article in The New York Times.
“Seems that because NARAL makes Verizon Wireless cringe, users of the service can’t get the text messages they have subscribed to,” Ms. Schwartz says.
Verizon later changed its mind about baring Naral from the messaging program, stating that their earlier decision was based on “incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy.”
Ms. Schwartz, who called Verizon’s initial position “censorship,” concludes that the brouhaha was a “win” and a “happy ending” for Naral, in large part because the news coverage the group’s plight generated.
Other bloggers see the recent flap as yet another piece of the “net neutrality” debate over what control, if any, the companies that provide Internet or cellular services should have over the information conveyed over their systems.
“Net Neutrality may seem like a wonky policy issue, but you can see here that it could have a very dramatic impact on how our organizations use the Internet to do work,” writes Holly Hall, director of programs at the nonprofit technology network, on her group’s blog. “Wherever you stand on the issue, you should take a stand, and you should tell someone about it!”
So, was Verizon’s action simply a quickly corrected mistake, or an attempted act of censorship that should give charities pause?
