Thord D. Hedengren

ℹ️ This is an archived legacy site for link purposes only.

Tag: Verizon

  • Verizon’s SugarString

    Verizon’s foray into tech publishing, SugarString, is shuttered. They left this statement to DSL Reports:

    SugarString is a pilot project from Verizon Wireless’ marketing group, designed to address tech trends, especially those of interest to our customers. Unlike the characterization by its new editor, SugarString is open to all topics that fit its mission and elevate the conversation around technology.

    SugarString was obviously doomed from the start. It’s never a good idea to limit what journalists are allowed to cover. A company in Verizon’s position has nothing to gain from a publication like this, unless they’re prepared to lie and cheat, which has a tendency to get out in the open in the end. Just look at the long list of dirt Samsung stunts over the years…

    Hat tip: The Verge.

  • Verizon's SugarString gagged

    Verizon’s tech site SugarString is banning net neutrality and surveillance issues, so long as they pertain to the US. The Daily Dot:

    News of Verizon’s publishing venture and its strict rules first came to light to multiple reporters through recruiting emails sent last week by author and reporter Cole Stryker, who is now the editor-in-chief of SugarString. (Stryker has also previously contributed to the Daily Dot.) I was one of the reporters who received that email. The premise and rules behind the site were explained to me in a series of messages throughout the day. I declined the job offer.

    Other reporters, who asked not to be named, have confirmed that they have received the same recruiting pitch with the same rules: No articles about surveillance or net neutrality.

    This is obviously icky as hell, but come on, you had to see this coming, right? The lesson is to not trust so-called news outlets funded by questionable interests. There’s no way SugarString’s reporting can be trusted, because who knows what other Verizon interests, and partners, it might protect?