AOL's refusal to deliver the August 5th Second Amendment Group email because it contained a link to an AOL banned news source which AOL cannot or will not name has elicited a number of comments like this:
"Dan this is really scary. You absolutely MUST tell those on your email group who are on AOL to get OFF that service right now, and to tell AOL why they are leaving. There is simply NO reason to subscribe to AOL any more. There are plenty of alternatives. This is the beginning of a slippery slope. Unless subscribers nip this in the bud right now, every single internet service is going to start censoring based on frivolous complaints from other subscribers. We must insist on NO censorship at all, complaints or no complaints. And I mean NO CENSORSHIP, even against Nazis, Jew-haters, etc." (the writer is Jewish)
A few others have written that they just cannot believe that AOL effectively censors the content of their email. Well, it does. If that bothers you and you would like to complain and perhaps switch from AOL,the AOL reference number for this censorship incident is 174241379.
NOTE:
AOL customers have not received the last Second Amendment Group mailing because AOL won't allow you to have it. AOL won't allow you to have it because it contains links to stories or news organizations that offend some AOL subscribers. That means AOL's censoring screener rejects any email containing them, including ones onto which my email was pasted.
Which links among the various major news and academic sites could possibly be so offensive and unsettling? "Jevon," the AOL representative I spoke with this morning could not say or would not say. He just said the email requires further investigation. However, he did say that AOL screens all emails for appropriate content and that ANY site link in an email that "enough" AOL customers have complained about will trigger a rejection. "Enough" in this context, he said, could mean as few as 50 or as many as 100.
So I asked, does that mean if 100 AOL customers say that they are offended by stories at The New York Times' site, that site link would be listed as one containing offensive or inappropriate content and cause a rejection of email containing it? "Yes," Jevon said.
Now, I'm often offended by what I see on The New York Times site and I'm glad to learn how easy it would be to mess with Frank Rich fans. Even so, if I were an AOL customer, I'd be switching to an ISP with more common sense.
This isn't a new story so much as a continuation and first-person confirmation of an old one from a credible source.
7 comments:
Time warner/AOL is noted for its anti-gun stance and lack of Bill of Rights support
They did this to me many years ago when they listed the NRA site as a porno site. I quit them then, but also they allow porn chat sites to be sent to the reader and his family that CANNOT BE BLOCKED! That is considered "free speech" by them that was sent to my kids!
Does the "Second Amendment Group" run a confirmed opt-in mailing list? If so, and if they have jumped through all these hoops and they're still getting blocked by AOL, then I would agree that AOL is blocking their e-mails for political reasons.
Mark Odell
Hey, Mark, I'm sure Gifford's list is voluntary. Is it ok if we email people we know, or who have emailed us about political issues, or lists of political activists we've been mailing to for years who have never complained? Or do we have to run a "confirmed opt-in mailing list" for the spam nazis to let us communicate?
Good luck getting off ALO. A buddy of mine had them charging his credit card every money for thirty bucks. I got him dial up for ninety bucks a year. He couldn't get them to "allow" him to stop service. He had to have the credit card company change his account number to stop ALO from charging him and the card company gave him a credit back against AOL. He was being hassled by collection companies out of India or some other shit hole and still is over two years later. He had to contact the AG here in Idaho and show he sent reregistered letters that had a return signature to show they got his demand to stop service.
The actions of AOL is clearly criminal to keep charging credit cards after clearly being told to stop the service. Yet no criminal actions have ever been taking against the folks that call the shots at AOL.
Do a web search and type in something like how to stop service with AOL. Get ready because you're in for a fight of your life.
Good grief! Hey Avgjoe, I dropped aol a few months back - no problems. Just changed my account status to the free service. Went to Time Warner's local office and turned in my modem (got a receipt for it.), and started up with ATT/Yahoo on DSL. So far I'm happy. My wife gets access to AOL and once every couple of months I go see who still thinks I'm on AOL.
I am curious though. I don't know if I subscribe to RKBA items. I get my NRA, TSA, and local Gun Club emails, no prob. I also access NRA etc, no prob.
> Hey, Mark, I'm sure Gifford's list is voluntary.
Hey, Mr. Anonymous 8/09/2008 5:41 PM Person, what are you basing that surety on?
> Is it ok if we email people we know, or who have emailed us about political issues, or lists of political activists we've been mailing to for years who have never complained?
Are you asking if it's okay with me, or if it's okay with them? Only the recipient gets to make that decision, not the sender and not the ISP. ("Spam isn't about content; it's about consent.") So if you really want to know, then you should explicitly ask them.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the claim that "political activists we've been mailing to for years ... have never complained" is valid: If some of them ever did start to complain, what had you planned to do about it? Do you think running a confirmed opt-in mailing list would help you execute that plan? If not, why not?
> Or do we have to run a "confirmed opt-in mailing list" for the spam nazis to let us communicate?
Why do you put that phrase in scare-quotes?
When you say "the spam nazis", to whom specifically are you referring, and for what cogent reasons?
If AOL are being "spam nazis", then (as has been mentioned) the solution is to dump AOL; they can't force anyone to be their customer. I merely wondered if the "Second Amendment Group" had done everything they could reasonably do according to AOL's policies&procedures WRT deliverability. I reiterate: if they have, and if they're still being blocked by AOL, then yes, there's a real problem.
And BTW, running a confirmed opt-in mailing list (note the absence of scare-quotes) is about more than just avoiding running afoul of the "spam nazis" (whoever they might be).
Mark Odell
Post a Comment