Yes.. all true-ish. Sorta.

Post #25,348 by Ashton 1/23/02 6:11:23 PM Reply	Yes.. all true-ish. Sorta. It's the EXAMPLE I referred to: that of, see? lots o'folks don't care if we er select.. what they may see, hear, respond to [or not]. For US = Ashcroft consumption and utilization - for just one. Jesse helms for two. ____ for n others. Never mind the worldwide forces as ever shall be: there will Always be Those Who Know What You Should[n't] See. On that scale - of course! there's no quick fix, here or anywhere. Except eternal vigilance against their PACS. Shall we then settle for Corps managing the censorship we do not allow Government to impose? (under the rubric of LCD coverage for max-$ return amortized over 15 years yada yada). Do you mean then - only remedy is: abstinence? and it will just go away (?) Like maybe a whole 1000 of us boycotting M$? Cmon.. that's more religion like the Self-Correcting Market fantasy you seem tethered to. Corollary: Only when a majority of The Market agrees I should stop kicking you - will I stop kicking you. (Maybe I'll then just abrade you a while until..) Ashton
Post #25,387 by bepatient 1/23/02 9:32:26 PM Reply	You seem to have a decidedly US-centric view... ...of the "way the world should be". AOL has to abide by the laws of more than just the US...and didn't we have a shining example of how much more "censored" those places are with our Yahoo France situation a short while ago. In addition, they have advertised and have delivered a more "child friendly" internet. In exchange for this...we have groups deciding that if I say "fuck" in a poem...AOL MUST LEAVE IT...or its CENSORSHIP...regardless of the fact that they agreed to the Terms of Service on a monthly basis...each and every time they paid the bill. You deem this "corporate censorship". AOL would view this as delivering the product they promised and doing their best to operate within the laws by which it is governed. It has nothing to do with abstinence or boycott. AOL is not a monopoly. They control nothing. If you don't like their terms there are dozens of other companies that are willing to provide unfiltered net access. That had NEVER been promoted by AOL. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,388 by Ashton 1/23/02 10:09:29 PM Reply	You are making the distinction correctly or at any rate - ideally. I believe however - that such distinctions won't be made, should this or that lawmaker wish to display the 'AOL experience' as justification for extending the censorship. Many religious groups would like everything to be childproof and childlike, according to their worldview. Just as many believe that every sperm is Sacred and think we all ought to believe so, too. And should AOL achieve the near-monopoly status postulated in this thread in the form.. ~ "Well if we don't support AOL's use of RH to counter M$ monopoly" (not that it matters whether we 'support' it!).. ie fight One monopoly by helping create a similar one (?) Then: same point. An example of a now even more widely used Corp policy of.. censorship (for all Those Good reasons which every censor always has). Yours is the logical view and likely the legal view. I don't believe that our laws - espcially in panic situations like now - derive from that process, nearly so much as from emotional spin. I believe That is the concern which is forgotten at (our?) peril. A.
Post #25,401 by bepatient 1/23/02 11:01:27 PM Reply	Still... ...you are speaking of "censorship" from a US point of view. This has really made to the point of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater should be protected as long as the yeller did it "artistically"...otherwise...as was so aptly stated in the "Holy Grail"..."Help...I'm being repressed!" You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,403 by nking 1/23/02 11:20:53 PM Reply	Censorship and freedom of speech AOL having a censorship feature to prevent kiddies from viewing porn or swear words may be fine, but adults who want to see that sort of stuff should be able to see it. When every freaking thing that could be objectionalable is censored, even to adults who want to see it, then that is going way too far. The users should be able to use Net Nanny or Cyber Sitter to prevent kiddies from accessing the wrong sites. Then they should have a password to bypass it. There are more things censored than just poems with the word "fuck" in them. Anything that speaks out against AOL gets censored, and any homepage on AOL that speaks out against AOL gets removed. They wanted an area, free from children, to post poems that are not subject to any TOS and not censored in any way. But AOL would not do it. Also, let me ask you, what violates the TOS in this poem: Silence ~~~~~ I cannot hear the wind today. No cricket sings sweet melodies. Birds are silent in the trees. The reeds are quiet bent. I feel cement beneath my feet, wait patiently for an echo that never comes. Children do not laugh or call as they play. Traffic passes without a screech, honk or motorized hum. At the cafe on the corner, the band's vibrations jar my bones in silent air. I want a particular song -- feeling it will be enough -- but the ink of my note fades; I have no way to ask for it. The waitress looks expectant, lips never part. My mouth moves issuing mute words. I must point to my choice, but pages have been torn from my book. Fireworks light the sky, no familiar bang follows, and I wonder who celebrates this deaf world? Soundless sobs wrack my chest. I would give anything for a bit of noise .... the chirp of a cricket, serenade of a bird, laughter of children, or at least, the words to make it happen. (c) 1995 Trina It was on the AOL [link\|http://www.motley-focus.com/~timber/archive.html\|banned poetry] list. No "fuck" in there. Nothing but facist censor-heads. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,408 by bepatient 1/23/02 11:51:03 PM Reply	AOL is under no obligation... ...to provide any adult any access beyond what they provide. So they don't. You don't like it...you don't use it. CAPITALISM IN ACTION!!! AOL's TOS are completely at their discretion. If these "adults" can't understand that...I feel very sorry for them. Its not censorship. Its AOL, by its own (and agreed to) terms doing what it wants with its network...in order to be able to provide the service it wants to its customers. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,411 by nking 1/24/02 12:01:06 AM Reply	So they can violate the rights of US citizens and get away with it? I suppose that next they will block access to MSN and Hotmail? Or how about they block access to Opera and iCab? How about blocking access to Yahoo and Google? Let's get rid of any web site that might compete with AOL, shall we? The Fox Network, UPN, and PBS, also blocked. Next thing you know, they will be burning any books that are not made by their parent company? This is why I advocate people to leave AOL, and it has been proven that AOL does these things. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,419 by pwhysall 1/24/02 2:18:56 AM Reply	They're not, though. It's only a violation of your rights if you have no choice. You don't like it, you choose another provider. Hardly a violation of anything. (Although one might say that the sodding annoying adverts with that daffy woman are a violation of good taste) Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #25,440 by nking 1/24/02 9:07:55 AM Reply	That is like saying to a woman that her rights are not being violated because she was sexually harassed at work, because she has a choice to quit that job and work someplace else. D'oh! "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,444 by Silverlock 1/24/02 9:25:18 AM Reply	Doh! back atcha Norm. Try to understand. AOL provides a paid for service. You don't like the way they do that. You are free to not pay for it. Nuff said. When I visit the aquarium, the same thought keeps running through my mind; Leemmmooonnn, Buuttteerrr, MMMmmmmmm good!
Post #25,611 by nking 1/24/02 6:03:42 PM Reply	Customers and users still have rights that is why there are people suing AOL. It is not just people getting ticked off because they got a busy signal for five hours to try and connect to the AOL service, so they put up an Anti-AOL web site. Freedom of speech is more than just protection from the government. [link\|http://www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/harass/\|Freedom of Speech Vs. Workplace harassment] But anyway about people suing AOL: [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/25/aol.lawsuit/\|Lawsuit against AOL for pop-up ads] [link\|http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/02/02/aol.lawsuit.02/\|Disgruntled AOL 5.0 users seek $8B in damages] [link\|http://www.a-g-s.com/netaolp.htm\|Join the class action lawsuit against AOL for violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act] [link\|http://seattle.bcentral.com/seattle/stories/1997/01/13/daily15.html\|Attorneys file lawsuit against AOL for not proving the access it promised] [link\|http://personal.riverusers.com/~s/aolsuit2.htm\|AOL execs accused or wire fraud and racketering] Also: [link\|http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2435999,00.html\|AOL's conflict with other ISPs] Don't use it? Exactly my point, AOL should not be used. I won't use it, don't make me. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,623 by bepatient 1/24/02 7:21:14 PM Reply	Wow...there are some good ones there... ...like the lawsuit that says pop-up adds should be free time! Lets take that to Comcast next...tell them they have to rebate me for 12 minutes of every cable hour for the last 25 years... I'm about to retire now. Your only right is your right to not use it. You are well within your rights at this time. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,632 by nking 1/24/02 7:45:16 PM Reply	You may have a point if the cable company charges you per hour instead of per month. AOL, last I checked, had a rate that was per hour, and another that was per month. If you are paying $3/hr and it takes 15 minutes of your hour to look at pop-up ads, you might want a refund as well. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,639 by bepatient 1/24/02 8:26:07 PM Reply	Think. ...20% of television is ad time. That would mean that the cable company is making double income for that time. The lawyer in the AOL suit thinks thats illegal. (hint...its not) Point...you linked to alot of spurious lawsuits and one good one. The one from 1997 when AOL subscriber growth outpaced the infrastructure. I never had a problem connecting...but I did get something as part of the class action...I forget what the actual settlement was. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,719 by nking 1/25/02 1:06:57 PM Reply	Think again With the exception of PBS, local TV stations are free to the consumer and paid for by the advertising. The consumer is not paying an hourly fee to watch the local news, or other programming. If they are, then you might have a point. All the cable company does is rebroadcast the signal over their cable lines. They do not charge extra for this, it is part of their basic package. Or at least most cable companies are like that. Sometimes they replace the commercials from the local station with their own commercials. Like that Dog Food commercial gets replaced with the cable comapny's "Pay per view" movie ad. I am glad that you got something for your troubles. Someone sending you email could have had it bounce, maybe at 2am in the morning, and maybe that person sending it was SPAMMING you, but still even if you didn't know about it, you could have had a loss in service. It was proven in court that a loss of service did happen, somehow your name got on their list as someone effected by it. Even if you got 35 cents, that is something for your time. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,448 by Andrew Grygus 1/24/02 9:44:00 AM Reply	Getting a little off base, aren't we? I seriously doubt many AOL users have such a dependence on AOL access it would threaten their livlihood and survival to leave. Nor do I think there would be a long period of searching and rejection trying to get accepted by another ISP. The ugly truth is, most AOL users became AOL users because AOL made it easier than anyone else. The vast majority of AOL users stay with AOL voluntarily, because the service suits their needs well enough. Some like the proprietary content, too. Some with other ISPs desire that proprietary content enough to pay $14 / month (recently raised) to access it without an AOL account. A few, however, get in tiffs and show their psychological dependency on mother AOL by putting up bitter anti-AOL Web sites, just like an overly dependent spouse or lover when their partner gets tired of it and moves on. If AOL doesn't suit you, don't use it. I don't. Many I know do. And, incidentally, free speach is not an issue. The Constitution applies to government repression of free speach. "Censorship" is a "service" of AOL many appreciate. If you don't, they have no obligation to you. Use a different ISP. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #25,521 by bepatient 1/24/02 2:11:01 PM Reply	Thanks AG...saved me some typing. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #25,445 by drewk 1/24/02 9:34:48 AM Reply	Hmm, what about this I believe however - that such distinctions won't be made, should this or that lawmaker wish to display the 'AOL experience' as justification for extending the censorship. Many religious groups would like everything to be childproof and childlike, according to their worldview. Yep. I know there are people who will do that. And I'll vote against them at every opportunity. But just because I may want to view porn, doesn't mean I should be able to force its availability on anyone who doesn't want it, any more than they can force its exclusion on me. AOL provides a filtered service. The filtering is explicity advertised as a benefit. People who use AOL either use it because of the filtering, as BeeP has said; or they use it in spite of the filtering because AOL also provides some other service, as Norm has said of his friend. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,674 by Ashton 1/25/02 8:29:34 AM Reply	Nothing can legally be done 'to' AOL, nor should (need) it be (yet?) I question the idea of aiding them in $ or spirit to emulate BillyCo, for all obvious and some subtle reasons. The idea of fighting one masssive wart on the world's ass by inducing a boil on the other cheek - intuitively sucks. Is analysis needed? Imagining that AOL cannot become as oppressive in its own way and as example for legislative skullduggery - seems as absurd as.. continuing to imagine that "the market will correct itself" - would seem to Ed Curry. Oh well. It won't happen on my shift. A.
Post #25,718 by nking 1/25/02 1:01:41 PM Reply	Of course it cannot because so far a majority of our laws benefit the corps out there, rather than the citizens. With the exception of antitrust laws, and others like the food and drug laws, etc. But what if AOL bought out Sprint or MCI/Worlcom? What if AT&T and AOL merge? What if AOL and Sony merge? Many New Internet Computers have failed, and many companies have tried to make Internet appliances and failed. Eventually some company is going to learn from those mistakes and make one that will not fail. The only way to beat Microsoft is to make a platform with open standards that anyone can use, and find a way to market it to the masses as something better than Microsoft can make. So far, no company or group has done that yet. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."

Welcome to IWETHEY!