AOL

[Boston Guy]

OK, this will probably start a firestorm, but I have my asbestos suit out and ready. :-)

 

In another thread, One Finger says that he would give up his Internet Access before he would use AOL. I'm posting this here because I didn't want to hijack that thread.

 

He says that in his area, they're referred to as "America Off Line." Now, he's from Utah -- a state I happen to like a great deal and one in which I've have had many, many fun times. The people there are generally friendly, fun and interesting, at least in Salt Lake. And the gay community there is open and welcoming. But I'm not sure I'd use Utah as the norm for 'middle America'.

 

At dinner two days ago, two friends and I were discussing AOL. I've used AOL for years. At home, I use Verizon's DSL and connect to AOL that way. For Internet access, I use IE and bypass AOL. On the road, I usually AOL to connect, unless I'm someplace where a high-speed connection (wired or wireless) is available. But AOL always works, works great for me in terms of email, IM's with my friends and family, etc. I've never, ever had a problem.

 

One of my friends hates AOL and the other is another happy, long-time user.

 

I know that AOL is taking the stance that profiles and screen names that are "offensive" in their view have to go. That includes obvious escort and sexual references. Clearly, they're trying to market their service to the mainstream market and think that having clear sexual references strewn about isn't a good thing.

 

Oddly enough, as a happy and long-term AOL user -- and a dyed-in-the-wool liberal -- I have to say that I sort of agree with them. Kids of many different ages, including very young kids, use AOL and can easily see people online, chatrooms, etc.

 

When I was growing up, in a sort of Ozzie and Harriett neighborhood, it wasn't even legit to buy Playboy until we were about 16 or 17. Now kids are exposed to amazing things when they're really young.

 

I don't really see how a policy that says "choose a reasonable name for your screen name and chat room" is offensive to gay people or gay rights. We should be as responsible as anyone else in setting reasonable standards for public behavior that will be visible to children.

 

Nor do I see reasonable screen names and reasonable chatroom names as being even slightly limiting in meeting other guys, escorts or whatever. Nor, finally, do I think that extremely explicit profiles are necessary. Why, exactly, is it necessary to say that you've got 10" and are looking for raw anal sex in a public profile?

 

What I do think, however, and what people tend to forget now, is that AOL was extremely helpful in making being gay a visible, normal, everyday thing. For at least the last ten years, you could be gay and visible on AOL without any recourse. AOL's policies toward gay people were identical (and I think still are) to their policies for straight people. Gay chatrooms were and are openly supported -- in some areas of AOL, the "M4M" rooms greatly outnumber the others.

 

This is considered extremly common and a non-event by lots of people today, especially younger people who have grown up with it. But it wasn't true at the beginning and I think we shouldn't forget that AOL was probably the first major American phenomenom that brought gay people into the livingrooms of people all over the world on a daily basis -- and did so without comment or judgment.

 

BG

[+ deej]

AOL has its uses. My Aunt Shirley bought a computer and AOL lets her get online without having to rely on _ME_ for tech support. I *LIKE* that about it! :7

 

AOL tends to be a little heavy-handed, though. And over the years, they've released private information about customers in inappropriate ways. One case I remember involved outing a Sailor to Naval officials, ending his career.

 

They've been gay-friendly over the years, but unwittingly and when they discover it going on they move to quash it. It's ironic, really -- we fags figured out what those chat rooms were REALLY good for and made them popular. When AOL found it going on, they started clamping down.

 

It's their right, I'll grant you. If you violate anyone's Terms of Service, you can expect to be shut down.

 

I had a chance to sign up for a "free for life" account when AOL was first starting up. At the time, I was already a Compuserve member and all the vendors I needed to correspond with hung out on Compuserve with no plans to move to AOL. I declined the offer because it was made with the proviso that I ditch the Compuserve membership.

 

(AOL finally got me as a customer by buying Compuserve!)

 

Shortly after I declined the offer from AOL, I started hearing stories about profiles being killed and other active censorship. Those stories continue to this day.

 

When AOL was just a twinkle in somebody's eye, Compuserve already had a M4M chat room. 24/7. With no limits on the number of participants in the room (a limit AOL still suffers to this day), and no censorship. I had my first cyber-sex on Compuserve.

 

I really have nothing against AOL, but to say their record is clean is really ignoring some very big "bull in a china shop" behavior, and you may be crediting them with contributing more than they actually did (knowingly).

 

Just one opinion.

[Boston Guy]

>AOL has its uses. My Aunt Shirley bought a computer and AOL

>lets her get online without having to rely on _ME_ for tech

>support. I *LIKE* that about it! :7

>

 

That's been very helpful with older members of my family, too. :-)

 

>AOL tends to be a little heavy-handed, though. And over the

>years, they've released private information about customers

>in inappropriate ways. One case I remember involved outing a

>Sailor to Naval officials, ending his career.

 

I may be remembering this wrong. But didn't they fight that subpoena in the federal courts?

 

 

>When AOL was just a twinkle in somebody's eye, Compuserve

>already had a M4M chat room. 24/7. With no limits on the

>number of participants in the room (a limit AOL still

>suffers to this day)

 

I will admit that the AOL software has limits in it that are just plain surprising to me. I simply don't understand why they haven't fixed some of the more glaring things over the years. I just know they're there and ignore them. But, with AOL's size, you'd think they'd fix some of these things -- unless they're in the design on purpose, for some reason that's not apparent to me.

 

In some ways, I view some of these things they way I view some of the deficiencies in Oracle's software -- another huge firm that should have gotten it more right a while ago. But they're getting better, too.

 

BG

[Guest JustANametoPlay]

In the spirit of full discolosure let me start by saying I work for AOL, have for about 8 years (part time).

 

AOL is far from perfect. However as a service it is solid for what it is. I always have kind of thought of it as "Internet for Dummies" meaning no insult to anyone. It is functional, easy to understand and use.

 

The debate about AOL "cracking" down has always existed. However as has already been said, they have clearly spelled our what the terms of service are. You either follow them, or choose not to. If you choose not to, then you run the risk of having action taken.

 

Someon once used this analogy to me, which I really like. The internet is like a huge mall with all kinds of stores. AOL is one of those stores. You may not like hwat they sell, and you do have other choices.

 

As an employee, I can tell you they are a very gay friendly company to work for.

[+ deej]

>I may be remembering this wrong. But didn't they fight that

>subpoena in the federal courts?

 

They've had a couple of those, but the one I'm thinking about involved an AOL phone operator giving out full personal identification and screen names and profiles for the asking.

 

There have been several variations of this over the years.

 

>In some ways, I view some of these things they way I view

>some of the deficiencies in Oracle's software -- another

>huge firm that should have gotten it more right a while ago.

> But they're getting better, too.

 

We can say that about any technology. Look at the heat Microsoft takes! What was released as a major new feature five years ago is the subject of today's "security vulnerability" bulletin.

 

When I look at new releases today, I rarely see new features as "Oh, cool feature!" More often, I think "It's about time!"

[Boston Guy]

>When I look at new releases today, I rarely see new features

>as "Oh, cool feature!" More often, I think "It's about

>time!"

 

LOL... I hear you!

 

BG

[Rick Munroe]

I recall reading reports (but I don't have time to research to back this up so don't ask me for proof) that AOL is selective in its application of its Terms of Service...that it deletes sexual gay profiles that violate TOS but "overlooks" ones that are violently anti-gay.

[Boston Guy]

Well, we have at least one guy here who works for AOL. Perhaps he could give us the inside scoop?

 

BG

[Guest Kalifornia]

Ahh AOL. I keep an account on their BYOA program.

 

The issue with the Sailor that Deej mentioned actually had to do with his profile first. Someone in the Navy saw a post he had made, called AOL requested the posters personal information (he noted in the post he was in the Navy) and the Customer Care operator released it. He was then discharged from the Service and Sued AOL. I cannot recall what became of the legal action. BTW right after that AOL had a series of security blunders that seem to have vanished now.

 

35 million people use the service, 34 million are probably on due to free promotions Actually I do recall reading the about 5 million of their membership are on due to a free promotion at any single time frame.

 

Do they target gays, someone asked? I don't think they do. I think their straight members tend to report more violations on gay members and that is why it appears that way. Gay's probably rarely report straight members as we have far better manners.

 

I am fucking around with AOL 8.0 beta. They now allowed the user to customize the colors and the look of the Welcome Screen. They also added wallpaper in IMs and a more seamless way to use their broadband content. Email has a few more filters to try to block the endless spam and has a better sorting feature than previous additions. But AOL still has 20 windows opening on top of each other, one of their most annoying features.

 

The biggest problem with AOL is all their features that are new to them have been standard within the Internet community usually 2 years prior.

 

When I am on AOL it's usually looking for mindless entertainment. I use my DSL provider for anything remotely serious to do on the Internet.

 

I have met a few escorts in the AOL chatrooms. All were good experiences.

 

Lastly, I don't believe anyone mentioned that AOL and Time Warner will be seperating their businesses. AOL apparently has created huge financial woes for Time Warner and Time Warner blames AOL for not providing original content as it promised it would do prior to the merger. Since they are one company it is funny to watch them sling mud at each other. As many of you probably know this was cited as the worst merger in the financial history of our country.

 

 

Mark -Kalifornia

[phage]

>Oddly enough, as a happy and long-term AOL user -- and a

>dyed-in-the-wool liberal -- I have to say that I sort of

>agree with them. Kids of many different ages, including

>very young kids, use AOL and can easily see people online,

>chatrooms, etc.

 

There’s no arguing that if you agree to a TOS, that’s pretty much the end of the story. However, I do wish they would lighten up on the TOS.

 

I have a real problem with the “kids” argument. Yes, they can find all kinds of things in profiles and chatrooms, but except for some predator that hangs out in “kiddie” chatrooms (and that’s a whole different issue) it’s only if they go looking for it. I just don’t feel it is my responsibility to protect other people’s children from being exposed to material they are going out of their way to find. That is their parents problem and they need to supervise the horny little buggers a little better.

 

AOL provides a host of parental controls that if used properly will protect any “innocent” child from stumbling on things that may shock them. If they don’t use the controls, they are letting little Johnny walk around “town” unsupervised and need to take responsibility for their poor parenting and not blame other people.

[Guest JustANametoPlay]

Rick and Boston AOl is not selective in its enforcement. I will say however that you have to remember that some of the folk that work for CAT (Community Action Team)are working from Oklahoma. My personal opinion is that some of what happens is a result of the people not the company. While possibly they enforce more stringently in some ways, the problem is that whem they take action they are in fact taking action against someone who violated TOS. It is then kind of like the speeder who says "Hey you stopped me but not him." The fact is that you violated the "law."

 

I also agree that tehre are probably more folks out there reporting folks that are gay then vice versa.

[+ Charlie]

I wish you had been politically correct and called it "Internet for the Technologically Impaired". When I timidly ventured online for the first time a few years ago, it was on AOL, and I have never had any compelling reason to change (even though their FAQS are useless, as least for me, who still can't understand the basic terminology.) However, when I complained about their service just once, they gave me three months of free use; when was the last time you got that kind of response from an escort?

[Boston Guy]

Hi -

 

I may be wrong about this -- and please correct me if I am -- but I don't think that any of the parental controls will keep a kid from viewing anyone's profile. I think those are available to everyone. I also think kids have reasonably free access to screen names, especially in the listings produced by the Member Directory.

 

Finally, why do you feel that we, as gay people, have no responsibility towards the kids in our communities? I don't feel that way. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I don't feel a sense of responsibility to my family and my community and my neighbors and my town.

 

We're all invested in the next generation or, at least, I think we should be. If you don't feel any responsibility to those who are following us, well, I feel sorry for you, because I think you are missing out on some things that I consider kind of crucial.

 

I don't see the issue at all as being one of gay people vs. parents. Instead, it's more how can we all work together to build an ever-better society and how can we, as individuals, live our lives in the best possible ways.

 

If you are suggesting that because we don't have children we don't have any responsibility to act responsibly in places where children may see us, I think that's a big mistake. I think we all carry a strong responsibility to each other and to the weaker and younger among us.

 

And if we view our lives only in terms of self-gratification, we may think we're serving ourselves in the best possible way but that's simply not true. There is far more satisfaction to be gained through helping others and helping to build a better society than through any amount of personal self-gratification.

 

BG

[Guest fukamarine]

>I have a real problem with the “kids” argument. Yes, they

>can find all kinds of things in profiles and chatrooms, but

>except for some predator that hangs out in “kiddie”

>chatrooms (and that’s a whole different issue) it’s only if

>they go looking for it. I just don’t feel it is my

>responsibility to protect other people’s children from being

>exposed to material they are going out of their way to find.

> That is their parents problem and they need to supervise

>the horny little buggers a little better.

 

I agree with you 100%

 

As a gay man who has no children and never will, I have severe problems accepting the degree to which children are catered to in todays society. What ever happend to the old addage "children should be seen and not heard"?

 

The world revolves around children today. Almost every sit-com on TV features them and if there are no kids in the 1st season the show appears, you can bet your bottom dollar that the second or third season will introduce those cute little bastards into the plot.

 

It is almost impossible to see a commercial without children in it.

 

Try doing your grocery shopping in a supermarket without a dozen screaming kids kicking up a fuss because they are bored out of there little minds, while the parents keep on shopping, oblivious to the fact that half the store is develeoping a migraine.

 

Ever tied to have a nice dinner (and I'm not talking family style restaurants here) with a bad tempered little monster throwing a tantrum at the next table while mom and pop just beam because he is being so articulate?

 

I could go on, but I'm sure you see where I'm heading.

 

Now we can't freely use the internet like adults because little Johnny might stumble across what we post. Give me a break!, as John Stossle would say. If the parents would stop using the net as a form of baby sitter and supervise their offspring, there would be no problem. I see the AOL situation as a form of censorship which we are gullible enough to support through the payment of our continuing monthly fees. Just one more reason why I won't use AOL.

 

And before I get dumped on, I don't hate kids. I just refuse to accept the fact that a four year old mind is superior to mine and that I should genuflect to it's superiority.

 

And at the risk of starting a rumble, the reason for all this permissivness with children today stems (IMHO) from the lack of good old fashioned discipline called spanking. So there!

 

fukamarine

[IamI2002]

My geriatric great aunt Sallie couldn't live without it, so she likes AOL. And I've known some people to like AOL, but on the other hand a few of my friends have had problems with it, and others hate it.

[IamI2002]

Well said. Are you proposing we eliminate kids from the Human race?

 

Give that Fuckingmarine a purple dick !!!

[Guest JustANametoPlay]

Actualy the Kids Only setting on parental controls will prevent the screen name from being able to view profiles, search the member directory etc.

 

The fact is that AOL is a marketing itself as a "family service." As such it retains the right to set limits on what should and shouldn't be in a profile, chat message boards,, etc.

 

While a you may not like it, it is the right of the service. The bottom line becomes if you don't like it, don't subscrine to AOL. There are plenty of other options.

 

Is it a form of censorship? Technicaly I suppose yes, but in my mind it is censorship that a subscriber agrees to by signing up for the service.

 

Should we have to act in locus parentis? Probably not, but the fact is that parents do not supervise kids in the manner they probably should.

[phage]

>I may be wrong about this -- and please correct me if I am

>-- but I don't think that any of the parental controls will

>keep a kid from viewing anyone's profile. I think those are

>available to everyone. I also think kids have reasonably

>free access to screen names, especially in the listings

>produced by the Member Directory.

 

I’m not an expert either. My point is that you can keep people from thrusting the information on the kids – they have to go looking for it. If little Johnny is going to click on profiles with “hot”, “hung”, or whatever in the screen name, then it shouldn’t be my issue if his parents don’t like what he finds.

 

My right to interact with adults – free from the influence of children – is just as valid as a parent’s right to restrict what their kid is exposed to. However, in a case where the child is pulling the material, then my right should supercede. It’s kind of like your ‘Playboy’ example. Just because some kid goes to a store and is able to buy or steal a magazine is no reason why the magazine should be harder to get for the adults.

 

>Finally, why do you feel that we, as gay people, have no

>responsibility towards the kids in our communities? I don't

>feel that way. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I

>don't feel a sense of responsibility to my family and my

>community and my neighbors and my town.

 

For me, it’s not a gay/straight issue. Obviously, gay people have children too and I’ve actually had a similar discussion with straight coworkers. It comes closer to being a parent/non-parent issue, but even then, I’m not suggesting we have NO responsibility – just limited responsibility and it goes both ways. Parents have an equal responsibility to keep their children from negatively impacting my life.

 

I’ve mentioned before that I come from a large family. I have almost 30 nieces and nephews and I’m a part of all their lives. (No reason to feel sorry for me…I get PLENTY of the next generation and have probably done more parenting than some parents.) The older ones are all starting families and I’m sure I will have more than 100 grandnieces and grandnephews before they are through. I care about each and every one of them, but I would not hesitate to remind my family that it is their responsibility to monitor the kid’s behavior.

 

I would no sooner plop them in front of a computer and let them wander around the Internet (or AOL) unsupervised anymore than I would drop them off at a mall and let them wander around unsupervised. (Another thing that many parents do and goes back to fukamarine’s point about babysitting.)

 

Maybe it’s just because most of my family is religious and conservative, but for the most part they seem to have this under control without making it other people’s problem. They understand that when you connect that computer to the outside world, it becomes a communication device and you need to monitor what goes on. Do they wish the whole world lived by their standards so that it wouldn’t be an issue? Of course they do, but they recognize that is not the way it works and take responsibility for their own kids.

 

I have one sister who is pretty well off and they have a computer in each of the kid’s rooms, however, the ONLY one with Internet access is in the family room. If those kids are accessing inappropriate material, they are going out of their way to be sneaky about it.

[+ Axiom2001]

Damn, you wrote a lot!

[Boston Guy]

OK, I understand. Thanks for clarifying your views. :-)

 

I guess it's a balancing act for all of us.

 

BG

[+ deej]

<<Finally, why do you feel that we, as gay people, have no responsibility towards the kids in our communities? I don't feel that way. Just because I'm gay doesn't mean that I don't feel a sense of responsibility to my family and my community and my neighbors and my town.>>

 

This is an interesting line of discussion, and I mostly agree with you.

 

The "gay community" (such as it is) is generally pretty intolerant to the rest of society. I'm frequently embarrassed by our actions "out and about". How many times have you seen two (or more) men getting it on on a public beach, in full view of passers-by? Is a bathroom blowjob at a highway rest stop *really* "accepted" behavior by society in general?

 

But where do we draw the line?

 

It's exactly the same discussion, often seen around here, that culminates in "if you don't like it, don't read it". Just a slightly different focus. The only thing that's absolutely guaranteed is that neither side will ever be willing to budge in their opinion, or even acknowledge that "the other side" has a valid opinion. :+

[Guest fukamarine]

>Well said. Are you proposing we eliminate kids from the

>Human race?

 

Absolutely not, don't be silly, where would teh next generation of escorts come from? :-)

 

>Give that Fuckingmarine a purple dick !!!

 

The alliteration of purple penis appeals to my ears more.

 

fukamarine

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

AOL whores

 

Two cents: AOL, even with more servers, more CSRs, etc., still provides frequently uneven to bad service. I, too, have received several months free credit, but I honeslty would prefer that it be a seemless experience as I enjoy with my ISP, Earthlink.

 

I also happen to agree with the concept of adult material for adults but that the lowest common denominator must not be used.

 

That all said, the ideal solution would be that Gay Com or some other service fill the need that AOL does for the gay community and that something similar fill the need that AOL does for straight men and women. But that is not going to happen, so AOL will continue to grow and be the community of choice for many, from "perverts" to escorts to kids....

 

 

everyone wants on line sex but no one wants the bull shit.

[Boston Guy]

RE: AOL whores

 

so AOL will continue to grow and be the community of

>choice for many, from "perverts" to escorts to kids....

>

 

Hmmmm.... wondering where I fit on that list. :-(

 

BG

[+ deej]

RE: AOL whores

 

>so AOL will continue to grow and be the community of

>>choice for many, from "perverts" to escorts to kids....

>>

>

>Hmmmm.... wondering where I fit on that list. :-(

>

 

Want me to spell it out?

 

LOL :+