Slashdot Mirror

I'd like to comment on the ideological rant that is the dearaol.com open letter. Quotations are from that source.

We wish to express our serious concern with AOL's adoption of Goodmail's CertifiedEmail, which is a threat to the free and open Internet.

The opening remarks set the theme and tone. Note that the tone is egregiously alarmist: "a threat to the free and open Internet" indeed. Imminent death of the 'net predicted -- again.

This system would create a two-tiered Internet in which affluent mass emailers could pay AOL a fee that amounts to an "email tax" for every email sent, in return for a guarantee that such messages would bypass spam filters and go directly to AOL members' inboxes. Those who did not pay the "email tax" would increasingly be left behind with unreliable service. Your customers expect that your first obligation is to deliver all of their wanted mail, and this plan is a step away from that obligation.

"Two-tiered Internet" is not only an exaggeration, it's an abuse of a current buzzword for propagandist purposes. The process creates an additional class of email service at AOL, specifically, and AOL is not "the Internet". Exactly how many email classes of service currently exist at AOL is anyone's guess, since it's an on-going process to try to classify mail such that wanted mail is delivered, and unwanted mail is not.

"Affluent mass emailers ... bypass spam filters" is a clear insinuation that AOL is selling out their users to spammers. They don't come right out and say it, though: presumably that would be libellous, since it is defamatory and utterly unsubstantiated.

"Email tax" is more propagandist rhetoric. Why is anyone obliged to pay this "tax"? Do AOL have any kind of monopoly on anything other than AOL users?

"Those who did not pay ... left behind with unreliable service." This is true in one sense, and conjecture in another. The sense in which it is true is that the spam problem does seem to be getting worse, so unless you pay for certified email, you are likely to experience a gradual worsening of service -- along with every other email user on the planet. The sense in which it is conjecture is the insinuation (later made explicit) that AOL will deliberately neglect uncertified email for lack of profit motive.

"... this plan is a step away from that obligation." The authors of the letter are depicting it as such. When certified email is portrayed as an anti-phishing technology, however, it is clearly seen as advantageous to AOL's customer base. Financial institutions and other frequent targets of phishing attacks can pay for certification such that their email is delivered, and phish-mail is blocked.

I'd continue, but there's only so much rampant ideological propaganda that I can stomach in one night.

AOL's "email tax" is the first step down a slippery slope that will harm the Internet itself.

The "slippery slope" is a well known logical fallacy; why did they include it?

After all, I support their cause, but I can't put my name on a letter written like that!

For now, the best thing to do to oppose it is to visit DearAOL http://www.dearaol.com/ -- and signup in the right hand gutter "Sign The Letter as an Individual"

Their petition states:
In February 2006, AOL announced that it would accept payment for incoming emails. For these certified emails, it would skip its usual anti-spam filters and guarantee delivery for cash. Our coalition believes that the free passage of email between Internet users is a vital part of what makes the Internet work. When ISPs demand a cut of "pay-to-send" email, they're raising tollbooths on the open Net, interfering with the passage of data by demanding protection money at the gates of their customers' computers.

You get caller ID

Telemarketing company pays extra to block caller ID on all outbound calls

You pay extra for an unlisted number

Telemarketing company pays extre for list of unlsted numbers

You pay for call block

Telemarketing company pays to bypass call block

You can sign it here: http://www.dearaol.com/. MoveOn.org (political action group) is renouncing this absurb proposal by AOL as well. So it's not just strictly tech companies that are opposed to this.