'No Thanks' Not Good Enough For AOL Promos

boio writes: "AOL users are suing AOL over its advertising practices, claiming that they were charged for products that they never requested. Apparently these users say they clicked the 'no thanks' button, but still received the advertised products. Of course, we must wonder if these people truly clicked no thanks ...they are using AOL after all, and maybe they had a secret yearning for that Torreador Bed-in-a-Bag ;)."

Comments

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Check this out too

[boio]

There's an article on msnbc (I only found it through Google), about this too...
We learn that they're suing to, among other things, keep the products that were sent to them at AOL's expense.

Re:Check this out too

[falloutboy]

We learn that they're suing to, among other things, keep the products that were sent to them at AOL's expense.

According to article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, if any party sends another party unsolicited goods, the recieving party is entitled to keep them. They don't even have to sue for that.

Re:Check this out too

[Enry]

If something is sent to you via the USPS that you did not request, it's yours.

So IF they didn't request it, AND IF the products were sent through the USPS, THEN the products are theirs. This is just to make it (more) legal?

Re:Check this out too

[boio]

Yah, plus it would seem a bit contradictory for the complaintants to argue in court that they're not entitled to keep the product that was sent to them...

Re:Check this out too

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you're a multiple-source freak, here's the AP story...

Re:Check this out too

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

It was like this in the past. However, in the world we have today, there are too many scary possibilities.

#1 AOL bills them for the products, and when they refuse to pay, sics a collection agency on them. Ruins their credit rating, something which might as well be impossible to fix.

#2 AOL already requires a credit card number for service. It wouldn't suprise me, if they just charged it to the card. Maybe a bit easier to fix, but then they lose their internet service. Assume that the credit card company is willing to reverse the charge for an unsolicited product, what do you think AOL's reaction will be?

For instance, back in '95, I lived in a small hick town. The local ISP canceled my service, simply because I had requested a price on a static IP (oh no, he must be a hacker!). In the two months that it took for me to resolve this dispute, I was without internet service. The withdrawal was so bad, I did the previously unimaginable... I signed up for the only other isp with a local number, AOL. It was horrible... if you minimize the stupid AOL screen, it would disconnect you everyy 45 minutes. And if you left it up, it completely covered the desktop. Needless to say, I hurried up, and did the ass-kissing it took, to get my other isp account back.

Well, even though I distinctly remember canceling AOL (it didn't appear on any of my subsequent credit card statements), two years later I have moved, and since canceled the credit card. Well, I get a call from AOL's collection service, demanding that I pay 2 years worth of AOL service. Not alot I can do to prove it to them, because if their own records don't show that I haven't signed on in over 22 months, what will? Worse, I ask them if I'm still signed up for service.

"Yes". "Please cancel it immediately!". "Can we have the credit card number that you signed up with?". "No, I've since canceled it, and have nothing with the number". "We're sorry, but we can't cancel the service without the cc number...".

Well, one month later, they cancel it anyway (thank god), but only because they've farmed it out to a collection agency. When the collection agency asks me if I want to dispute it, I tell them this story. They call me back a week later, telling me that they have rescinded the charges, and that I may have to privately pursue getting this taken off my credit history. Seems even the sharks at the collection agency had never heard of anything so f*cked up... they simply dropped it as unpursuable.

So, I have no trouble believing that AOL would do anything at all, nothing is too low.

Re:Check this out too

[ssheth]

As per the FTC:

What do you do when you receive merchandise that you didn't order? According to the Federal Trade Commission, you don't have to pay for it. Federal laws prohibit mailing unordered merchandise to consumers and then demanding payment.

Q. Am I obligated to return or pay for merchandise I never ordered?

A. No. If you receive merchandise that you didn't order, you have a legal right to keep it as a free gift.

Re:Check this out too

[Draugluin]

This is highly unlikely as AOL doesn't report to credit agencies or employ collections. Also, AOL's policy is to terminate service after four months without payment.

Nice yarn though. Bravo.

Re:Check this out too

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I have no idea what their policy is today, what was it in late 96, early 97?

I believe that the credit reporting may have been done by the collection agency itself. Like it matters.

As to the 4 months thing, no clue. But it was on the verge of being two years. If their billing apps are coded by the same people who code the client app...

Re:Check this out too

[UnifiedTechs]

#2 AOL already requires a credit card number for service. It wouldn't suprise me, if they just charged it to the card. Maybe a bit easier to fix, but then they lose their internet service. Assume that the credit card company is willing to reverse the charge for an unsolicited product, what do you think AOL's reaction will be?

I don't know about anyone else, but if a company was ripping me off I wouldn't be too upset if they canceled my account. What scares me the most is that all these AOL users are suing AOL to make it do what they want. Did the thought to just drop AOL and pick a difrent ISP ever cross thier minds? There are lots of great ones out there that won't flood you with ads, but these AOL users seem blisfully unaware there are other options.

Re:Check this out too

[teasea]

#2 AOL already requires a credit card number for service. It wouldn't suprise me, if they just charged it to the card. Maybe a bit easier to fix, but then they lose their internet service. Assume that the credit card company is willing to reverse the charge for an unsolicited product, what do you think AOL's reaction will be?

I do know that the credit card companies can't (or are too lame) reverse the charges on AOL unless AOL itself does the chargeback. This is because AOL bills the credit companies in one large statement. They can't identify who is being charged. Sounds like crap to me, but this is what three different credit card companies told me. Hell of a way to do business.

I'd imagine it goes like this:

• Hey I didn't order this! And you butthairs have already charged my credit card; a card for which I only authorized you to take out my monthly AOL service charge with.
• Just send it back. We'll refund your money.
• Screw you! Federal Law states I can keep it.
• Well, if you don't send it back, we can't give you a refund.

Slam the phone down and try to call the credit card company. They tell the story that I was told by the three credit card companies. In a very real sense, AOL is circumventing Federal Law because they can.

On a side note, I do believe companies that reach a certain size are inherently evil.

Re:Check this out too

[AgTiger]

Yes, but beware this path. I had a problem with a club I belonged to (no, not Columbia House). They were marketing a series of videos on various home repair/remodelling ideas, and the series was pretty good.

I noticed that the series was starting to repeat itself, so I started using the postage pre-paid return labels. It became pretty quickly evident that I was going to be getting "essentially duplicates" and that they had run out of new ideas, so I cancelled the subscription.

Everything was fine until about 4 months later when a special 3 tape box set arrived introducing me to their "new" run of videos. If I didn't like it, I could just send the tapes back... ON MY DIME. No more postage pre-paid label? No problem. I wrote a letter off to the comany thanking them for their gift, but informing them that I did not wish to subscribe to the new series. I also informed them that they could send a postage-paid return label and I'd be happy to return their tapes. If not, I'd consider the tapes unsolicited merchandise and dispose of them as I saw fit.

I never watched the tapes. I kept them in their original packaging - I was really curious what the company would do. I was sorry I decided to find out. They sent reminder notices - I sent back copies of the original letter. They sent threats, I sent back documentation from the FTC. They sent a collection notice, I sent registered mail. This went on for four months.

FINALLY... I got a postage paid return label, returned their tapes, and haven't gotten very much in the way of promotional crap from them again. Something tells me I cost them a lot more money than they cost me.

Moral of the story is be careful about using the FTC regulations to claim that something sent to you is yours and that the vendor can go forth and multiply with extreme prejudice. Some can, and do bother you more than it's worth.

Re:Check this out too

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how it works in the US. But here in the UK we are protected by consumer credit laws.
This means that any purchase made on/against a credit card is actually a debit against the credit card company itself - not you.
(IIRC)

So, any illegal transactions made, goods not delivered or just general f*cked up dealings are not the end-customers problem.

The credit company writes of the debt to the end customer and then has the option of chasing the business concerned to recover it.

That said, proving bad dealings may still be difficult in the first place.

Re:Check this out too

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother signed up for AOL years ago with our dad's credit card. He wanted the 700 free hours or whatever. Well, the free hours ran out, and he tried to cancel. AOL told him "You aren't the credit card holder, so you can't cancel". So our dad called. "You aren't the person who opened the account, so you can't cancel". Even both of them together couldn't get it cancelled. It took cancelling that credit card to get the charges to go away.

Its about time

[mkmiller]

I used aol back in the 3.0 days and it was annoying then. Now, from what friends have told me, these ads are getting out of control. Who wants to pay for an ISP (the most expensive dialup, i think) and get all that crap. Oh, well. Simple solution....DON'T USE THEM!!!!!!!!!

Re:Its about time

[zaffir]

Unfortunately, there are still people out there who think that AOL is the Internet.

Re:Its about time

[rehannan]

I had someone ask me once if I had AOL. After I told her, no, I don't have AOL she said, "But how do you get online?"

Opt-Out is there, but hidden

[niola]

I had to help my mother with this, but there is a way in AOL to opt out of their marketing crap. I can't remember the top level menue, but it is somewhere hidden in the MyAOL section where you can set your preferences. There are a series of marketing prefences that allow you to opt out of AOL emails, AOL service pop-up ads, etc. Of course they make you click no to each individual type to be a pain in the ass, but the option is there.

--Jon

Re:Opt-Out is there, but hidden

[nuggetman]

It's not in the menus as far as I remember. You have to manually go to Keyword: MARKETING PREFERENCES.

And while that may opt you out of popups and emails, the fact every screen from the mailbox to the address book to profile windows to the welcome screen to chats (the list goes on and on) is littered with ads doesn't change.

Re:Opt-Out is there, but hidden

[Anonymous Coward]

on 6.0 and 7.0 it's under Settings -> Preferences -> Marketing Preferences or KW: Marketing Preferences

Re:Opt-Out is there, but hidden

[Plutor]

How is this 'Informative'? The author just says "You can opt out but I don't remember how!"

Sheesh

Re:Opt-Out is there, but hidden

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's more informative than your post (and mine too).

Re:Opt-Out is there, but hidden

[ackthpt]

This is like the confusion I get sometimes with software. I'll get prompts I don't want (Geez, fer chrissakes, stop with all the damn are you sure things), it would be nice set a &$%* property in windows to TRUST USER and not second guess me all the time. If there is one, I can't find it.

There's enough of these things that pop up and we can't even figure out what the correct response is.

Frobnitz the fnord?
[YES] [NO] [CANCEL]

I think there's a school of interface design, with a course in making it obvious what input is required of the user. Clearly AOL, M$ (parent company of the US government) and some programmers are either unaware of the subtleties, devious or stupid. I expect it's one of the latter two.

Re:Opt-Out is there, but hidden

[splorp!]

While using the Keyword: MARKETING PREFERENCES will allow you to opt out, it is only a temporary fix. After either 6 months or a year (I can't remember which), the marketing preferences CAN spontaneously reset themselves. Sometimes they don't, but they can. I haven't had to reset mine in quite some time.

AOL

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know how all those AOL users love their spam!

Shady

[vansloot]

You have to wonder about any company that sells you something with one click from an advertisement. On the other hand, it is almost ridiculous enough to make you think that these people bringing the lawsuit were just stupid.

Re:Shady

[innocent_white_lamb]

You have to wonder about any company that sells you something with one click from an advertisement.

Wouldn't they have to license that valuable intellectual property from Amazon?

Re:Shady

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't as outlandish as one might think. A while back, Ashford.com was having big sales, and their web developers were not particularly careful, and clicking on *either* submit or cancel would approve the order. Some individuals received multiples items, even after clicking a single time on the "submit order" button. So, yes, maybe they did click on the "cancel" button, and still the order was processed, because the developers were incompetent or sloppy.

Re:AOL policy regarding BSD

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, leave that deamon alone!

AOL's business practices are getting odd...

[drik00]

My brother uses my parents AOL account in another city until he gets broadband there, and a popup came up when he signed on the other day telling him he was allowed only two hours of "roaming" before a $3.95 "roaming" charge kicked in, to be added to the (i guess not-so-)unlimited $19.95 plan.

I still think AOL is the best choice for newbie users (my parents have only recently gotten DSL and quit using AOL all together), but if they start screwing with people that like they are my brother, screw 'em.

Re:AOL's business practices are getting odd...

[nuggetman]

to be added to the (i guess not-so-)unlimited $19.95 plan

$19.95? Maybe 3 years ago. It's up to $23.90 now.

Re:AOL's business practices are getting odd...

[diggem]

Playing devils advocate here (literally?):
The roaming charge isn't so unusual. They notice the same user logging in from two different regions. Mostly I think its their way of saying. "We know you're all using one account against our AUP, but we'll let it go if you kick in another 4 bucks.. mmkay?"

And the unlimited refers to 'hours connected per month' and nothing else. They've always had the roam thing, if you want to connect up from somewhere else than your 'home' computer/number/area you get dinged with the extra charge. If you change location for good you just update your address and the roaming doesn't apply anymore.

Re:AOL's business practices are getting odd...

[drik00]

are you sure about that or just assuming? I mean, if you're sure, I'll simply tell my brother to switch the perm. address, since my parents never use it ...

...on that same note, my mom called to cancel it b/c (obviously) she didnt need it anymore, and the guy gave her a free 3 months...makes sense, huh?

Re:AOL's business practices are getting odd...

[DennyK]

"...on that same note, my mom called to cancel it b/c (obviously) she didnt need it anymore, and the guy gave her a free 3 months...makes sense, huh?"

All the big ISPs do this. My grandfather has had Internet access for five years and has paid for about ten months of that. He just moves from one free trial to another, and whenever he calls to cancel after the freebie is up, they usually offer him more free time. Of course, the downside is that the service comes from the worst in the industry (AOL, Prodigy, MSN), but it's still pretty amusing... ;)

DennyK

Sounds Familiar

[acidos]

I bet all the users that are suing are from Florida too.

Uh

[EricKrout.com]

Apparently these users say they clicked the 'no thanks' button, but still received the advertised products.

I have a funny feeling that, as evil as AOL is, they wouldn't go THIS far.

I have another funny feeling that the individuals listed in the lawsuit all live in Palm Beach, Volusia, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties in Florida ;-)

EricKrout.com Is Back In Action :: GNUws For Nerds. Flawless Grammar.

Re:Uh

[ShadowDrgn]

I have another funny feeling that the individuals listed in the lawsuit all live in Palm Beach, Volusia, Broward, and Miami-Dade counties in Florida

They managed to press both buttons at the same time?

Re:AOL really sucks.

[evilpaul13]

"AOL-Time Warner, bringing you such goodies as the DMCA and SSSCA to brighten your day!"

I'll take MS as a narrow monopoly; I don't have to use their products.

AOL-TW wants to control everything electronic, and there will be no legal way to avoid them if they get their way.

One competes unfairly, and one wants to deprive you of your Freedom of Choice, which is worse?

this happened

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

to my girlfriend, (i haven't converted her from aol yet... even after 3 years, her mom is still stupid) anyway, she logged onto her screename, and clicked no thanks, as always...

then she got this email saying how your order has been confirmed...

the funny part was, doesn't aol know the 'master' screen name? only them can do account changes, etc?

only they have the credit card, only THEY should be able to AUTOMATICALLY charge to it.

Re:this happened

[Anonymous Coward]

The case is seeking class action status - so you should keep your eyes out for more on the case.
The case is Buckley v. America Online Inc., C02-0918.

Re:this happened

[FredGray]

her mom is still stupid

Random advice: don't call your girlfriend's mom "stupid."

Re:this happened

[marvinglenn]

Random advice: don't call your girlfriend's mom "stupid."

at least until she's your mother-in-law

Re:this happened

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be able to deny charges to your credit card since you didn't authorize the payment.

So?

[TheQuantumShift]

Credit card companies have been doing this for years, and nobody seems to be suing the pants off them. Or at the least, torching their offices. I worked Customer Service for a big name card once. I would say on average 80% of calls were concerning "This fucking sixty dollar charge I didn't authorize!!!". It's good to see some action on this, but it's going to be hard to convince the courts that they really didn't just click on the wrong button. Hell, I'm not convinced.

Re:So?

[elflord]

I'm not convinced either. However, AOL are getting what's coming to them, IMO. When you push customers like that, you'll get the odd customer who's tired or drunk at the time, and when they sober/wake up, they'll be unhappy about it. Push-marketting is inevitably going to create a lot of unhappy "customers" who will go after the vendor.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

How easy is it to accidentally make a purchase? (Hey, isn't this one-click shopping?) Maybe I was clicking on something else when this window popped up. Maybe I just wanted to make the window go away and just pressed the big shiny button. Maybe my finger slipped.

Re:So?

[markmoss]

I worked Customer Service for a big name card once. I would say on average 80% of calls were concerning "This fucking sixty dollar charge I didn't authorize!!!". But the credit card company isn't selling the goods themselves, merely recording charges made by companies that somehow have the customers' card numbers. Be careful where you give out your number and you won't be having those problems. (Unless you tend to forget about certain charges...)

Re:AOL sucks?

[JabberWokky]

In the boxing match that is MS vs AOL... I'm cheering for AOL.

Agreed - being a big corporation isn't evil, but there are plenty of big evil corporations - and almost every big corporation has enough divisions to do very contradictory acts. AOL's treatment of its aquisitions is a Good Thing. Allowing third partys into AIM (as long as they follow the simple "play nice" rules, unlike the idiots at Trillian) is a Good Thing. AOL is now AOL-Time Warner, but I won't crucify them for Time Warner's sins... and AOL's sins are small enough and counterbalanced by their decent acts so that I consider them good members of corporate society.

Hell, other than their legacy of a bajillion patents, IBM seems to be playing nice with others on other companies and the user's terms. MS has been a stellar example of how to be a nasty little company, and the response has been for other companies to lighten up and cooperate with good intent to be able to compete. Interesting, eh?

--
Evan "Oh, and Aardvarkjoe? Bzzzt, you're a twit" E.

Promotions

[SevenTowers]

Anybody else use those promotion CDs that you get in the mail to put under coffee cups? I usually get 1 AOL CD a month.

My area is very well connected in terms of DSL and cable, and I don't know anybody who uses AOL. I think it's a big waste of material to send tens of thousands of CDs every month. They don't just screw you by advertising for other people, they piss you off by sending you useless junk.

Re:Promotions

[garcia]

you don't know anyone but they are there. Even if the weirdos use DSL/Cable they still have their fucking AOL via LAN connection. Why? I don't know, I guess b/c they love their buddy list or their web browser...

Just worth noting.

Re:Promotions

[TACD]

'Useless junk'? Shame on you, man. Have you no ambition?

Aim true, my friend. ;-)

Re:Promotions

[Anonymous Coward]

They're sending a lot of their CDs in those DVD-type cases now, which are quite nice for mailing CDs I've burned off to relatives.

Re:Promotions

[ssheth]

My uncle does that: he got a DSL line but still kept his AOL acct active although at the reduced price of something like $12 / month.

The main reason he is not quitting AOL is he is used to it and everyone has his @aol.com email address and he doesn't want to change and AOL cannot be setup to forward the email to another acct either so he has to face the daily barrage of "buy this" advertising just to read his email.

If AOL allowed people to forward email from their @aol.com accts to their new accts, they would probably lose 25-30% of customers immediately.

Re:Promotions

[Stonehand]

The DVD cases are nice, 'tho. Remove the label inserts, and you've got a blank case -- handy if you order software that doesn't come in a hard case itself ("Combat Mission" and "Space Empires IV" being the two for me -- both used simple paper envelopes in the middle o' the manual). Then I can give 'em proper homes, and the publishers/users don't need to pay extra for fancier packaging.

Re:Promotions

[steve_l]

good point.

The FCC mandated things like 1-800 number roaming; in the UK you can change cellphone vendor and keep the same number, why cant aol and MSN be 'encouraged' to provide redirection to users who move away. I know they dont want to, but I think MSN might benefit by getting people off aol too...

Re:Promotions

[GigsVT]

I've taken to picking up 20 or so of them each time to go to the local walmart. I use them for target practice with a BB gun.

They break real gud. Purty Shards. Et Cetera.

Re:Promotions

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever used an msn dsl modem ?

Re:Promotions

[shannara256]

> Anybody else use those promotion CDs that you get in the mail to put under coffee cups? I usually get 1 AOL CD a month.

Back in the day, they would send out floppy disks... thumb the tab over, pop it in the drive, and after a quick format, you've got yourself a perfectly usable disk (I've still got a few of those...).

Now, they send out the CDs. But, all is not lost... often they send them in the DVD-style-cases. Toss the CD, the insert, and either tear off the sleave or peel off the stickers, and you've got a great CD case. Very generous of them....

trillian

[Anonymous Coward]

as long as they follow the simple "play nice" rules, unlike the idiots at Trillian

Please, if you follow AOL's rules you have to use the TOC protocol, which offers such a worthless set of features it's not viable for most people who use AIM. It's like MS saying they'll open up the API's for messenging and such, sure - it's nice, but nothing is ever able to work as seamlessly with the OS as MS's own products.

Trillian is one of the few programs that uses the OSCAR protocal, and is therefore able to actually be like the AIM client (plus a lot better - it supports all AIM, ICQ, IRC, MSN, and Y!, plus it has automatic conversation logging).

Just my .02.

Re:AOL sucks?

[malfunct]

The reason you don't see AOL as evil is that you are looking in the wrong sector. AOL could give a flying **** about software, they have one single goal and that is to own 100% of your entertainment time. Already its hard not to watch a movie, watch a TV show, read a book or play a game that AOL doesn't have some piece of license over and they are still growing.

Another poster is right, give me the MS monopoly any day, they are focused on 1 thing and I can avoid it. It will soon be impossible to avoid sending revenue to AOL.

AOL.

[saintlupus]

we must wonder if these people truly clicked no thanks...they are using AOL after all

Ha ha ha ! Because AOL users are stupid! Ha ha ha! They probably don't know what they clicked! Ha ha ha! What a bunch of dummies! They probably use Windows, too! Ha ha ha!

Elitist bagbiter.

--saint

Re:AOL.

[Darby]

The more I hear about AOL, the more it seems like their users actually *are* stupid. At the least they are painfully ignorant.
They are paying for a service and then getting bombarded by ads. If it was a free service it would be one thing, but they are already paying.
Then to have pop ups whenever they log on?!? That is utterly fucking ridiculous. I have never heard of another ISP that you pay for that clutters up your screen with ads. I visit lots of sites on the web that have ads pop up and otherwise,but they only appear once I choose to visit that site and I have the option of not visiting it if it bothers me. AOL users don't seem to have this choice. By choosing to use AOL they are paying twice. This is dumb.

Re:AOL.

[saintlupus]

The more I hear about AOL, the more it seems like their users actually *are* stupid. At the least they are painfully ignorant.
They are paying for a service and then getting bombarded by ads. If it was a free service it would be one thing, but they are already paying.
Then to have pop ups whenever they log on?!? That is utterly fucking ridiculous.

The more I hear about WalMart, the more it seems like their customers actually are stupid. At least, they are painfully ignorant.
They are buying things in a store and then there are sale fliers right there in the aisles. If the merchandise were free, that would be one thing, but they are already buying things.
Seeing racks of sale fliers whenever they walk into the store?!? That is utterly fucking ridiculous.

The fact is, like WalMart, AOL is the only option in some areas. Don't knock people just for their ISP.

(Yes, I'm a geek with a cable modem and my own mail server and all the other accoutrements. But that doesn't mean people who aren't are to be ridiculed, any more than customers of a given discount chain can all be considered morons.)

--saint

Re:AOL.

[tenordave]

Your analogy is completely flawed. They _pay_ for AOL service, you don't pay to walk into wal-mart. The whole point of wal-mart is to try and get you to buy something, while with AOL, you've already bought it....

Re:AOL.

[Shade, The]

Yeah! *nudge nudge!* Ha ha ha! Windows too?! Ha ha h- ... Oh. Sarcasm. Right.

Re:AOL.

[Cyno]

Actually AOL is more like TV than WalMart. One goes to WalMart to shop, looking for advertisements and product information. One goes to AOL to get on the internet, chat, read email, and seek out information, not have it advertised to them like they're an idiot. Its true that most AOL users are not complete morons. They know who the president is, have been known to vote and remember email addresses and websites and probably can read. However from what I've read here, I don't use AOL, it sounds like AOL is become more like TV and pop culture than a real ISP. If that's the case, then yes, knock people because the ISP they choose. Just as much as you knock people for watching TV. Sometimes I think making fun of people is the only way you'll ever get them to learn, or at least think for themselves.

Re:AOL.

[Chester Abecrombe]

You have to pay to get into Sam's Club. Let's see you try and explain your way out of that one.

Re:AOL.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thta's right you said it. AOL users are stupid! DAOL - Dumb Asses Online

Re:AOL.

[tenordave]

I'm not exactly sure wha sam's club is, but I'd guess you get a discount for buying things there....does AOL give you a discount for buying, say, shoes online while using their service?

Re:AOL.

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact is, kind sir, that most AOL users think that AOL is the Internet. How many times have I tried to explain to family or friends that it is otherwise... I don't know. I know poor saps who have cable modems and still connect to AOL... its sorry, and its AOL's fault for falsely advertising and making their product so shitty that the person gets no real concept of what the fuck the internet is...

the best part is... if you go to earthlink and try to sign-up... I guess they see that you are coming from an AOL address, and the message you get, in bright red text, is "Earthlink welcomes another WEB customer"... fucking genius...

-h

Re:AOL.

[Cutriss]

Well, it's partially their own ignorance, and significantly more because of AOL's own marketing. If you watch Headline News or any of the Time Warner channels, look for the AOL WebMD ad. This sort of ad is nothing new, and it's highly suspect. Like this:

I found WebMD on AOL. -blah blah blah what I did with it- AOL has all the coolest features you can't get anywhere else!

Basically, the ad is a promo tie-in between AOL and WebMD, which is, as we all know, an Internet site, not an AOL exclusive. Yet, they throw in that one line which aims to imply that WebMD is only available online.

You know, I just have to wonder what AOL users would think the Internet was if they knew it wasn't owned by AOL..."What? Oh there can't be anything entertaining out there...all the *good* stuff is on AOL..."

Re:AOL.

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, the ad is a promo tie-in between AOL and WebMD, which is, as we all know, an Internet site, not an AOL exclusive. Yet, they throw in that one line which aims to imply that WebMD is only available online.

I *meant* to say "only available on AOL... :P

Their Rights Online

[Anonymous Coward]

It really isn't our rights online - none of the /. crowd is stupid enough to use AOL... right? ;-)

what comes around..

[\\]

i wonder if aol could pull off the argument that their users are so dumb, they couldn't have possibly clicked the correct option..

Re:what comes around..

[Anonymous Coward]

te he

Re:AOL sucks?

[hendridm]

> adopting a lot of open source practices

I'm sure their motives aren't so noble. Is it a coincidence Mozilla and Winamp compete heavily with Microsoft?

> In the boxing match that is MS vs AOL... I'm cheering for AOL.

How about cheering for the little guy? I don't have a problem with the fact that AOL is the biggest. I have a problem with them using their power to determine which standards are acceptable (or more importantly, unacceptable) on the Internet. As a tech support person at a semi-large Help Desk I've seen countless Java and other applications fail under AOL that work fine under the other browsers.

I do love Mozilla, but Netscape is a huge, moldy piece of shit (no, they are not the same). I cringe when I design a brand new web site that looks superb under Mozilla and Internet Explorer only to find out how much work I really have ahead of me when I see that it looks like garbage under Netscape. Live in the now people.

other AOL problems

[I Want GNU!]

It's not just this that they are getting charged extra for. According to this article (from a little while ago), there is a class action lawsuit against them for switching their users to long distance numbers when they are out of normal numbers, even when the users claim they didn't change anything. Either AOL has dumb users, dumb workers, or both, because stuff like this keeps happening and AOL and the users blame each other.

Re:other AOL problems

[mlsemon2]

I had a friend who was burned by this problem. I think that he tried Earthlink in a very small town, and he dialed a town 50 miles away to get access. He didn't like the next month's phone bill, but he realized his mistake and didn't sue anybody.

Yes, if you live in area code 407 and have to dial a 904 number for access, you'll have to pay the same charges as if you picked the phone off the cradle and dialed the number yourself. I don't see how this is worthy of a lawsuit on behalf of AOL users. Or, to quote the AOL Terms of Service:

"Any telephone charges incurred connecting to AOL are your responsibility. Since these charges are your responsibility, you should contact your local telephone company if you have a question about whether an AOL access number is a long distance or toll call from your location. AOL also provides several surcharged 800 or 888 access phone numbers (for the current surcharge rate go to Keyword: Access). If you choose to use these surcharged numbers to access AOL, you agree to pay the currently applicable surcharge to AOL."

This reads like a part of the ToS of every ISP that I've used since 1995, so I don't see how it's specific to AOL.

An AOL user is presented with the ToS sooner or later, usually when he or she has to set up AOL on a new computer. [I think it's right before an AOL master account is initialized on one computer.] This is the part where people tell me, "But you're the tech guy, you can understand these things." And I have to reply, "You don't need tech skills, just the ability to read and the patience to not click the OK button right away. You do know how to read, don't you?"

Re:other AOL problems

[Cobol^GOD]

Actually how are the AOL workers supposed to know whats local to every city in the world?

"Yes im in Nowheresville Arkansas.. and it shows 20 numbers for my area code..which ones are local??"

I would hate to be the one who would have to write a program that has to be constantly updated as to what cities are local to every other city..

UG just thinking about it.

Okay...

[Tony.Tang]

The story is pretty interesting, but did anyone else notice that the link (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-845815.html) is zdnet.com.com? Cool! Check this out: http://com.com/!

Re:Okay...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cnet got that back in December (2001), not quite sure how they pulled it off tho - seems like someone must have owned that before them...
still pretty damn cool!

Here's how you get em...

[ruiner13]

Why don't they just get Amazon.com to sue them for infringing on their copyright of one-click buying? Remember that big fiasco a few years ago? They could stop this crap right now if they wanted to...

Re:Here's how you get em...

[ghastard]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't AOL been using those stupid one click ads for quite some time? I remember back sometime around '94 I had AOL service (*shudder*), and was getting them already. They were probably there before then as well.

Wouldn't this qualify as prior art? Just my $0.02

That's just terrible...

[Jin Wicked]

I am so shocked and appalled. I always thought of AOL as an honourable ISP, and that they'd never stoop to doing something like this. My entire world view has been shaken. Tsk...

Biased or not, it happens

[d_vader]

While I know that the entire /. community, and most geek-types in general, automatically question the IQ of anyone using AOL, it has its place. Some users want the simplest, most user friendly, shortest learning curve, approach to things possible. They think AOL fits this bill.
Anyway, my mother used AOL for a while, just until her free hours ran out though. And yes, she got billed for things she "ordered" from them. And yes, I would swear under oath that she didn't click the wrong button.

Re:Biased or not, it happens

[Rhinobird]

Yes we do question the IQ of people, because AOL blows chunks. For reasons like what this story has pointed out but also for things like the popup ads in the first place. Come on, you pay $22 a month to be bombarded with ads as soon as you sign on. Why do you pay for that when most other ISP's charge $20 a month and are JUST AS EASY to use, but with out the busy signals or random disconnects or popup ads.

Re:Biased or not, it happens

[Cro Magnon]

Waaay back when I was still using dial-up, I tried alternatives to AOL, and they sucked. They had even more busy signals/disconnects than AOL, and I couldn't verify the lack of pop-ups because I couldn't get/stay connected long enough. This was a long time ago, and maybe the competition got its act together since then, but at that time many ISP's sucked worse than AOL!

Re:Biased or not, it happens

[d_vader]

Well, contrary to popular belief, some people actually use AOL for the extra content/features. You know, the stuff they advertise, the stuff they started with. Remember back when it was AOL, Compuserve, and Prodigy? That's the kind of content I'm talking about. The kind some people with a different ISP even pay to use.
Yes, as an ISP they are hugely over-priced and provide poor service, but not everyone uses them as just an ISP.
Get off your fsckin' high horse and think for a minute.

Re:AOL sucks?

[CaseyB]

is adopting a lot of open source practices (Mozilla)

You mean "Netscape". You think AOL had _anything_ to do with the open-sourcing of Mozilla? Ha!

acquiring fringe technology with rebellious attitudes (Winamp)

Yeah, this enlightened view must be why they shitcanned official gnutella development the second they got a whiff of Nullsoft's new toy.

Re:Promotions, Loved dem floppies

[RatOmeter]

I trash the CD's, but I miss the days when they were mailing out floppies! Back then I used floppies (and sneaker-net) a great deal and I *loved* AOL; never used their service, just their floppies.

I guess I stopped *using* AOL went their bloatware started shipping on CDs.

Incidently, they made a really smart business move when they started out; they capitalized the cost of all those mailouts. Years later, the IRS said, "Hey, you can't do that!" And AOL said, "Oh, sorry. We'll pay up (now that we've gotten established and have money!)"

In other news...

[ari{Dal}]

Reports that there is indeed snow in the Arctic, and that the sun still rises in the east were met with shock and disbelief.

"What next? Will huge market monopolies and conglomerates start abusing their strengths and taking advantage of the naivete of the average citizen?" said one surprised onlooker who refused to be identified.

I really can't believe people are surprised by this.. companies have been nailing users with 'hidden costs' and bills for services they never signed up with for years.

But lets face it.. AOL users have never been noted for their abundant intellects and computer-savvy, which is exactly why these are the perfect people to try silly marketing techniques on. How much of this is AOL's fault, and how much of it is the fault of the user himself? These users DO have the option of turning off these ads. And if they can't figure it out for themselves, then you have access to AOL's ever-so-helpful tech support (or the neighborhood computer geek).

As much as I dislike AOL and think this type of marketing scheme is completely ridiculous, the blame needs to be shared equally here. If the user can't be bothered to figure out how to turn off those invasive ads, who's to say they didn't click through a time or two?

AOLer's and the "me too!" attitude.

[Restil]

As the topic states, these ARE Aol'ers we're talking about here. The newbies of the internet. They're the ones that reply to spam. They're the ones that yell "me too!" in newsgroups, although in their defense I haven't seen it in a while. But how hard is it really. People get accustomed to clicking OK everytime they see an alert window pop up. Just send the user 10 different alert windows, nine of them being basic "here's a whole lot of information about your computer that you don't want to know and can't understand anyways", then one that says "Click ok to order some merchandise". Hey.. they agreed to it.

-Restil

Re:AOLer's and the "me too!" attitude.

[BurritoWarrior]

I agree.

Re:AOLer's and the "me too!" attitude.

[Anonymous Coward]

me too!

i dont think it's entirely AOL's fault

[jeffy124]

in one article i read about this said that white hatters were blaming script kiddies. They said it was very easy for them to get credit card info from AOL's customer service reps and then duplicate what was happening to these people. See Wired article on this topic.

The problem does go back to AOL, but it's not a software problem like many would be quick to accuse. If it was a software glitch, a *lot* more than 100 people would be victimized by this, it would be more in the thousands. The problem taht AOL has is keeping their customer service reps happy enough to not give out customer info.

Re:i dont think it's entirely AOL's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

if aol is making it *possible*, much less "very easy", to get cc# info from customer service reps, then yes, it is very much aol's fault.

if you're right, though, it does just means aol isn't evil, just that they need to restructure their customer service department..

why do customer serivce reps have access to the cc# database anyway? couldn't they just give them access to the last four and nothing else? is there ANY valid reason for the cc#s to be in any format where the customer service reps can so much as look at them?

i am full of confusision.

Re:i dont think it's entirely AOL's fault

[jeffy124]

I'm a former AOLer. The reps need card#'s in situations when someone wants to make a billing plan change or needs their password reset. The user has to read the rep their card num over the phone. I would assume (based on what's happening) the rep has the card number on his screen to verify the match. Obviously, the solution to that is to have the rep type in the card number as it's read to them and have the system say yay or nay.

(Note: before I get flamed for using AOL, 6 years ago it was the *only* ISP in my area that didnt require a long distance phone call)

Easy mistake to make

[greg2000]

As much hastle as I've given AOL users on B. Boards (believe me it's a lot). Accidentally clicking wrongly on a one click confirmation is fairly easy to do, especially considering the experience of AOL users. As a company I've never had a problem with them though, as they seem to give the companies they own enough independance and they're the only company with enough muscle to do M$ some damage.

Stupidity

[hendridm]

Ok, perhaps it's a bit prejudiced, but I've worked in Help Desk support before. Nothing is too stupid.

I can appreciate that not everyone is an expert (that's why the Help Desk is there), but some things I've seen seem to contradict the basic logic it takes to operate a toaster or use a telephone.

Re:Stupidity

[zCyl]

some things I've seen seem to contradict the basic logic it takes to operate a toaster or use a telephone.

The mistake you are making is to give people credit for logic because they appear able to operate toasters and telephones. Operating an appliance is something people learn how to do by repetition, not logic. Many people are severely lacking in the logic department.

Re:Stupidity

[Rhinobird]

Sigh...I've worked for the AOL helpdesk and then GTE's helpdesk (pre=-verizon) and I have to agree, NOTHING is too stupid. I was once editing a modem string for an AOL user(I ahd a tendancy to do a lot of modem string editing on that AOL project) and was asked, straight faced, if I wanted a capital zero or lowercase zero. The GTE project was a whole different ballgame. People generally knew the difference between letters and numbers, capitals and lowercase. So although they still didn't know how to use a computer to save their lives, at least they were literate, which is more than what you can say for the AOL users.

AOL's Practices

[Renraku]

AOL is the kind of company to send their users over to other peoples' tech support. For instance, I used to work for Bellsouth's DSL tech support. For the FastAccess service. Not a day would go by that I didn't get at least one or two calls from people who had been cold transferred from AOL's tech support because AOL doesn't appear to support their own software if you're not dialing into them. Also, I've had AOL technicians try to dump their customers off on me, saying things like, "Well he has Bellsouth icon in his DUN folder, we don't support that". Not only that, but AOL likes to slam people from other DSL services. I've had many sweet old ladies who have said no and no again to AOL, calling in for a no sync problem. Guess what it ends up being? AOL slammed them because they said no. With companies adopting this 'sell them products they didn't request until people get pissed off' approach, its a surprise more people aren't getting sued.

Re:AOL's Practices

[mrbuckles]

The AOL SOB's are even worse than that. My girlfriend's parents are AOL subscribers who had trouble with a version of AOL they installed. They dutifully called tech support and were told that the problem was "noise on the phone line." I was very suspect of that answer and offered to put in a call on their behalf before they dragged someone from the phone company over.

When I called, I played dumb. I wanted to see what they would offer in the way of support if I didn't know anything. The standing rule must be to try and blame as much as possible on the user/phone comapany/other software manufacturer. The tech support person started by having my restart the computer. Then, we played around with some settings on the computer. I can't remember exactly what we changed, but I do remember noting that none of the changes we made could possibly meaningfully impact the problem.

After getting nowhere, I began to drop the ruse and started making suggestions and questioning whether the changes they suggested would do anything useful at all. When nothing could be done, the person told me I'd need to reinstall the software. I asked what could have happened to cause this. Below is, as well as I can remember, the conversation we had:

Me: So, how could this have happened?
AOL: Maybe you clicked on a bad web link.
Me: What do you mean?
AOL: You know, maybe a page had a broken link
Me: You mean like the URL doesn't point to an actual page?
AOL: Yes.
Me: You're telling me that an URL that doesn't point to an actual page could irreparably damage your software!?!?
AOL: Um....
Me: Yeah, thanks for the help.

Re:AOL's Practices

[mrscorpio]

I do tech support for a large manufacturer of CRT and LCD monitors, that does not, I repeat DOES NOT make computers, and you wouldn't BELIEVE the number of people AOL pawns off on us for computer tech support!!! I imagine the typical call summary for them is this:

Caller: I can't connect to the internet.
CSR: *troubleshoots* the problem is your computer. What brand is your computer?
Caller: *looks at monitor* *says our brand name*
CSR: You'll need to call *our brand name*. Here is their number.

Then they call me.

Caller: I can't connect to the internet on my computer.
Me: We don't make computers. Did you see our name on your MONITOR? (emphasis added)
Caller: Yes, AOL told me to call you.
Me: What does it say on the box under your monitor/next to your monitor?
Caller: Compaq/Dell/Gateway/HP.
Me: You need to call *one of the above*.
*insert bitching, whining, moaning, and complaining from caller before they disconnect*

AOL, how I love thee, let me count the ways....ZERO.

Chris

No. We can't.

[mindstrm]

And neither is someone to cheer for.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.. I just think that large, public companies are NOT generally a good thing for society.

AOL must do whatever is best for it's shareholders. Period. Same with Microsoft.

Same with *any* public company.

You can hear a CEO talk about morals and whatnot.. but it's meaningless.. it's not HIS company.

Re:No. We can't.

[tb3]

AOL must do whatever is best for it's shareholders. Period. Same with Microsoft.

What, like pay dividends?
Microsoft is notorious for not paying dividends, instead hoarding the cash. There is now talk of legal action to get Microsoft to change their ways, as well as rumors of Enron-like accounting practices.
Microsoft stock price has been stagnant for three years, and they've never paid dividends, so I doubt they're doing what's best for their shareholders. Except for Bill and Steve, of course.

aol ate it.

[Infernon]

this happened to my girlfriend's father as well. he called up and complained about a 'learn to use aol' book that he received and the service rep gave him a refund saying that it was problably their mistake and the book was his as a gift for being a new customer.

More of this shit is going to start happening

[Edmund Blackadder]

I think the fundamental problem lies with the fact that the software is not really made for the customers, it is made for the corporation.

If the software was really made for the customers, it would be hard to order something by mistake, because any competent developer would have made some kind of confirmation pop up.

But since the software is made for the benefit of AOL, it is made in such a way that people may order things by mistake very easily.

This is one of the good things about open source software. It is made by and for the user, and nobody would tolerate such BS with open source software.

Re:More of this shit is going to start happening

[Jester998]

"...it would be hard to order something..."

Umm, isn't AOL's motto "So easy to use, no wonder it's number one?" :)

I agree with you, though... Even if half of the people who mistakenly "bought" something take action (refute the charge on their credit card, sue in court, whatever), that's still half of the users that will just sit by and accept it... resulting in a net profit for AOL.

it's all simple really

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple stuff for simple folk.

Kinda like the mac.

Don't like it? Dont use it...

Re:AOL sucks?

[Carnage4Life]

In the boxing match that is MS vs AOL... I'm cheering for AOL.

Why is this? AOL Time Warner supports the DMCA, the SSSCA and was against DeCSS this is besides the fact that they are the primary source of information for millions of people via their ownership of Time magazine, CNN, Warner Brothers movies and records, TNT, TBS, the WB televison network, Sports Illustrated, NewLine Cinema, as well as their online ventures which means they are the influencing the lives and actions of millions of people around the world.

I can see where one may dislike a company becoming the primary provider of software related goods and services but don't see why that same person would not be even more wary of another company becoming the primary provider of information related goods and services from internet access to the news we read and watch.

Disclaimer: The opinions in this post are mine and do not reflect the opinions, wishes, intentions or strategies of my employer.

Maybe an AOL programmer...

[clambert]

...simply got the imagemap coordinates reveresed. ;-)

Re:AOL sucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

as it happens i used to work for the third party vendor - webhelp.com - that aol used to implement this.

our job was to convince the customer that they were suffering from "buyers remorse".

there was also a matter of a calendar that aol offered at a ridiculously low price one year, then sent out a confusingly written postcard(not an email, a piece of cardboard with a stamp on it) to automatically renew the purchase at a much higher price.

to add to the amusement, we were also providing online support for msn at the same time. go figure.

...imagine a beowulf cluster of beowulf clusters...

Re:AOL really sucks.

[Atzanteol]

One competes unfairly, and one wants to deprive you of your Freedom of Choice, which is worse?

Which is which?

1-click Shopping

[Kenzo]

I wonder if the licensed the 1 click shopping from Amazon?

This is F*cking Genius!

[Nanite]

By owning com.com, Cnet Networks gets to monitor every request made by everyone who accidentally types whatever.com.com. (I don't know about you guys, but I do that all the damn time.) Not only can they tell where you wanted to go, but they can pick things up like your browser version, OS, and IP, too! Seems like a good way to gain some market data.

N

Re:This is F*cking Genius!

[Anonymous Coward]

You type in something.com.com all the time? Maybe you're just a fucking moron and need to have your head examined? I don't believe I've EVER typed .com.com. It doesn't make sense. .cm maybe.

Re:This is F*cking Genius!

[GigsVT]

I just typed slashdot.rog a few minutes ago.

One thing about .com.com is that IE and other broken browsers (Lynx does it to I think) will attempt to auto-append .com .net .org onto the end of an unresolvable name. It would be an easy way to harvest data on typo-squatting names.

Re:AOL sucks?

[Mr Teddy Bear]

Can you actually think of any good reasons to avoid sending revenue to AOL other than you just don't want to? I mean come on. Being different for the sake of being different is just as bad as conformity. The only difference is that if you conform you don't annoy nearly as many people. Go for the products you like. Go for the movies you think look good. (and for the MS thing) go for the software that can get the job done the best. Sometimes it is Linux, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes a good movie that I want to watch comes from AOL-TW (or one of their 10,000,000 baby companies) and sometimes it comes from someone else. That is the reality of our day. I think it is time we all grew up and delt with it instead of complaining about it.

Just my $0.02.

MS vs AOL Boxing Match?

[Skjellifetti]

I'm rooting for injuries.

Dialogue of the Sale

[Anonymous Coward]

AOL: Do you want to buy these wonderfully carved toothpicks for $9.95?
Helpless Victim:No.
AOL: Okay, I'll place that order. It's Opposite Day!
Helpless Victim:Wait! Yes. I want to buy the toothpicks.
AOL: Ok, I'll place that order.

*5 weeks later*

A UPS guy brings a box of toothpicks to HV's home.

Helpless Victim: What the hell...

Re:Dialogue of the Sale

[zer0vector]

Based on the dialogue, the UPS guy would probably bring 2 boxes of toothpicks.

Re:Dialogue of the Sale

[sharkey]

Based on the dialogue, the UPS guy would probably bring 2 boxes of toothpicks.

And then bop the Helpless Victim with the Calvinball.

Re:AOL sucks? OT and stuff

[ackthpt]

AOL may endorse the DMCA and SSSCA, but M$ is just as complicit willing to be the RIAA's and MPAA's agent in putting this enforcement into every desktop. No good guys in that battle, best you can hope for is they'll club each other senseless.

As to the question of ordering, reminds me of silly programs we wrote when we were secretly mocking users on our records system years ago.

Enter Yes if you would like to continue OR

Enter No if you do not wish to exit the program.

I'd give the users the benefit of the doubt, if YES/NO choice doesn't work in a way they anticipate then it's most likely the provider's failing, though as I recall, there have been many of examples of people being duped into paying for things they had no knowledge of.

I am not an aol user

[md_doc]

I am not an aol user but I am a SprintPCS customer and I ran into something much the same when I signed up a year and a half ago (omg has it really been that long) for their service. I selected the wireless web over the free night and weekend minutes on the web site.

My order was processed and when I got the confirmation e-mail it even said that I had selected the wireless web. I then get my phone and everything and it says that I had selected the night and weekend minutes. I call them up and I am like I selected the wireless web not the night and weekend minutes and he was like it says you selected the night and weekend minutes and he obviously thought I was retarded.

I am like dood... I have the e-mail right here saying I selected it the wireless web and not the night and weekend minutes do you want me to send it to you. He was like no but you still selected the night and weekend minutes. Then finally he asks well what do you want to do... I go I want the web not the free minutes and he ended up giving me 6 months free of the web. I was like well can you get me in touch with the web department so they know there is an issue and he was like we are the web department. I was like oh god... and he did not even care that the stuff was not working right.

I would not doubt that some of these people actually selected no thanks but still got the stuf anyway after that experience.

Re:I am not an aol user

[Anonymous Coward]

"I am like dood... ", "He was like no", "I go I want the"

Are you sure you aren't an AOL user?

Re:AOL sucks?

[Archfeld]

sorry M$ is a blight, but AOL is like 40 days and nights of rain. I would happily give all my money to Bill Gates before giveng any to AOL/TW/whatever we bought today

Stupid Morons

[Archfeld]

Call ur bank, authorize the few transactions you know about for 3-5 day windows of opportunity, Dis-allow ANY other online transactions without a phone verification. Is a simple tactic. When I was a cop they had us dis-allow any unauthorized deposits to our accounts as well to prevent someone dropping 2 g's in ur account then accusing you of accepting a bribe. I guess the bottom line is if you're stupid enough to use AOL you get what you deserve :)

old news

[Anonymous Coward]

slashdot gives me stuff (advertisements) that i never asked for either

how do you order by clicking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so I'm curious. How do you end up ordering something "by accident" just by clicking a button? If you click on an advertisement, enter your name, address, credit card number and click on a "buy this stuff" button -- you've pretty much taken on the responsibilty of paying for that item. It's not like you're just wandering around the internet and one wrong click somehow gives a company all of your personal information, which they'd need to ship you an item and charge you for it.

Re:how do you order by clicking?

[BrianGa]

Apparently, AOL logs all of your personal info for this purpose. AOL allows the internal advertisements to bill your recorded information for products that you 'order'.

Re:AOL sucks?

[buford_tannen]

MS vs. AOL is like Bush vs. Gore. There really wasn't anyone to cheer for, except Nader. And, in this battle, the only Nader-like option would be Free Software OS / MacOS using a Real ISP, and getting entertainment from independent sources. While you are still legally allowed to, that is. Both AOL and MS, as well as the other big companies want to keep you from being allowed to do anything without their approval. They are all evil. Root for others, or root for the injuries.

Lost Logic

[_Sprocket_]

...some things I've seen seem to contradict the basic logic it takes to operate a toaster or use a telephone.

I have also put in time at a helldesk. What I found interesting were the numerous times simply repeating the problem to the customer (to ensure you have an understanding of the issue) or otherwise providing a simple answer would be received by a sheepish "oh!" The light dawns. Logic sinks in. And the confused user flees with a quick "ummm... thanks."

It seems that our society has one (amoung many) rule well lodged in its collective conscious: computers are hard. Above the monitor hangs a subconcious sign reading "abandon all logic, ye who presses enter here." The user then replaces the void left by logic with the phone number to their helldesk of choice (could be ISP, could be computer manufactorer - the questions I've had asked at the ISP helldesk seems to indicate the choice is random).

From that point, its all fodder for tech humor sites, cartoons, etc.

Re:AOL sucks?

[mother_superius]

What does Trillian do that isn't "playing nice"? I know AOL blocks them every other week, but what does Trillian actually do?

To remove AOL advertising..

[1155]

To remove AOL advertising (or at least what they let you) from the proprietary AOL client, do the following (Must be done to every user/screenname):

1. Log in.

2. Go to your settings, and then preferances.

3. Click on the marketing option.

4. Wait forever.

5. Click on e-mail.

6. Click the continue button after reading their plea to Not remove advertising.

7. Click the no option.

8. Click save.

9. CLICK THE X ON THE TOP OF THAT BOX. Otherwise, the only other two options are continue and cancel. Continue takes you back to the yes/no option. Cancel takes away the setting, making your activity fruitless.

10. Wash, rinse, repeat.

11. Choose the pop-up. (Not sure if that is the real name) and do the same as before.

12. Do the same for every e-mail account.

To truly remove the AOL advertising, AOL MUST be removed. Choose a local isp instead, which charges less, and will help you more. I went with one here and suggest anyone with aol should do the same.

Re:To remove AOL advertising..

[Catbeller]

Um, I just logged onto my one AOL account, and I opted out of everything in one minute fifteen seconds. Could have gone faster, but I was being sure to hit that buttons correctly.

Haven't been bothered by them for years.

Now, Ebay...

Ever since I got an Ebay account, I've been drowning in oceans of Viagra, Credit Checks, Spyware, yadda yadda.

Point is, AOL is not the Satan of the online world. They don't have to be; they're rich as hell. It's the smaller operators who are selling our souls for us.

Re:To remove AOL advertising..

[ncc74656]

Now, Ebay...

Ever since I got an Ebay account, I've been drowning in oceans of Viagra, Credit Checks, Spyware, yadda yadda.

How did you manage to do that? On my mail server, I have an address set up for nothing but eBay-related stuff. If eBay sells the address I've given them to somebody, I'd know they did it.

I've never gotten spam at that address. In the five or so years I've been using eBay, the only spam I could trace to them was when Onsale trawled eBay for addresses and mailed every address they found. (Shortly after that, eBay redesigned its system so that you can't do that.) Hell, even with my main address going into every Usenet post for the past few months, the amount of spam I receive in a month at salfter.dyndns.org could be counted on your fingers. (I do have a blacklist of known spammers, though, and the HTML-mail filter probably weeds out some more spam.)

My Hotmail address gets spammed six ways to Sunday, but that's pretty much expected. (I only opened that address to get one of those free X10 Firecracker kits back in the day.)

Re:AOL sucks?

[bsartist]

Can't we give their users a break?

I'll give them a break only by admitting that it's not just AOL users. Seriously - how many times have you heard some clueless newbie say "I didn't do anything, I swear! The computer just did that for no reason!"

Didn't the credit card companies take care of it?

[dpbsmith]

I've had four or five dealings with "merchant resolution" issues on credit cards over the past couple of decades. I went into every one a little nervous, because I didn't have any way of proving I _didn't_ make the purchase, and each of them was promptly resolved.

I don't know if anyone else remembers the bad old days of "holder-in-due-course." Originally the credit card companies simply took the position that they were the holder in due course of the debt you'd incurred with the merchant, and you could do anything you liked with the merchant, but THEY weren't involved and THEY were entitled to be paid, immediately. Then some good consumer laws got passed... and since then I've had the impression that buying with a credit card is really pretty powerful protection for the consumer.

The article doesn't say what really happened... why didn't those AOL customers just call their credit card companies and say "I never ordered it?" And if they did, what happened then?

AOL doesn't care

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Let me tell you a little story about what happened to me when I cancelled my AOL subscription.

In late January of 1997, I cancelled the credit card AOL was billing to. Next, I cancelled the AOL subscription itself. (note that I spent at least an hour on hold, waiting for a live operator) Next month, I had a little suprise on my credit card bil.

AOL had charged me for an extra month of service, because supposedly I was one day into the billing cycle when the account was cancelled. The part that burns my ass is that the card was cancelled and they were STILL ABLE to place a charge on it. (never get a Bank One card, by the way) I attempted to dispute with said credit card company but they refused to reverse the charge.

Therefore it suprises me not at all that they would do this to their users. IMO, AOL is a ripe target for class action.

Fuzzy

Why the hell promos

[codecool]

Its OK that AOL is a big ISP and stuff, but why the promos? Even free ISPs dont have as many promos and *traps* as does the paid AOL. I am not from the US, but back there in my country we have these simple plain ISPs, that just need you to login using an ID, and then you're connected as if on an Ethernet. Dont you have these kind of ISPs here in the US? I certainly mean national ISPs. Its always better when you need just to log in an ISP Remote Access router instead of having to go through all this garbage. Why the hell do they charge people?

Re:Why the hell promos

[Vegeta99]

We've got local ISPs like that, and I believe a few of the national ISPs are the same. My old dialup got boiught out by EarthLink tho.

Good for them

[forged]

"...With the company's stock price trading near a 52-week low..."

Ha ha ha.... Suckers! They only got what they deserved.

No hard feelings, it's just business after all.

Re:AOL sucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a double knock-out.

Re:AOL sucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah. AOL and MS may both be unpleasant, but I favor AOL for one reason -- they seem to be a lot less competent from a business point of view than MS. If they squish MS monopolies, I doubt they'd be capable of hanging onto those monopolies as tenaciously as MS does today.

AOL -- your friend, because they're incompetent.

good customer service

[UnifiedTechs]

From Article:

"We strongly believe that the allegations are without merit, and we intend to vigorously contest the lawsuit in court,"

.... always means good customer service if your customers are mad enough to sue you and you don't see any problem... oh call them liers why you are at it too, that will keep the new customers rolling in.

when aol offered longdistance

[mike13down]

my g/f made the error in saying yes to the long distance offer about 2 years ago, I canceled it the day after she started it. We got bills for almost a year later.

Good work timothy

[gmhowell]

Good job. Despite the deficiencies of so many editors on slashdot, you are the first I will plonk. I only read half of what JK writes, CT can't spell his way out of a paper bag, and the less said about jamie and michael, the better.

But you let this slip through:

Of course, we must wonder if these people truly clicked no thanks ...they are using AOL after all

I've got no problem slagging AOL. Or Linux. But the people who use AOL are using AOL because of bullshit arrogant types who won't teach them any better (I know, being a bs arrogant type).

You are an editor. That means you should be fixing things. Typos, bad links, abusive comments in submissions. It's one thing in a comment or journal entry. But this is front page 'news' for crying out loud.

Maybe I am just venting my spleen on you from lots of pent up garbage. Maybe you slipped. I don't know. I don't see you post. I don't know you from Adam.

And... As a paying subscriber to /., I expect more integrity. There. I said it. I feel giddy now.

*plonk*

Re:Good work timothy

[gmhowell]

A: the grammer in that note was better than many of the front page submissions.

B: I'm an unpaid contributor to Slashdot. You can't expect the same as you do from the paid editorial staff.

C: Like I said, I'm a customer. It's my right to bitch about things.

Re:Good work timothy

[Tim Browse]

I do love it when people insist that their grammer (sic) is good :-)

Tim

Re:Good work timothy

[gmhowell]

All complaints about my speling should be forwarded here.

Re:AOL sucks?

[JabberWokky]

There are two protocols, Oscar and TOC. TOC is documented by AOL, they even answer questions from implementors... think of it as the AOL web servers - it's the outside face to the AIM servers. Oscar is the protocol that AOL uses internally for its messangers. Think of it as the funky protocol that flashes up ads, lets you use "keywords" and says "You've got Mail" when you're using the AOL itself. Oscar and TOC also correspond to servers... Oscar is what the AOL only premium chats are based on (you know, talk to Brittney Spears or a doctor). The internal subscription content is held on them.

Now, the only problem is that Oscar supports a few more features now (not many) than TOC for obvious reasons (they use it as their primary protocol). TOC works fine for just about anything, and is utterly compatable userwise with Oscar - you fire up your Linux AIM client, and you see everybody using both protocols. AOL maintains it *specifically* for outside users.

My guess is that AOL has a bug up their butt about Oscar because it has security holes. The Trillian fiasco is a bit like creating a client for Slashdot that accesses the MySQL database directly, having the Slashdot guys close it down for you, and then you crying foul. There's a public interface and a private interface, and AOL lets whoever wants to write a client to the public interface go for it... but Trillian insists upon using that internal interface.

--
Evan

AOL sucks.

[Scoria]

I recently cancelled an AOL account that I used to access the Internet when I was away from home. Apparently, "no thanks" isn't adequate to cancel an AOL account, either.

I began receiving letters via snail mail from AOL. They essentially begged my return, even offering One Month Free (tm). Some of the more humorous gems were:

"We will do anything if you'll return to our service!"
"Be a part of America's number one ISP!"
"Reclaim your place on America's coolest online service today!"
"Upgrade to AOL 7.0, the easiest AOL yet!"
"We miss you!"

And now they're beginning to inundate me with AOL CDs. If you're reading this, I miss the maudlin, "I miss you and love you" letters, AOL.

Re:AOL sucks.

[GigsVT]

Use them for target practice. They are good targets, just shoot at the bottom, that way it doesn't matter what they screen onto the top.

Re:AOL sucks.

[CutieCatherine]

I recently cancelled AOL too (it was the only option when I was living with my parents for a month before I got married). So far, I've gotten a couple of calls asking me to come back, and a letter or two, but all in all, the bombardment hasn't been too bad, IMO.

Re:AOL sucks.

[screwtheNSA]

I have 100 CDs AOL sent to me since way back when, I even have a floppy with version 2.0!

They are great targets for my .50AE and my combat pistol matches I hold during the non-winter season.

I even made a holder that is motorized and swings the CD through an arc and you have to aim, shoot and hit the CD for points(breaking it usually).

AOL: Assholes Off Line
AOL: American Office of Lesbians
AOL: Affectionate Oral Lovers
AOL: Anal Orifice Love
AOL: Anything On Limpa(bread)
AOL: Afghanistan Office of Linguistics
AOL: Afghan Orator's Library
AOL: Assholes Of Law
AOL: Another Obscene Law
AOL: Always Object Lawyers
AOL: Accept Only Litigation
AOL: Acquiesce Or Litigate
AOL: I'm tired, you think up a few now....

Re:AOL sucks?

[JabberWokky]

Already its hard not to watch a movie, watch a TV show, read a book or play a game that AOL doesn't have some piece of license over and they are still growing.

Yes, but you won't be able to play, read or watch that media except on a MS player. And content is able to be generated by anybody. The players should be too, but not if MS has their way. I can write a novel and license it anyway I want. I can't make a DVD player legally because of the RIAA's stranglehold, and MS is trying to manuever to a position where *all* media is under their domain. Where the only legal players and viewers are, or are on top of, their software.

Personally, I can deal with AOL/Time Warner - their entire profit motive is to get the movies and then get them to the public. If the public doesn't get them, they don't get paid. And if I don't think their prices are right, I go buy from a label that has decent prices.

But Microsoft? They want to control the whole thing... and that's fine with the RIAA and MPAA because MS and the fine four fingered acronyms from hell all like to play control games, both legal and technical, whereas the rest of the world doesn't.

And in the end AOL/Time Warner will never wind up owning 100% of my entertainment time, or even a third of it. Most of my "entertainment" time is spent with friends, out having fun, BSing about pointless topics, spending time with my pets, camping, etc... even reading Slashdot. And even then, my entertainment time is not 100% of my life.

--
Evan

Re:AOL sucks?

[JabberWokky]

MS vs. AOL is like Bush vs. Gore. There really wasn't anyone to cheer for, except Nader.

I despise Nader, and voted wholeheartedly for one of the candiates. I was even on CNN during the recount protests. I was the one holding up the all black sign and/or the one that said "J.R "Bob" Dobbs for President" (not that that's who I voted for, but when you can prank a national event, you jump for it).

Incidently, we SubGenii hung out towards the Republican side at first because it had a free area where we could set up, and then later because we realized they smelled better and let us have their free beer - they thought we were cool. At one point at around 1:00am, we got a bunch of drunken Republican frat boy types to join us in chanting "Camarilla" at the Democrats, which had a few people who returned the call "Sabbat".

Oh, yeah - political protesters are fun people to hang around. It was great having interns walk up and ask who we were to see if the "big guns" should interview us.

--
Evan

Re:AOL sucks?

[Electrum]

My guess is that AOL has a bug up their butt about Oscar because it has security holes. The Trillian fiasco is a bit like creating a client for Slashdot that accesses the MySQL database directly, having the Slashdot guys close it down for you, and then you crying foul. There's a public interface and a private interface, and AOL lets whoever wants to write a client to the public interface go for it... but Trillian insists upon using that internal interface.

TOC lacks many features features. It works for their web client that is usable if you want to log on from somewhere and send someone a quick message, but it's not good enough for a full client. One very important feature it lacks is the ability to check away messages without sending the user a message. People who use IM all the time keep information in their away message, and not being able to check it really takes away from the IM "experience".

Re:AOL sucks?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

By that analogy, RMS is software's Ralph Nader -- a very smart guy who did some great things in his time, but who is now a stiff-necked, arrogant pain in the ass who does his cause more harm than good by putting ideology above results.

who cares?

[Fake Pie]

Isn't the big question here "who gives a shit?" Obviously if they use a credit card then they will get their money from their credit card company. If not they should get it returned by AOL. But, in all honesty, if they haven't learned that AOL isn't a good ISP by now, it's almost their own fault. Of course AOL is at fault for screwing them, but at least they might finally learn their lesson...

How AOL can trick people

[NFNNMIDATA]

I have used AOL recently (for work, not for personal use since 1994), and what they did was put up several ads when I logged on top of one another. There would be two buttons on the bottom, "cancel" and "order" - but they would sometimes swap sides of the window so if you just clicked the same place until the ads went away (which I did once being impatient by the 2nd ad), you would wind up ordering something. Conveniently billed to your credit card of course.

Happend to me

[Ashcrow]

Well, kind of. When I was younger my family had AOL for about 6 months. After a while we couldn't afford the per-hour charges so we switched to the unlimted time for a flat fee. About 3 or 4 months later we figured out AOL wasn't such a good deal and decided to go with a local ISP, but unfortunatly AOL didn't agree and kept charging us. They charged us for 3 more months of service that we never used. Of course, being quite upset (and ripped off) my mother called them askign why this was happening and their responce was because we were signed up for AOL. Aparently saying no thanks isn't good enough for leaving AOL.

and they want us to subscribe?

[maxpublic]

Of course, we must wonder if these people truly clicked no thanks ...they are using AOL

Jesus H. Christ, that's from a supposed 'editor'. And with this sort of 'professionalism' they want us to pay for the site?

Max

Re:and they want us to subscribe?

[Anonymous Coward]

oh shut up

Re:AOL sucks?

[JabberWokky]

TOC lacks many features features.

I know this is a typo, but it just strikes me as amusing newspeak, "doubleplusfeatures". :)

not being able to check it really takes away from the IM "experience".

First off, many users simply store that information in the profile rather than the away message for that exact same reason. And second, you can get the away message with absolutely no problem - except the user on the other end is notified that you just read their away message. Stealth reading might be nice, but it's hardly a killer feature.

--
Evan

Re:AOL really sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'll pick up some vinyl and see how they are going to do content protection on that...

+1 Funny, +1 Insightful on the MQR standard

[MarkusQ]

evilpaul13: One competes unfairly, and one wants to deprive you of your Freedom of Choice, which is worse?

Atzanteol: Which is which?

*laugh* So true. It's getting to be like national politics. Or animal farm.

-- MarkusQ

Re:AOL really sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

you do that dumbass... somehow I bet you've got a huge CD collection, and sit in your room with all your bravado talking about how you're going to stick it to the man. moron.

Re:AOL really sucks.

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah i'm helpin sue the shit out of them!!!

Re:AOL sucks?

[Lemmy Caution]

&ltflame&gtYou don't get it, do you? You are so myopically obsessed with the stupid little OS market, that you don't realize that it is *far* easier to route around Microsoft that to route around AOL. That's because Microsoft is seeking to dominate a few standards, and it is fairly easy to route around them. Sure, there may be a couple file formats that are harder to read, maybe we need the Crossover plug-in or equivalent, but there are enough players in the software/IT market to keep things fluid.

With AOL, they are controlling the *pipe* and the *content.* There is often no way to route around the pipe. And when the majority of content (news shows, movies, television show, music) is owned by a handful of people, the difficulty of getting alternative sources is *far* greater than the difficulty of getting an alternative OS.

But no, you were taught to hate Microsoft because that's the only industry you know, because you stare at a computer screen for hours on end and now think that what you're staring it is the Most Important Thing in the World and the Future of Civilization, all the while failing to realize that the substructure of that screen experience is being taken over from elsewhere.&lt/flame&gt

Re:AOL sucks?

[JabberWokky]

the difficulty of getting alternative sources is *far* greater than the difficulty of getting an alternative OS.

As a musician, I can put out a CD or a Ogg (or an MP3, since the problems there are more theoretical than real). If Windows Media becomes the new standard, and they decide to limit authoring to "authorized" people, then I'm screwed.

But no, you were taught to hate Microsoft because that's the only industry you know

Oh? Why the hell do you think I'm in the computing industry?

--
Evan

Re:Promotions -- hey, I want *more* AOL CDs!

[Reziac]

Back in the era when floppy disks cost a buck or so apiece, AOL's were the best quality diskettes you could get. So every time we ran out, we'd call AOL and complain that we couldn't find any AOL disks. They'd dutifully take our address, and we'd get several "officially blank" diskettes in the mail every month.

Now that their CDs come in those nifty metal containers and handy DVD cases, I am considering another assault on their mailing list. Why buy CDROM jewelcases and mailers when AOL so kindly provides an excellent alternative??

And the CDs (now printed in pretty colours!) work well as bird and vermin chasers, too.

Re:AOL sucks?

[spagma]

It is simple, don't use AOL. As if I had to say that here! But any service that you pay for should not have pop up advertisements, especially those that can directly charge your credit card on file, and any person that allows this is foolhearty.

I'm offended...

[Anonymous Coward]

I use AOL, but that doesn't mean I don't how to click a button.

Re:I'm offended...

[bachelor3]

>I use AOL, but that doesn't mean I don't how to
>click a button.

Re:I'm offended...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I use AOL, but that doesn't mean I don't how
>>to click a button.

Banner ads and AOL

[Nyphur]

On the subject of Banner ads, a successor to the banner and the popup is soon to come into the general workings of many sites which need money. A flash anim in a javascript layer will be placed in the page so that you cannot simply ignore the advertisement.

On the subject of both banner ads and AOL, I recently discovered that children as young as 4 can recognise a banner ad if told what one is, and never click on them. The only people now who click on banner ads are complete newbies and slight newbies who are tricked into thinking that the banner is a closeable/scrollable window or has active buttons of some kind. Sounds a lot like your average AOL user, doesn't it?

Second IF returns 0

[Arker]

So IF they didn't request it, AND IF the products were sent through the USPS, THEN the products are theirs.

Unfortunately AOL avoids USPS regulations by using UPS instead.

However, that is not likely to save them, legally.

Supposedly, the Uniform Commercial Code Section 2 contains that rule, according to a previous poster, but I wasn't able to find the section in question. However, many states in the US do have such rules (see this Colorodo law for instance) as do many foreign countries that AOL does business in (Australia, for instance) and I am fairly sure this is the case at the federal level too, even if I can't find the relevant statute at the moment.

The problem, of course, is that AOL will claim that the shipment was solicited, and thus that their claim is correct, and they have the lawyers, credit card companies, credit reporting agencies, etc. behind them, so short of a class action suit like this the average Joe has very little chance of asserting his rights successfully against them.

Re:AOL sucks?

[Lemmy Caution]

Because Microsoft will not be able to "undo" Ogg and MP3 and Linux. You always have that option. However, if AOL controls your pipe, they can decided to block your content if it competes with theirs - and since there are far fewer cables coming into your house than ways to assemble the bits in you computer, you would have far less of a chance to do much about it.

19.95 Unlimited plan

[Arker]

$19.95? Maybe 3 years ago. It's up to $23.90 now.

Actually it is $19.95/month if you pay them for a year at a time, upfront. There are not supposed to be any "roaming fees" either way though.

Re:19.95 Unlimited plan

[ncc74656]

$19.95? Maybe 3 years ago. It's up to $23.90 now.

Actually it is $19.95/month if you pay them for a year at a time, upfront. There are not supposed to be any "roaming fees" either way though.

My parents used AOHell for two years while they were over in Germany. AFAIK, they paid the going monthly rate...no "roaming fees." (They did have to pay phone charges, but with a POP in Kaiserslautern (they were at Ramstein AB at the time), phone rates weren't too bad if you read your mail offline.)

(They had been using AOHell since '95 or '96...whenever Prodigy went squirrelly. For some reason, though, their software wouldn't let them access websites. They received a CD with the latest-and-greatest software; that didn't fix things. A call to tech support ended quickly when the bot at the other end of the line said the wait was 60 minutes. After several years of telling them that they ought to get something better, my parents are finally ex-AOLers. :-) )

Correct information

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where diggem gets his info, it looks to me like he's talking out his rear. I have sadly been reduced to making phone calls for AOL several times a week to make rent, so my information should be correct. My information (from official AOL training documents) is that there is NO roaming charge, provided you are in the continental US. If you cross country boundaries there are some added fees - and of course the 800 dialups cost extra. But the roaming charge thing is a load of crap. If they do that then they're paying me to lie when they tell me that they don't. This is not something I could possibly be confused about, it's a fairly major point we're supposed to remind people about when they express concern over the high price relative to other ISPs.

Also having different people using the account like that is absolutely NOT a violation of the AUP in any sense. There is a reason you get 6 screen-names, they expect an account to serve all members of a household. The only reason you're ever supposed to have to get a second account is if you need to have two screen-names online at the same time - otherwise it's perfectly acceptable for one account to serve up to 6 different people, anywhere in the continental US. Again, I could not be confused about this - it is a point we are told to use to point out how much more value an AOL account gives than a normal ISP account.

I'm posting anonymously for the obvious reason - I wouldn't want anyone who knows me to know I've fallen so low as to work for AOL.

I've been very surprised by how little AOL seems to care about screwing their customers over and pissing them off, btw. I get the feeling there are different currents in upper management over this, and the "take their money and run" crowd seems to be in the ascendant at the moment.

Oh, one other thing, the free 3 months is the standard response to cancellation orders. You can keep getting those pretty much indefinately, at least with the current procedures.

Re:AOL sucks?

[Allen Varney]

is adopting a lot of open source practices (Mozilla)

You mean "Netscape". You think AOL had _anything_ to do with the open-sourcing of Mozilla? Ha!

Maybe he meant Netscape/Mozilla, but a better example would be AOLServer, the open-source server that AOL runs on.

AOL users are stupid

[56ksucks]

AOL users are stupid. I've said it before ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=26708&cid=2885 576 ) and I'll say it again. If someone is dumb enough to use AOL they deserve what they get. And since AOL caters to the idiots then they should have seen it coming. Most AOL using idiots are going to click OK to get rid of an annoying ad, even when there's a no thanks button. AOL is the itiot's internet. They should expect to have some users that are too lazy to read the words on the buttons they click. And this is why it's always wise to stay clear of ISP's that make you install software in order to access them. For $25 a month plus ad banners you get a crappy dial up service with its own software that crashes most of the time.

Re:AOL users are stupid

[lucky_duck]

AOL is the itiot's internet
Shouldn't that be idiot, idiot??

Re:AOL sucks?

[Lemmy Caution]

In fairness to the Trillian developers, it was the user-base that cried "foul": they just coded a fix.

I vote for 'both'

[Snover]

Either AOL has dumb users, dumb workers, or both

Transcripts of Kelani's Prank Phone Calls. 'Nuff said.

Re:AOL sucks?

[legojenn]

Be careful what you cheer for. Your enemy's enemy is not your friend. AOLTW is part of the RIAA & MPAA. Rather than trying to take control of your comuter, they want to control your CD players, DVD players, cassette players & VCRs.

Why use AOL anyway

[iamroot]

I've never really understood why so many people use AOL. There are a tremendous amount of other ISPs available, yet people use AOL, which isn't even really much of an ISP, more of a badly written BBS. AOL is spyware, it forces updates, and crashes. I've heard of people who have to redial 20-30 times before they get an open line, and then just get kicked of after a few minutes. Further more, why would you PAY to see popup ads!!! If you pay for an ISP, you shouldn't be forced to see ads all the time. Everyone I know that uses it hates it. I would be very surprised to find even one person that actually likes it. Unfortunately, they have such a big ad campaign that a lot of people use it at first. What I don't understand, is if they hate it so much, you would think they would at least look into some other alternatives.

That explains

[hawk]

why Pat Buchannan showed up on my doorstep last week.

I fed him breakfast, we had a nice chat about Jesuit education, and he went on his way.

But walking back to his car, six different people asked, "So, Al, are you going to run again next time?"

:)

hawk

My wife is part of this now

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading about this, my wife contacted the law firm. She and I are both technically literate people, and she signed up with AOL so that we could have internet access while we travel.

On the day she signed up (and signed on only long enough to sign up) she clicked "no thanks" on an ad for a "getting started with AOL" book -- the last thing she or I would want (she edits PHP-based web pages, for chrissake). She then logged off and we left for our trip the next day.

The first time (several days later) she logged in on the road, she signed on and went to our bank to check our balances -- and found a $24.95 charge from AOL. After many minutes on the phone, she found out they'd sent her the book after all, it couldn't be stopped, and they wanted us to pay for return shipping (at first, they wanted us to pay for the book and said it couldn't be returned!) After a great deal of effort and frustration, she finally got someone on the AOL end to reimburse us for the book and the shipping charges, but it was a hassle and put a damper on our vacation day.

So there you have it.

AO[sme|Hel|\b]L

[Anonymous Coward]

Back when AOL first came on the scene, I had it - great place to get lots of Mac software... easy to use, etc... Worked pretty well... You have to admit, they had a nice GUI...

THEN, they started advertising and ramping up the service. Busy signals, messages saying "We're sorry, but we can't complete your messaging request now... please try later" (fuck, I'm sending email what kind of resources does it take to run SendMail?), and the final straw - 15 pop-up ads every time I logged in...

So I left... They tried charging my card, but I kept calling the CC company and denying the charges... Also filed complaints with my state's atty general.... eventually it stopped...

Then the regular deluge of disks and CD's arrived - I filed USPS prohibitory orders against them and stopped that...

Life is good - no more AOSMELL...

Nearly everyone I know hates AOL after signing up for it and I have a nice side business setting up ISPs for people...

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that out of the 20bizillion customers that AOL claims to have, that they made 100 mistakes in processing "no thanks" for people and they were accidently billed. Perhaps an imagemap coordinate was wrong, maybe there was a power surge and a bit was flipped, maybe a programmer made some change and accidently pushed it out, then pulled it back! Who knows, who the hell cares. AOL ought to just say "sorry, we'll send you a return tag and if you'd be so kind as to drop it in the mail, we'll give you an extra 15 hours free..." - that'd be the end of it.

But they have to be fucken assholes about it and demand payment, threaten, blah blah blah. Fuck them, and all these giant companies without any notion of customer service - either you give me what I want at the right price, or I leave. If you cheat me, you'd better make it right or I'll sue you. Better yet, I'll find everyone you cheated and bring them in on the case to fuck you like you fucked us...

AOL needs to go away... along with their annoying commercials that are on CNN every 15 minutes...

Very True!

[SupaYoda]

And the CDs (now printed in pretty colours!) work well as bird and vermin chasers, too.

Very true. A friend of mine hangs them in strategic locations on his boat. There is not a spot of bird poop anywhere!

I say that we should be thankful to AOL for providing us with such a service.

Gimme a break!

[SupaYoda]

"...even when the users claim they didn't change anything."

What tech support agent hasn't heard a customer make those claims. The standard conversation follows:

Customer: "I can't use my DSL, but I didn't change anything"

Tech: "Well sir, it looks like an intellectually challenged gremlin may have changed your TCP/IP settings to specify an IP address that just happens to be for the router you said that you didn't set up. Damn that Gizmo!"

The greatest AOL stupidity story of them all

[Anonymous Coward]

I work tech support for a broadband ISP

one day I overhear a tech saying that the call he just got off of was from a lady saying that she called AOL because the software had been screwing with her computer and causing the connection to fail so she couldnt get online at all (this happened a lot with 6.0 because of the 250+ registry changes it made) and AOL apparently told her to call us back because she needed to re-seat her AOL adapter.

1. An AOL adapter is entirely software, there's nothing to reseat.
2. AOL supports its own products, and yet they tell her to call us for help with AOL's crap

AOL = most ridiculous corporation alive.

But I really clicked it!

[CompaniaHill]

I once had a manager who was repeatedly unable to fulfill his weekly duty of approving my hours via the company's web-based timesheet forms, resulting in occasionally delayed paychecks. Finally, after he claimed that he had submitted his approval for the same hours THREE TIMES in one week, I sat and watched over his shoulder as he attempted it a fourth time. He nagivated to the appropriate page displaying my hours, fumed that the system had STILL not accepted his change, pointed repeatedly at the unchecked box. Checked it. Then left the web page without ever submitting his change.

I'm sure he must use AOL at home.

Re:AOL sucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

AOL was valued at approx $4000 per customer prior to the merger with Time Warner. Hence using any freebies (open source software projects) possible, and trying to shaft the users whenever. If you talk to senior AOL people, they get very cagey when you ask them about churn rates.