'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

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?

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.

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.

[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

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...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.