Slashdot Mirror
'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 ;)."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
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.
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.
Beer, now there's a temporary solution -- Homer Jay S.
I bet all the users that are suing are from Florida too.
-- get on Freenet!
Apparently these users say they clicked the 'no thanks' button, but still received the advertised products.
;-)
:: GNUws For Nerds. Flawless Grammar.
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
"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?
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.
Runnin' On Empty
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.
Shift happens. Fire it up.
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.
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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.
Imperium et libertas
Autocracy and freedom
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.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
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
> 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.
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.
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/!
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...
today is spelling optional day.
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...
My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
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.
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?
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
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
Play with my webcams and lights here
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.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
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.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
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.
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.
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.
...simply got the imagemap coordinates reveresed. ;-)
mailto:<?=implode("@", array("chris", implode(".", array("php", "net"))))?>
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.
One competes unfairly, and one wants to deprive you of your Freedom of Choice, which is worse?
Which is which?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
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.
AOL: Do you want to buy these wonderfully carved toothpicks for $9.95?
Helpless Victim:No.
AOL: Okay, I'll place that order. It's Opposite Day!
Helpless Victim:Wait! Yes. I want to buy the toothpicks.
AOL: Ok, I'll place that order.
*5 weeks later*
A UPS guy brings a box of toothpicks to HV's home.
Helpless Victim: What the hell...
As to the question of ordering, reminds me of silly programs we wrote when we were secretly mocking users on our records system years ago.
Enter Yes if you would like to continue OR
Enter No if you do not wish to exit the program.
I'd give the users the benefit of the doubt, if YES/NO choice doesn't work in a way they anticipate then it's most likely the provider's failing, though as I recall, there have been many of examples of people being duped into paying for things they had no knowledge of.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
sorry M$ 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
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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 :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
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.
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.
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.
FuzzyFrom 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.
iRepairIT - iPhone, Mac, & PC Repair
But you let this slip through:
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
*plonk*
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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.
Do you like German cars?
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
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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".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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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
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
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
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.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
In fairness to the Trillian developers, it was the user-base that cried "foul": they just coded a fix.
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
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.