David Cassel (destiny@wco.com)
Sun, 9 Nov 1997 15:41:29 -0800 (PST)
D a n g e r a n d N e g l e c t ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ "Privacy, the safety of your family, and murder." Barbara Walters spoke in hushed tones Halloween night. She was introducing "one of the most important viewing hours you may spend" -- a 20/20 segment warning about "vile ideas" and "depraved people". It was titled "Dangers of the Internet" -- but most of the show concerned AOL chat rooms. "And America Online, they have rooms -- hundreds of rooms -- each catering to somebody's whim," one interview subject explained. A female teenager remembered that when she met one man on-line, "he started, like, spitting out, like, really sexual comments, and he was like, 'I want to meet you.' And I'm like, 'I don't think so.' And I signed off, and I, like, left the computer. "And I didn't go back on America Online for a while...." http://www.abcnews.com/onair/2020/html_files/transcripts/nmg1031a.html "You think someone should tell them that AOL isn't the internet?" one AOL Watch reader asked. As NetGuide magazine noted in 1995, "Behind every major 'Internet' story in the media lies an AOL chat room." Just days before ABC's broadcast, AOL Watch cited a Washington Post columnist who'd written that "Virtually none of the on-line chat rooms that get written about in the news media actually exist in popular, easy-to-use form on the Internet; instead, they can be found via commercial on-line services such as America Online." The reporter had seen the importance of the distinction. "By making the entire Internet sound like one big porno palace and pedophile playground, I think we scare people who might otherwise find something valuable in the huge parts of the Net that are perfectly safe." 20/20 focused on a single bizarre incident involving a New Jersey fifteen-year-old who "snapped" after an affair with an older man he'd met in an AOL chat room ( http://www.abcnews.com/onair/2020/html_files/transcripts/nmg1031b.html ) -- but they ignored important distinctions. AOL's service offers users non-stop anonymity, with an unlimited supply of disposable screen names. In 1995, the San Francisco Chronicle's Robert Rossney noted that AOL has "built a system that makes it easy for predators to operate, and has then turned around and aggressively marketed it to prey." ( http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/chronicle/article.cgi?DD22231.DTL:/chronicle/archive/1995/09/21 ) Continuing that strategy, AOL launched a PR offensive. As the 20/20 program aired, AOL's welcome screen pointed users to a chance to hear from "CEO Steve Case on creating the safest online environment for our children." AOL's intention was clear. "I'm sure most of you have noticed the amount of news focusing on children on the Internet," Case wrote. "I'd like to take a moment to speak to you as a parent," the unmarried CEO added. The announcement appeared on-line for the next four days -- but it was ultimately accompanied by pointers to "Wild Teen Chat". ( http://www.aolwatch.org/welcchat.gif ) Two days later, the sign-on screen announced "BEDTIME picnic for two? Select sensuous sweets in Gourmet Gifts." In fact, AOL even promotes their "Plug In" teen chat room with the phrase "Age/Sex Check!" ( aol://4344:3087.p1000ASa.20382659.538289634 ) And one user -- whose profile identified themself as 13 -- posted a request for "sex pics" in aol.newsgroups.bugs. Nearly two weeks later, their request remains on-line. It signals AOL's true indifference. All AOL users are subscribed to aol.newsgroups.bugs -- by default. Its "local", AOL-only posts appear even when AOL's parental controls are set to create a level of access appropriate for teenagers. And AOL has apparently stopped monitoring the newsgroup. A thread titled "American Niggers" contains 33 posts. Over a dozen more appeared in a thread titled "Teen sex." In fact, eleven different threads contained the word "sex". "This is my first time in newsgroups," one subscriber complained. "Frankly, I am appalled." Another poster agreed. "This is the first time I have used a newsgroup," they posted, "but it appears that the subject matter from some of you is blatantly SICK..." AOL's failure to patrol the newsgroup -- or respond to complaints -- create a free-for-all where TOS-violating posts far outweigh posts about newsgroup bugs. ( http://www.aolwatch.org/bugspam.gif ) Advertisers seeking free exposure join teenagers in exploiting the opportunity. MAKE THE NET WORK FOR YOU!!! FREE LONG DISTANCE PHONE CALLS!!! Extra space before each line FREE LIFE TIME 5 PAGE COMMERCIAL WEBSITE Teen Sex The newsgroup is officially described as "A forum for discussion of problems in the software of the aol newsreader." But users have long since abandoned that guideline. "LATEX GLOVE IRRITATION RELIEF!" another post promised. "Ask me how...everything you need to know about Oxyfresh, its amazing cutting-edge products and complete duplicable program." "please send all sex pics," read another topic. "get a good sex," another offered. "i need cartoon porn," said a third. ("so do i" read a follow-up. "as do i" read the next...) Users complaining have little luck. One e-mailed TOSEmail1, TOSGeneral, Newsmaster, Postmaster, and TOSUsenet. ( http://www.aolwatch.org/dummy.gif ) Ten days later -- nothing. "We have cancelled the member's posts," AOL's postmaster wrote back after five days. "Then why is it still there..." the member wanted to know. Though AOL had said they'd cancelled the post -- they hadn't. Six days later, the post is still on-line. http://www.aolwatch.org/dummy3.gif Others noted similar unresponsiveness: - "I forwarded a lot of the articles to TOS Usenet," an AOL Watch reader reported Saturday. "That was on Tuesday; to this day they haven't even read my e-mail." - After reading an egregious post, an AOL-Europe support staffer told AOL Watch that "His statement is against TOS, and that's why I reported him... He'll soon know how to behave." Eight days later, the post remained on-line. It's been worse. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that AOL staffers failed to fully screen incoming files in 1995, and as a result, child pornography appeared in AOL's file libraries. "FBI and America Online records revealed that during one 25-minute span when an illegal photograph was made available...about 400 people nationwide downloaded the picture to their computers." ( ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/cinn1 ) That atmosphere continues. For the last two weeks, aol.newsgroups.bugs has displayed a post requesting pictures of teenagers having sex. Morbid humor appears in the poster's on-line profile. "Whatever they tell you," it reads, "the state appointed psychiatrist is not your 'friend'." Another user suggests a new slogan for AOL: "It's so easy to use no wonder sexual predators rank it number 1." In an unfortunate coincidence, earlier this year, AOL's own attorney was charged with sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy. ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0058.html ) After receiving no responses to their complaints about inappropriate posts, one user reached a troubling conclusion. "I am sufficiently satisfied that they simply do not care," they told AOL Watch. ABC translates AOL-only problems into "Danger on the Internet" -- perhaps because the program aired during the second night of the crucial "Sweeps" period when ratings are calculated. ( http://www.rbn.com/cgi-bin/v.pl?swave/abc/2020_1031.rm ) They also reported that "across this country, more than half the kids from 12 to 17 are using the Internet," though in fact, the latest statistics from Jupiter Communications state that only 15% of America's teenagers are on-line. ( http://www.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/081297teen.html ) One Guide see a disturbing pattern. "I still find it interesting that 20/20 does a story in prime time, and suddenly all of these resources are going to kids" -- including most of the available on-line guides. They see an attempt to avoid negative news stories involving children. Currently, when kids chat rooms can't be sufficiently staffed, AOL simply closes them. The Guide notes this often has the opposite effect: children enter AOL's all-ages chat rooms. (In June Steve Case conceded that nearly 75% of AOL households with young children didn't use the Parental Controls that would block chat room access.) Meanwhile, unauthorized soft-porn appears to be thriving on the system ( aol://4344:613.pullmel.3475360.491812517 ) -- as well as AOL-endorsed content like the Hub's feature on nipple erections ( aol://4344:773.HOTNIP1.6843825.521317437 ) and pixellated photos of nude celebrities. ( http://www.aolwatch.org/safe-ha.htm ) ("Just what belongs on a 'family service'," one AOL Watch reader complained.) AOL's "AOL Insider" once noted that AOL's most popular downloads -- accessible even with parental controls set for teenagers -- are pin-ups of a blonde wrestler. ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0029.html ) These features belie AOL's commitment to children's safety. "If AOL just put a percentage of the effort it makes to spin-doctor away its culpability for these problems into solving them, inexpensive and effective solutions could be found," one children's rights activist told Congress. ( ftp://ftp.crl.com/users/de/destiny/aol/congress1 ) Instead, recently, they've even begun REDUCING resources for patrolling the system, according to some remote staffers. ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0076.html ) That's not the only security problem. A beta-version of AOL's proprietary 4.0 software -- not available to AOL users -- has apparently leaked out to the web. ( http://www.inside-aol.com/aolbeta.htm ) Others point to an incident where in-house message boards for beta-testers couldn't be adequately patrolled for TOS-violating content -- and the boards were closed. The same fate awaited keyword "Ellen," which was removed from the system entirely ten days ago, apparently due to an inability to effectively patrol its message board. ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0075.html ) Now AOL's trying to expand the reach of their anonymous screen names to the rest of the internet. ( http://www.wired.com/news/news/business/story/8212.html ) Wired News described it as "one technology the proprietary network operator -- which has taken so much flack for technical troubles -- has apparently gotten right..." Ironically, that day AOL experienced still more e-mail outages ( http://www.sjmercury.com/news/breaking/docs/034701.htm ) -- and some users reported AOL simply refused to deliver e-mail recently, sending a bounce message stating the the user "is temporarily unavailable while we upgrade our system." Glitches also hit AOL's chat rooms, which were upgraded to a new format on October 29. Within days, technical problems forced AOL to revert to the old-style chat rooms -- and ten days later, they have yet to restore the new features. Yet AOL continues their reckless expansion. "Last weekend, I wore a hat that was given out at the 1993 Holiday Party that says '500,000 Members'," AOL's Michael Connors e-mailed Steve Case on October 29. "Times sure do change." 500,093 subscribers had logged onto AOL that night at the same time. "This week, for the first time, we were able to accommodate more than 500,000 simultaneous users!" Steve Case boasted in his November Community Update. Unreported is the fact that the next day a nationwide crash prevented full log-in capability for four and half hours. ( http://www.aolsucks.org/list/0076.html ) "We will keep working to increase our capacity," Case wrote instead, "to make sure you can rely and depend on us, each and every day." (The statistics suggest that instead, AOL kept half a million users off-line...) Nevertheless, they continue their relentless quest for subscribers. Between June and August, AOL spent $97.8 million marketing their service--over $1 million dollars per day. ( http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/97/11/06/aol_x0001_2.html ) Loyal members are getting discouraged. One Guide says "I no longer read Steve's letter, 'The Pulse of AOL' or the Insider, which seem to have no basis in reality." In a variation on Urban Flight, even some members of the news media are abandoning AOL's service. One highly-placed free-lance writer told AOL Watch they were "leaving behind the busy signals and 'good intentions' of AOL." "Though for a long time, having AOL meant I could report on their idiocy first-hand, now I will rely on the third-hand reports of friends and the less fortunate." THE LAST LAUGH "Sex should not be censored," one poster wrote in the "sex is cool" thread in aol.newsgroups.bugs, "and every body should share it with everybody. "Especily me." David Cassel More Information - http://www.aolwatch.org http://www.aolwatch.org/media.htm http://www.aolwatch.org/screed1.htm http://www.aolwatch.org/c-pornog.htm http://www.aolwatch.org/nickload.htm ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~ Please forward with subscription information and headers. To subscribe to this list, type your correct e-mail address in the form at the bottom of the page at www.aolsucks.org -- or send e-mail to MAJORDOMO@CLOUD9.NET containing the phrase SUBSCRIBE AOL-LIST in the the message body. To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to MAJORDOMO@CLOUD9.NET containing the phrase UNSUBSCRIBE AOL-LIST. ~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~++~
Copyright © 1995-1997 All Rights Reserved. Web service provided by Cloud 9 Internet |