Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
America Online Your Rights Online

'No Thanks' Not Good Enough For AOL Promos 221

Posted by timothy from the informed-consent dept.
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 ;)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'No Thanks' Not Good Enough For AOL Promos More

'No Thanks' Not Good Enough For AOL Promos

Comments Filter:

  • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:AOL really sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by evilpaul13 ( 181626 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:33PM (#3098534)
      "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? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by JabberWokky ( 19442 )
      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.

      • Re:AOL sucks? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by malfunct ( 120790 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:49PM (#3098588) Homepage
        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.

        • Re:AOL sucks? (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Mr Teddy Bear ( 540142 )
          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.
        • 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? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hendridm ( 302246 )
      > 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.

    • Re:AOL sucks? (Score:3, Informative)

      by CaseyB ( 1105 )
      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.

    • No. We can't. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mindstrm ( 20013 )
      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. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tb3 ( 313150 )
        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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Carnage4Life ( 106069 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @04:32PM (#3098767) Homepage Journal
      In the boxing match that is MS vs AOL... I'm cheering for AOL.

      Why is this? AOL Time Warner supports the DMCA [google.com], the SSSCA [google.com] and was against DeCSS [google.com] this is besides the fact that they are the primary source of information for millions of people [cjr.org] 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? OT and stuff (Score:4, Interesting)

        by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @05:04PM (#3098886) Homepage Journal
        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.

    • 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

  • Check this out too (Score:3, Interesting)

    by boio ( 533648 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:25PM (#3098489)
    There's an article on msnbc [msnbc.com] (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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by falloutboy ( 150069 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:43PM (#3098568)
      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, [cornell.edu] 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.

    • 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?
      • 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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by NoMoreNicksLeft ( 516230 ) <john.oylerNO@SPAMcomcast.net> on Saturday March 02, 2002 @04:19PM (#3098712) Journal
        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.
        • #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 (Score:2, Interesting)

          by teasea ( 11940 )
          #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.

      • 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 [cornell.edu] 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 [state.co.us] for instance) as do many foreign countries that AOL does business in (Australia, for instance [act.gov.au]) 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:Check this out too (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ssheth ( 92678 )
      As per the FTC [ftc.gov]:

      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AgTiger ( 458268 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @09:15PM (#3099586) Homepage
        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.

  • 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!!!!!!!!!

  • Opt-Out is there, but hidden (Score:5, Informative)

    by niola ( 74324 ) <jon@niola.net> on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:25PM (#3098493) Homepage
    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

  • Shady (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vansloot ( 89515 )
    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.

  • AOL's business practices are getting odd... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by drik00 ( 526104 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:28PM (#3098511) Homepage
    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.

    • 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.

      • $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.

        • $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. :-) )

    • 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.

  • Sounds Familiar (Score:5, Funny)

    by acidos ( 39557 ) <[ten.seiknuj-htdiwdnab] [ta] [sodica]> on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:28PM (#3098512) Homepage
    I bet all the users that are suing are from Florida too.
    • 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

  • Uh (Score:2, Funny)

    by EricKrout.com ( 559698 )
    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. [erickrout.com]

    • Re:Uh (Score:3, Funny)

      by ShadowDrgn ( 114114 )
      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?
  • 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.

  • So? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheQuantumShift ( 175338 ) <monkeyknifefight@internationalwaters.com> on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:38PM (#3098549) Homepage
    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? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by elflord ( 9269 )
      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.

    • 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...)

  • Promotions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SevenTowers ( 525361 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:40PM (#3098560) Homepage
    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.
    • 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 (Score:3, Interesting)

        by ssheth ( 92678 )
        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.
    • 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!)"

    • Re:Promotions (Score:2, Funny)

      by TACD ( 514008 )
      'Useless junk'? Shame on you, man. Have you no ambition [slashdot.org]?

      Aim true, my friend. ;-)

    • Re:Promotions -- hey, I want *more* AOL CDs! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Reziac ( 43301 ) on Sunday March 03, 2002 @12:11AM (#3100032) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Very True! (Score:2, Informative)

        by SupaYoda ( 531436 )
        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.

  • AOL. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by saintlupus ( 227599 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:50PM (#3098595)
    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
    • 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.
      • 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.


      • ...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.

    • 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. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by saintlupus ( 227599 )
        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
  • i wonder if aol could pull off the argument that their users are so dumb, they couldn't have possibly clicked the correct option..

  • other AOL problems (Score:5, Funny)

    by I Want GNU! ( 556631 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @03:54PM (#3098607) Homepage
    It's not just this that they are getting charged extra for. According to this article [internetnews.com] (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/ [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 [com.com] a few years ago? They could stop this crap right now if they wanted to...

  • 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...

  • 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.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ari{Dal} ( 68669 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @04:01PM (#3098634)
    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 [microsoft.com] and conglomerates [att.com] 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?
  • 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
  • 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 [wired.com] 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.
  • 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.

  • AOL's Practices (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @04:08PM (#3098671) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mrbuckles ( 201938 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @04:36PM (#3098778)
      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 (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mrscorpio ( 265337 )
      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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • ...simply got the imagemap coordinates reveresed. ;-)

  • Dialogue of the Sale (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 02, 2002 @04:59PM (#3098861)
    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...
  • 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 :)

  • To remove AOL advertising.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by 1155 ( 538047 ) on Saturday March 02, 2002 @05:45PM (#3099001) Homepage
    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 [mainlandinternet.net] and suggest anyone with aol should do the same.
    • 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.

      • 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.)

  • AOL doesn't care (Score:2, Interesting)

    by FuzzyBad-Mofo ( 184327 )

    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
  • 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.
  • 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*
  • 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.
  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

Any circuit design must contain at least one part which is obsolete, two parts which are unobtainable, and three parts which are still under development.

Close