-Caveat Lector-

Newsgroups: alt.aol-sucks
Date: Sunday, January 31, 1999 1:54 PM
Subject: New York Times: Big Brother at AOL


>Worries About Big Brother at America Online
>
> By AMY HARMON
>
>
>  Like the divided generations of Irish before them, the two opposing
camps of contributors to America Online's discussion group on Ireland
rarely agree on anything. But when the world's leading online service
suspended their contentious electronic debate last month, participants
on both sides were united in their dismay.
>
>  "Don't stop just to appease the AOL Thought Police," one proponent of
a united Ireland wrote to the Unionist contingent. "I'd much rather have
someone vehemently disagree with me than know that anyone has been
silenced!"
>
>  America Online reopened its Irish Heritage discussion after a 17-day
"cooling off" period, and if there was a strangely muted quality to the
contributions at first, things are mostly back to normal. The politics
folder, which now bears the slogan "a place for cordial political debate
in the spirit of harmony," has spawned more than 12,000 of the usual
postings regarding British treason and Sinn Fein terrorism since the
beginning of the year.
>
>  But the episode has fed a growing discomfort with the social and
political power America Online has come to wield by dint of its surging
popularity and its unusual purview over individual communication. And it
underscores the challenges the company may face as it seeks with mixed
success to maintain both civil discourse and satisfied customers while
presiding over 180,000 continuing conversations on topics from the
teen-age idols 'N Sync to Presidential impeachment.
>
>  Balancing free expression with civility has always been a struggle
for America Online and other electronic publishers that provide areas
where people can voice their opinions by typing them into the ether. But
it is America Online's scope combined with its editorial control that
some critics say is cause for concern.
>
>  With 15 million subscribers, America Online is now the gateway to
cyberspace for more Americans than the next 15 largest Internet service
providers combined, according to a report released last week by the
International Data Corp., a market research firm. This week, announcing
strong earnings, the company said 1.6 million accounts were added in the
last three months of 1998 alone.
>
>  But some members have begun to chafe at its definition of civility,
or at least the way it seems sometimes arbitrarily applied. And some
civil liberties advocates are scrutinizing the service more closely as a
new breed of institution that governs speech and yet is immune from
First Amendment claims.
>
>  A flurry of recent clashes in discussion areas ranging from race
relations to fiction writing have served to heighten concerns over the
company's more subtle methods of monitoring the discussions on its
message boards -- the continuing discussions that subscribers can follow
and contribute to over time, as distinct from the simultaneous and
sometimes chaotic (but also monitored) exchanges in what it calls chat
rooms. In particular, some subscribers cite the online service's
practice of deleting message board postings without explanation and of
attaching the equivalent of demerit marks to the accounts of individuals
deemed to have offended another subscriber.
>
>  Who Decides What's Offensive?
>
>  The question is, who gets to decide what's 'offensive?"' says Renee
Rosenblum-Lowden of Riegelsville, Pa., who recalls being cited for a
violation for posting a message in a debate on abortion advising an
opponent, "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen."
>
>  Under America Online's contract, universally referred to among
members in both noun and verb form as TOS, for "terms of service," all
subscribers promise not to "harass, threaten, embarrass, or do anything
else to another member that is unwanted." Often transgressions are
reported to America Online officials by other discussion group
participants, whose identities are not released to those they accuse.
According to the company's subscriber contract, three such violations
may result in the suspension or termination of an account.
>
>  Ms. Rosenblum-Lowden -- whose screen name is now "Prejteach 2"
because her "Prejteach" account was closed -- says she and a group of
other women who take part in discussions on the Women in Action board
have been picked as targets for complaints by those who disagree with
their liberal views. "Unlike a court of law, you don't face your
accusers," she said. "That gives people free rein."
>
>  America Online officials concede that judging what is unduly
offensive in often-complex political disputes or long-running personal
battles can be tricky, especially given the volume and range of
messages. That is why the company has enlisted nearly 14,000 volunteers
to patrol the boards, and employs a group of about 100 known as the
Community Action Team to determine when a comment crosses the line.
>
>  In intervening in conversations between its users, America Online
says its objective is to maintain a sense of community. Although legal
liability for libelous statements appearing on its boards was once more
of a concern, a provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
essentially grants online services immunity from prosecution over such
matters, characterizing them as a "common carrier" like a telephone
company -- simply a means by which information is transmitted, with no
responsibility for the information itself.
>
>  Most terms-of-service violations are handled case by case. In an
extreme case like the Irish board, where dozens of violations were being
reported every day by the most active participants, the company said
there were enough profane and offensive postings that it became
necessary to shut down the whole discussion. The discussion archives,
which sometimes remain on the service for several years, were wiped
clean during the weeks that the board was shut down, so no trace
remains.
>
>  "There's a certain amount of judgment required in situations on
whether something is particularly harassing or threatening of other
members," said Katherine Boursecnik, America Online's vice president for
network programming. "That's where things get the most difficult. We
train people to be agnostic about the specific content and to look more
at things like tone: Is it threatening, harassing, profane, vulgar?"
>
>  But given the well-documented tendency of normally sober citizens to
act out on line, the problems of privacy protection and threats to
minors -- as well as Congressional efforts to regulate online speech --
Ms. Boursecnik said the company's supervisory policies were necessary to
provide the open atmosphere its customers wanted.
>
>  "We are a service that prides ourselves on having a wide-ranging
appeal to a wide range of individuals," she added. "But at the same time
we're also a family service."
>
>  For Some, Control Is Seen as a Virtue
>
>  Indeed, for many subscribers, America Online's virtue is its
controlled environment. A members-only online service distinct from the
unfettered Internet, America Online has achieved market dominance by
promoting itself as a place where families and first-time Internet users
can feel comfortable. While members can venture out into the World Wide
Web and other parts of the Internet from the online service, many seldom
do, preferring America Online's relative safety and familiarity.
>
>  The service is far from the only Internet discussion area to enforce
its own standards of acceptable speech. Popular Web destinations like
the search and directory site Yahoo, discussion-oriented sites like
Theglobe.com, and sites operated by traditional publishers (including
The New York Times) reserve the right to remove postings on the message
boards they provide to Internet users. And those who find America
Online's terms unacceptable can always go to another online service, or
to the Internet's entirely unmonitored forums called news groups.
>
>  But America Online's extraordinary market dominance, critics argue,
makes it the only place in practical terms for a growing number of
people to speak their mind in cyberspace. Many Internet users find the
unmoderated news groups too technically complex to use and too overrun
with advertising to be productive for discussion. Since it serves as an
Internet service provider, America Online has a far more potent
enforcement mechanism for its rules than most other discussion areas on
the Web. Since subscribers pay a monthly fee with a credit card, the
company can bar individuals from logging on -- thereby denying them,
among other things, access to e-mail.
>
>  "America Online is the operating system of the Internet," said Andrew
L. Shapiro, the First Amendment fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice
at New York University Law School, comparing the service to the
Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system, which runs on 90 percent of
the world's personal computers.
>
>  "We've moved distressingly close to the model that the Internet was
supposed to replace, which is a couple of big companies having a
disproportionate amount of control over the information market," Shapiro
added. "A good argument can be made that AOL needs to take on more
responsibility for protecting free speech, whether courts require it or
consumers simply demand it."
>
>  Canceling Service as Sign of Protest
>
>  Although some subscribers, like John Navin, 38, of Mount Lake
Terrace, Wash., said he had dropped his America Online account to
protest the Irish board shutdown, others dissatisfied with its
interventions remain with the service out of choice, habit or necessity.
>
>  When Sheila Fahey found the Irish discussion shuttered last month,
for example, she and others tried to migrate their discussion to a site
on the World Wide Web called Ireland Uncensored. But she found the forum
confusing and too difficult to follow. Instead, she says she and several
other Irish nationalists now screen each other's postings before making
them public to vet them for possible terms-of-service violations.
>
>  "We've all learned not to use first-person pronouns," said Ms. Fahey,
41, a paralegal in Chicago. "If an English teacher looked at some of our
postings, they are so passive-language-filled they'd have a cow."
>
>  (When the discussion was reopened, the monitor posted a message
pleading for harmony: "We encourage you to make this a more amiable
place where any person, regardless of faction, can openly discuss
political issues and current events.")
>
>  For Robin Olderman, 54, a high school English teacher in Houston, it
means putting up with what she describes as feeling like a kid in a
playground whose friends go running to the teacher.
>
>  "I take issue with the way the rules are enforced arbitrarily," said
Ms. Olderman, who is currently operating under a "mutual nonharassment
notice," an e-mail message from America Online explaining that she and
another subscriber are never to speak to each other via the service
again.
>
>  Perhaps more disturbing to some subscribers is the removal of
postings from message boards. On the Writers Club board, which like many
areas of America Online is administered by a separate company that
contracts with the service, more than a dozen of the most active
participants over the last several years recently left en masse after
the board monitors began removing their postings and reporting
terms-of-service violations more frequently to the Community Action
Team.
>
>  The writers now congregate on a board called "Sanctuary" in the
American Civil Liberties Union area on America Online, where the
terms-of-service rules do not apply.
>
>  On the race relations message board, Jay Lutsky, 31, of Edison, N.J.,
said he compared an active participant who accused everyone on the board
of being his enemy to Robespierre, the French Jacobin leader responsible
for the revolution's Reign of Terror. It was removed by monitors after
the other participant said it was slander.
>
>  "I said it was opinion; I'm entitled," Lutsky, a teacher, said. "I
understand AOL is a large private corporation, and I guess it's
technically their property, but I don't think it should be allowed to
interfere with the First Amendment rights of people."
>





______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to