AOL Censorship?

DNeurococo

Thread Starter
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
2,620
Quote==>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOL's version 5.0 software was tested by CNET News. Over several days, CNET monitored more than 100 political sites in the "kids only" mode. They found that AOL's filters consistently allowed children to view conservative political sites (for example, the National Rifle Association) but filtered out liberal and Democratic online locations, including the site of the Democratic National Committee.

Sites that were not strictly conservative didn't get past the filter, according to "Censored 2001." Even attempts to enter Ross Perot's Reform Party, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence produced the AOL message, "not appropriate for children." Some of this censorship has been corrected, however the filtering system, made by an educational software company owned by Mattel corporation, was originally designed with what turned out to be a conservative bias, whether intentionally or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone know anything about this? I'm not saying it is correct, just a rumor I've heard.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
12,427
Yes, this is true. AOL acknowledged the problem and claim that it has been fixed in AOL 6.0 and in its newest version AOL 7.0. There were some more "conservative" sites that were also blocked. When I'm home this evening I'll test it.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 1999
Messages
51,023
Damn--now I'm going to have to switch to AOL.

As I recall, Kirkland was a big AOL fan despite my attempts to convince him of its abhorrent restrictions (and I was talking about technical computer stuff, not content filtering). True to his nature, he accused me of being full of @#$% and told me all I was doing was repeating what I heard and didn't know what I was talking about. God, you gotta love the irony of this!!!
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
12,427
OK, I tried it. When you set AOL 6.0 to the strongest filter setting you pretty much can't go anywhere but AOL. It would let me go to Disney, dictionary sites and so forth. Forget just about everything else.
 

DNeurococo

Thread Starter
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
2,620
Did you try "National Rifle Assoc." and/or "Republican Party" ?

Are even government sites forbidden(i.e. White House)?
 
Joined
Feb 20, 1999
Messages
51,023
You know DN, I would say most of the people concerned about what their kids have access too are conservative right wing types anyway. I can't imagine an ACLUer or NOWer or communist [is there a diffrence :)?] being overly concerned with moral content!
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
3,208
I believe that AOL should be censored from use by the general public. :)
 
Joined
Aug 24, 1999
Messages
793
DoyceJ,

Since you are including the "general public", that wouldn't include Kirkland, would it?
 
Joined
Sep 19, 2001
Messages
2,469
The Internet is a global medium in which anyone can freely give and take information, ideas, and opinions. Unfortunately, this openness means that your children may access Web sites or newsgroups containing language or images that you consider inappropriate.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
3,208
From what I have seen, general, in any sense of the word would not be applied to him by ya'll. So out of necessity it would revert to specifics, i.e., a lesser rank, special or limited in nature.

So what you end up with is a lower life form bred for the express purpose of humiliation and ridicule. Kind of a fetish thing.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2000
Messages
399
Originally posted by Mulder
"Damn--now I'm going to have to switch to AOL."

As I recall, Kirkland was a big AOL fan"

Kirkland ~is~ a big fan of AOL but I also use AT&T Worldnet for business.

"despite my attempts to convince him of its abhorrent restrictions (and I was talking about technical computer stuff, not content filtering)."

I don't crawl the net, or go peeking and poking for this or that phenomenon-species-club-political group-etc..
I have AOL because my whole fam damily is on AOL with our own chat/buddy/instant messaging groups-family web pages and within weeks, everyone will finally have Net-2-Phone PC-to-PC Telephony, kicking nearly ~all~ long distance telephone charges to the proverbial curb.

"True to his nature, he accused me of being full of @#$% and told me all I was doing was repeating what I heard and didn't know what I was talking about. God, you gotta love the irony of this!!!"

I won't address your slur, but note that those ~without~ AOL talk about AOL as if AOL users were less than adept on Internet matters.
So what? Who wants to spend hours techno-geeking a machine which is designed first and foremost, as a means of communications and (useful) information gathering?
I, among some 30 ~million~ other AOL non techno-geeks, find the AOL point and click interface the easiset to use (for our porposes)-repeat: for ~OUR~ purposes.
Peeking into the mysteries of PC computing no longer interests me (in that I ~have a life~) and wasting time surfing liberal or conservatives or any sites just because I'm just curious seems more infantile to me as the days go by.
That is, I don't need a dailly fix of this or that political narcotic to make it thorugh the day.

Nor do I visit "urban legend" type sites to learn what the latest "dish" is so I can post such spurious information on a list. Again, passing on rumor/legends, especially rumors with a modicrum of validity to them, is a way too childish way to spend my waning years.

Saying all that leads to this: I'm perfectly content with the "family controls" I've set on my grandchildren's AOL screennames. Whereas ~my~ AOL screennames are password protected, theirs are not. From my own examination of the AOL interface, its "Parental Controls" keeps them form pornography and other questionable sites.
*But I am a bit curious why (AOL persons unknown) would lock out porn and liberal sites while there is nothing more destructive, more pernicious, more mind-warped than some of the conservative trash out there, including conservative sites spouting Militia-racist-survivalist-bomb making anti-gay, anti-black, anti UN anti this "opiates for the brain dead masses" crap.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2000
Messages
399
Originally posted by Mulder
"You know DN, I would say most of the people concerned about what their kids have access too are conservative right wing types anyway."

That is the worst of your slanted views on people who disagree with you politically. Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your primative, knuckle dragging, "bash 'em over the head until they get it" conservative philosophy are bad or poor parents? Or that they of neccessity, have little or no moral fiber? Or, that ~only~ conservatives have morals?
As I noted, that is stupid thinking (for an attorney).

"I can't imagine an ACLUer or NOWer or communist [is there a diffrence :)?] being overly concerned with moral content!"

Your comment immediately above adds to the ignominy of your equally dim-witted statement that preceded it. Do you realize how many people you slandered with both statements?
If I get you right, liberal mothers who belong to the ACLU have no or limited morals? Fathers? Aunts or Nuns-maybe your own Priest?
*I've noticed that KD conservatives are the ~only~, ~ONLY~ people who are still worried about or care/bother to call anyone a "communist."
**And a woman (or man) who belongs to NOW is the equivalent of a communist?
***And the ACLU is, by your inference, "communist"?

You were thoughtlessly dumb and dumber on this one Mulder!
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
3,208
Thanks for noticing that my last post was a result of peer pressure and leaving me out of this. Friend. :)
 
Joined
Feb 20, 1999
Messages
51,023
Kirkland--have you forgot the agreement you posited and which I
accepted--to stop the name calling? I knew there was no way you could do it, but thought I'd give it a try.

Anyway, if you see the smiley face in a post that should indicate to you that the preceding line was meant to be a joke.

As for the comment about conservative right wingers being more likely to be concerned about moral content, it wasn't at all an implication that a mother and member of the ACLU would be in any way any less worthy as a parent. In fact, in many ways the ACLU mom may be a better mom as she would be more tolerant of alternative lifestyles (not saying I disagree or agree). However, the conservative right winger would likely be much less tolerant of such a web site and hence, more concerned overall about the "moral" content of sites (and I'm putting aside pornographic web sites which virtually any parent of any philosophy I assume would want to sensor from their young children). So I believe it was misunderstanding as to the import of my statement on your part, my leftist communistic liberal friend :).
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2000
Messages
399
Originally posted by Mulder
"Kirkland--have you forgot the agreement you posited and which I
accepted--to stop the name calling? I knew there was no way you could do it, but thought I'd give it a try."

Yeah, but then, you continue to post such vicious, insinuating phrases demeanful of whole classes of people I withdraw my promise (at least to you).
Can't you say anything about persons you disagree with (politically or otherwise) without casting aspersions about them and who they are or what they believe? Can't you?

"Anyway, if you see the smiley face in a post that should indicate to you that the preceding line was meant to be a joke."

I've said this before: I laugh and I joke but I do not ~play~. Meaning? What may pass as jocularity to you may indeed not be funny to others or me.

"As for the comment about conservative right wingers being more likely to be concerned about moral content, it wasn't at all an implication that a mother and member of the ACLU would be in any way any less worthy as a parent."

Of course you would not see the negative inferences in your own statements Mulder, but others would and do.

"In fact, in many ways the ACLU mom may be a better mom as she would be more tolerant of alternative lifestyles (not saying I disagree or agree)."

But you batched her and others together as if your observation had some validity. And you do ~that~ all the time.

"However, the conservative right winger would likely be much less tolerant of such a web site and hence, more concerned overall about the "moral" content of sites (and I'm putting aside pornographic web sites which virtually any parent of any philosophy I assume would want to sensor from their young children)."

The true "conservative" would be tolerant of ~all~ websites.
And are you inferring that somehow "conservative" sites are more moral than any so-called "liberal" sites?
Put it this way: that conservatives (by the inference taken in your statement), are more "moral" than liberals? Is that what you're saying?
I need to be sure about your take on "conservatism" and "liberalism."
That one political side (yours), is in some way, superior to the others. Is that your take?
That Bible-thumpers are more moral than "tree-huggers"?

This thread was posted as if its topic was true. Even if true, the post took on an "AOL members get hurt by alleged AOL censorship" tone. Even if the allegations were somewhat true, then or now, I've not noticed such censorship in my now 9 years on AOL.
*Have you ~EVER~ been on AOL or gone into AOL's public chat rooms? I thought not. Your tender conservative nerves and heart would get blistered from the hot, steamy raunch on some parts of AOL.

Of course we won't talk about Right Wing conservatives and their predeliction to censor ~everything~ out that disagrees with Right-Wing, fundamentalist Christian conservatism.

*Too many people on the Internet have snobbish disdain for others less adept at manipulating HTML and other "insider" computer skills.
Most people (99.99999%) just want to sign on and get on with their business. ~That~ makes DSL and cable modems very popular. But others, unable to afford DSL/cable, have to get along with dial-up modems.
AOL, the favorite whipping boy of computer snobs, puts ~anybody~ on the net ~RIGHT NOW~, no muss no fuss. Computer snobs are derisive of such people and for no good reason.
*I'm going to run AOL 7.0 on another partition just to find out what's new and what's superfulous. But I know there will be something there to make the Internet experience more enjoyable.
**I'm already astonished at what AOL 6.0 has done. Did you know an AOL 6.0 member can right now make customized American Greeting Card "musigrams" (not the right nomenclature) for free!?
That AOL has brought together hundreds of thousands of families because of their "Instant messaging"? That my own (extended) family of more than 300 talk to relatives from Hawai to Port Seatle Washinton, folks who had never ever talked to each other before?

"I believe it was misunderstanding as to the import of my statement on your part, my leftist communistic liberal friend :).

There you go again, KD. What I despise most about you and those like you is your insistence that your infantile humor would or will be "funny" to others, "smiley" be damned.
I'm not laughing.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Top