So I went to the Darwin Awards site just for another look around to see if there was anything particularly funny, and I scroll partly down their home page, and what do I see?
I imagine from the comments it’s something to do with children but isn’t this a bit far? It’s only the Darwin Awards. These are valuable lessons our children should be learning! Don’t light your pants on fire or play with guns!
I’m not an AOL’er and I don’t know any AOL’ers, so do AOL do this all the time? Tell you what your children and you should and shouldn’t be reading? :mad:
I loved this response on the darwin awards site,
[emphasis mine]
Perhaps AOL will inadvertantly get it’s own Darwin Award over this? It’s definitely going the right way to kill itself.
Maybe, unlike us Australians, they haven’t discovered beer? And until such time as they do, they are forced to retaliate to every little thing that annoys them.
Go You Big Red Fire Engine, that’s just a comment from a reader, and even if it weren’t, it sheds no light as to whether it’s a spam filter or not that’s the culprit. We know it’s not spam; that doesn’t mean the spam filter knows it isn’t spam.
How does AOL mail handle spam, by the way? Is it like Yahoo and MSN where the user has a SPAM folder, and the server tries to detect SPAM and route it to that folder for the user to make final judgement? In this case, it should be easy enough to figure out if the problem here is the spam filter by seeing if the Darwin Award mails go there.
If there’s no spam deletion before this, and the Darwin Award mail isn’t in the spam folder, then the spam filtering theory can be eliminated.
Then why does it take 22,000 of them to get them to stop it? And then there’s the “No more censorship” bit at the end, and the “banned” bit at the front, which I took to denote that it was banned specifically, and not just one of them caught in the net. And the Darwin Awards does say, “AOL, STOP YOUR CENSORS!” Which I took to mean, again, that they were being targetted specifically?
Tricky wording?
:: looks down nose at AlbertRose and** Dr. Rieux** ::
:: elbows Silentgoldfish ::
“Who let them in here? Look at them with their second-rate beer. What is that, Heineken? Ick. I can barely even look at them.”
ummm? Has anyone provided any evidence that AOL is even involved in this situation? Given the open nature of the D A message board, could this not be an overreaction by some clueless individual who didn’t get a particular mailing? Some confirmation that AOL (and not the overwrought complainant or the master account on the complainant’s computer) actually interrupted the mail might be nice. (For example, when one clicks the “report spam” button on the in-box, the sending address is placed in a list of addresses to be filtered.–It is a reversible process, as well. If some hasty fingers accidentally sent the DA newsletter into the spam box, the recipient might very well have killed their own reception.)
Yeh, if you had’ve actually clicked on the links I provided and actually read what I posted, you mighta seen, that it was **not ** on the message board, but on the Darwin Awards homepage. So the open nature of the message board means nothing here.
Hence my reasoning for not thinking it was spam. You can get a hold of your own spam, so that’s not a problem. So, why the fuss?
I googled for it before, but couldn’t come up with anything definitive; all I get is references to the notice on the Darwin Awards site. And I don’t know anyone who has AOL so…
You are right that I had misinterpreted what I was looking at. However, I will simply move back my observation one level: what evidence do we have that the overwrought web site manager has a clue to what is going on? My wife uses AOL and subscribes to several newsletters, all of which arrive with punctual regularity.
However, in the interest of getting the Straight Dope, I have entered an AOL account into their newsletter subscription. I will let you know whether I get any response.
This may not be the case here, but LiveJournal had a similar problem recently. It seems they were placed on AOL’s blacklist. From one of their admins:
So if this is the same deal the D A site is experiencing, they would probably need to contact AOL to get on the service’s whitelist. Doesn’t sound impossible.
All that is from the DARWIN AWARD website, whom I do not doubt thinks it is censorship. But they may be wrong. Do they state somewhere why they are so sure it is censorship, and not a spam problem? I don’t see it on the site.
Do you see that simply because the DA webmaster thinks it was censorship, that does not make it so? That they might be wrong?
It makes no sense for a company that is hemmoraging users to do something like this. Of course, it wouldn’t be first time a company did something really stupid, so it’s certainly possible. But until I hear why DA is so sure it isn’t simply a spam filtering problem, it seems less likely to me to be censorship.
