AOL censors Democratic results.

[Timefortruth]

I may be the last to know this, but I'm stunned. Why would any Democrat keep AOL as their ISP?

George W. Bush Not ‘Miserable Failure” Says AOL

Up until yesterday (2/07/04), when someone typed in ‘miserable failure’ into the AOL search engine, the top result listed was a link to President Bush’s Biography. However, AOL removed the listing yesterday from its cobranded Google results without comment. Ironically, AOL did not remove the links Democrats such as Sen. Hillary Clinton and former President Jimmy Carter that also appear on searches, as well as filmmaker Michael Moore. Is this a political move by AOL/Time Warner?
(skip)
In 2000, CNET News reported that AOL’s “youth filters” were preventing young surfers from accessing liberal websites; “your children can easily view the site of the Republican National Committee,” Brian Livingston reported at the time, “but the Democratic National Committee is blocked.”

According to DisInfo.com, AOL and its chat moderators have also previously closed or hidden anti-Bush chatrooms:

As I finished browsing the usual progressive and leftist websites on the internet, I became curious to search the AOL Chatroom listings. One of the public chatrooms I entered was titled, ‘Bush 4 Imprisonment.’ There were four other screen names in the chatroom when I arrived. We started discussing Bush and the 2004 election.

After fifteen minutes of conversation; I was curious to see if there were any similar chatrooms listed. So I kept idle in the original chatroom, and clicked a viewing of the current and available rooms. It came to my suprise to see that our chatroom, ‘Bush 4 Imprisonment,’ was no longer listed under ‘Chatrooms made by AOL Members.’

Our chatroom was still alive and in a deep discussion, but it was like it never existed. This prevented other people from entering or acknowledging that we even had a room. I waited a few minutes and then searched again; the chat room didn’t exist. Which was funny because there were 3 members still conversing in the room.

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/index.php?p=261


Don't let anyone tell you it's not that bad.

[Gringo]

1. All that aside...

Why would anyone use AOL anyway? Isn't it like buying a freezer when you're an Eskimo at the north pole?

[Virginian]

3. Explain Please ???

[Gringo]

5. My point is: What can AOL do that a regular browser and dialup connection

My point is: What can AOL do that a regular browser and dialup connection can't? I can't see that AOL serves any purpose at all. Way back in 1992 I used Compuserve, AOL's chief competitor at the time. There were no browsers that I knew of and it was the 14.4 kbps days. Even then, compuserve pretty much sucked.

Since then, I've never understood why people continue to shell out money for a redundant non-service...

[KoKo]

2. AOL is awful, but I have to keep a minimum because it works "on the road"

where I can always plug in and get important e-mail. My $4.95 a month is all I will spend. That's how they sucker lots of folks. They have the best connectivity and it's all over the world so travelers can plug in at the "internet cafe's and such."

I have Earthlink/Netscape and the damned thing never works out of town. I have to forward my e-mail to AOL so that I can read it when I travel. When someone comes up with a service that competes with AOL connectivity everywhere, I think there will be mass exodus from their crap Browser.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. attglobal.net

has a cheapie 4.95 or 5.95 plan

[southerngirlwriter]

6. I had earthlink for years, including a time when I travelled a lot....

and I just went to www.springmail.com and got my e-mail from any web terminal, anywhere in the world, including internet cafes and libraries. Would that not work for you? :shrug: