Categories: neutrality, politics, web

aol/hotmail and what you are allowed to read?

Truthout.org is a lefty news agreggator, and a non-profit org. They send out newsletters and the like to subscribers. Recently, apparently, AOL and hotmail have stopped delivering truthout emails to hotmail and AOL email users – or have labelled truthout.org as spam, so the emails are not going thru. Says truthout:

While AOL has been largely evasive and silent about their reasons for blocking communications, our server logs and complaints from subscribers illustrate a clear pattern of interference. Microsoft-Hotmail, while not being forthcoming about their actions to the subscribers involved, have stated to our administrators that they are in fact “throttling” and “blocking” our communications. Further, the Microsoft-Hotmail administrators inform us that they are blocking our communications to Truthout subscribers on their systems due to what they describe as our “reputation.”

For some reason, Truthout has not published the specific correspondence from the services, which would be helpful. Right now the reports on Truthout seem a bit fishy.

Anyway, this is something I’ve never heard of before: an email provider apparently blocking emails from a politically disliked site. Anyone know other instances of this?


Categories: art

to do: steal MBP, post pic to flickr

oh hai

(thanks Kara)


Categories: personal, web

why do internet fights hurt me so?

Just had a recent spate of flamey acrimony on LibriVox (which is usually an oasis of kind and pleasant discussion). It’s amazing how draining these things are for people. I didn’t get too worked up personally, tho I spent too much time trying to convince people to stop being so … imflamatory. And I did lose my cool at one point and violated my How to Deal with Difficult People tract.

But: I wonder why it is that the Internet flame war/acrimonious debate is *such* an emotionally intense experience. I certainly never in my daily life get involved in such stuff, I can’t remember the last argument I had with someone in real life. But on occasion I’ve been in some pretty tense internet stuff. I understand why they happen (the missing subtext, humour missed, inference of mean-spiritedness, when often humour was the intent etc).

But it’s curious that they are so …well…enraging.

Often when you think/look back at them, you ask yourself, why was I so riled up about *that* discussion? What was it about that sentence that made steam come out of my ears? Or at least I do.

And when your involved in these things, you craft these long-winded, debate-ending, brilliant pieces of unanswerable prose. And then wait panting for the response! And the whole thing starts over again. I’m ususally pretty reasonable in my approach to these things – I rarely lose my temper – but still, they are really emotionally draining.

What is it about text, and especially internet/forum mediated text, that makes the hot debate so so so emotionally intense?


Categories: misc

types: telephone customer service

1. obstructionist.
main characteristics: many departments who don’t communicate; inability to record details of previous (fruitless) customer service discussions; require you to repeat your story over and over; assumption is always that the problem is your fault or that the problem is “impossible”; different stories from different departments; telling you problem is fixed is just a way to get rid of you
examples: bell

2. sugar-coated bullshit
main characteristics: complaint reference number means everyone you talk to knows the story, friendly and helpful staff, assurances that problem will be fixed, but it is not
examples: ikea

3. angelic service of mercy
main characteristics: polite staff, complaint reference number & details of previous exchanges known by staff, problem solved quickly, assumption that complainant is reasonable
examples: ?