I must preface this new information with a quick commentary on the outsourcing of telephone support personnel to foreign countries. For one thing, if I spoke French and was hired by a company to lend technical support to people in Quebec, my name would remain Patrick. I certainly wouldn’t think of changing it to “François” just to make someone of French ancestry feel more comfortable with me. That said, I have no problem talking with someone named Raheem, Abdulla, Indihar or Aziza. As long as they can speak clear English and can understand what I say when I do, I really don’t care what their name is. I would resent deeply AOL having them rename themselves ridiculously-American names just to pretend that they are American. You’ll see some examples below.
My quest for an explanation beyond the one from AOL Journals began yesterday, when I spoke to “Brian.” “Brian” has a very thick accent and is extremely difficult to understand. For the first five minutes of our conversation, he was confused because when I referred to “AOL Journals,” he thought I said, “AOL Generals.” I realized this mistake when he asked me to “clarify” the generals I was speaking of. That’s when I spelled out J-O-U-R-N-A-L-S and then he began to understand…although never completely. Also, it seems that “Brian” is a bit confused about what department he works in: I called the toll-free number for the Community Action Team and I was routed to him after dealing with AOL’s annoying automated operator. He later mentioned that he was in the Billing Department. When I questioned this, he quickly answered that the operators handle both.
Anyway, after I explained what happened to Armand and asked what AOL’s standard operating procedure is supposed to be when they receive a complaint about a Terms of Service violation, “Brian” explained that the TOS violation occurred when the hyperlink was placed in the journal to begin with. It didn’t matter, he said, where the hyperlink pointed. Whether it was an AOL site or not, hyperlinks can easily be corrupted when they are added to a journal. He said that in the interest of avoiding spyware, the Terms of Service prohibits the use of hyperlinks of any kind. He assured me that this is why Armand’s journal was taken down, since AOL takes very seriously the threat of spyware which can be spread by outside links.
I advised him that I had read the Terms of Service prior to my call, and that there was no mention of hyperlinks there. I further pointed out that hyperlinks alone couldn’t possibly be a violation, since AOL makes them automatic within journal comments and since AOL’s Journal software allows users to build quick links to other journals and other websites right on their sidebar. It didn’t make sense, I explained, that hyperlinks would be a violation when AOL facilitates their construction. He again urged me to re-read the Terms of Service…specifically, the “Community Standards.” Everything would be explained.
I did. It wasn’t.
My next call was answered by “Mohammad.” I have no doubt whatsoever that “Mohammad” was this operator’s real name. He was spoke much more clearly than “Brian,” but when I asked if he was familiar with AOL Journals, he said that he was not.
Too bad.
I asked him to transfer me to someone who was, and I was sent to “Hugh.” You cannot imagine, until you hear it for yourself, how ridiculous the name “Hugh” sounds with a heavy Arabian accent. It is entirely possible that “Hugh” is really his name; I could only assume that he wouldn’t seem to struggle to pronounce it, however, if he’d had his entire life to become accustomed to it. “Hugh” wasn’t familiar with AOL Journals, either. Unlike “Mohammad,” “Hugh” had actually seen AOL Journals, but didn’t really know anything about them.
Just as well.
At my request, “Hugh” transferred me to “Naomi .” She pronounces it more like “Nairobi,” and it wasn’t until I asked her to spell her name that I figured out what name she was really giving me! She backed up “Brian’s” claims about hyperlinks — in and of themselves — being “clear” violations of AOL’s Terms of Service. Like “Brian,” she had no answer when I confronted her with the fact that AOL made hyperlinks an automatic part of the journals experience. But she offered to do something that “Brian” didn’t: she would E-mail me copies of the specific Terms of Service rules that addressed the matter. She said that my questions would certainlybe answered when I read them.
Oh, happy day!
I thanked her and signed back on to AOL. Sure enough, two E-mails were in my inbox with the familiar blue envelope icon. The first one, titled “Tips from CAT,” outlined things I should do to keep my account secure. It mentioned that I should beware of websites that claimed to be AOL. It warned me to watch out for “Trojan Horse” viruses. But it said nothing about hyperlinks. Nothing.
The second E-mail was titled “How to Handle Harassment,” and obviously had nothing at all to do with my question. Just for fun, of course, I did check to see whether it talked about hyperlinks. Naturally, it didn’t.
My fifth contact with AOL was with a delightful American whose name is that of one of my favorite cities. “Charlotte” told me exactly what I already knew: that what “Brian” had told me was absolutely ridiculous. “AOL allows you to build hyperlinks into your journal template,” she said. “We wouldn’t do that if hyperlinks weren’t allowed.”
A ray of sunshine on a stormy day!
According to “Charlotte,” the standard operating procedure when an TOS complaint is received is that the Community Action Team should investigate and attempt to locate the complaint. If they find a violation, they will put a block on the user’s account, which means that when the user signs on, they will be told that they cannot connect until they call AOL by phone to discuss a violation. During the call, the specific nature of the violation will be explained to them, and they will be asked to remove the offending material.
I asked a question to clarify an important point: “You’re telling me then that AOL would be very specific about the nature of the violation so that you would know exactly what the problem was?” Yes, she says. If there is a violation, AOL policy is to tell you exactly where the violation has occurred so that it can be dealt with and the block removed from your account.
Fine. Next question: “Hypothetically, if a member receives a block on his account, calls AOL, has the violation pointed out to him and he refuses to remove it, what would happen?” She says that the user’s account would be terminated. The same thing would happen if the same user received three Terms of Service violations. I asked what would happen to the journal at that point: would it be wiped away then? She said that it would disappear on its own about a month and a half after the account was terminated. Keep that timeframe in mind: it will be important shortly.
The next obvious question was when a legitimate Terms of Service violation happens, why wouldn’t the specific comment or entry — rather than the whole journal — be deleted?
Here’s where it gets interesting.
First, she pointed out that even if Armand had provided a link outside of AOL to a pro-Bulimia website (which seemed to be the initial complaint), even that would not in and of itself be a violation: that would be a matter of him exercising his opinion.
Even more interesting: Not only is it not the policy of AOL for the Community Action Team to remove a journal, “Charlotte” is quite certain that CAT doesn’t have the capability to do so: she says they do not have the ability to enter someone else’s screen name and delete an entire journal or wipe out one’s FTP space. That, she says, can only be done by remote from the user’s specific screen name. I’m not sure I believe that, and I told her as much: how, then, was Armand’s journal ad Dan Wheeler’s FTP space deleted completely? They certainly didn’t their own; someone did. This is a mystery we still have not solved. For her part, “Charlotte” insists she knows of no way a member of CAT could have deleted the journal or wiped out a user’s FTP space.
Back to the “month and a half” issue: She did mention that even if the journal is deleted, it should remain on the AOL server for about 45 days. This isn’t abnormal for many business servers who routinely backup their content to account for outages of one kind or another. But this means that somewhere, the “deleted” journal still exists. She said a recovery order should have been implemented to attempt to recover the journal in its entirety.
I thanked her for her answers, and for speaking English. It shouldn’t have taken five operators to get one that made sense, but it did and I appreciate her efforts to answer my questions.
What remains unanswered at this point is who does have the power to delete a journal in its entirety. If AOL Journal Editors don’t, and if CAT doesn’t, it’s clear that someone out there does. And if AOL doesn’t know who holds this power, that’s a rather frightening thought.
