AOL + Time-Warner Worse Than Microsoft? 202
A quote from the OJR article: "Never in the history of news publishing has one company held such extensive power over what we see and hear as does AOL in the wake of the Time-Warner deal."
Have you looked at AOL's main page lately? I don't mean the one at aol.com, but the one AOL members see when they log on. If you're a Linux user, the answer is obviously "no" unless you borrow a friend's computer (and AOL account), because AOL doesn't allow Linux folks to access their system. Like blind people, we're pariahs in AOL-land. Remember that AOL boasts about their "exclusive content" constantly; I saw yet another TV commercial last night that told me this. Like it or not, AOL has become as vital a part of modern American culture as Judge Judy, and it might be nice to check in now and then to see what kind of online experience AOL's (claimed) 22 million users are getting. It's sad that I can't do this unless I choose to use a proprietary operating system, which I don't.
But I'm far more worried about the Time-Warner side of the business than I am about AOL's willingness to exclude Linux users, handicapped people, and others who don't fit into their mass-market mold. Talk about a machine to influence public opinion! Movies, books, CNN, music, a bunch of influential magazines, cable TV systems all over the country! In his day, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst was considered by many to be more powerful than the U.S. president, and he didn't have a fraction of the information control Time-Warner has now.
It's easy to forget that Slashdot is a niche Web site with comparatively few readers by AOL/Time-Warner standards. Wired, Salon, Slate, and CNN.com all claim more readers than Slashdot. So do The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USAToday, and every single one of Time-Warner's magazines. More people are interested in celebrity gossip (People magazine's stock in trade) than in news about Open Source Software and ever-faster microprocessors. Time covers events that are interesting to more people than new game releases for Linux. An interview with someone like Leon Lederman or Steve Wozniak may be hot stuff to you and me, but the overwhelming majority of the world's population would rather read about Bill Clinton or Leonardo DiCaprio. Indeed, I doubt that a statistically significant percentage of Americans -- let alone citizens of other countries -- have even heard of most of the people we mention on Slashdot. And this is why Slashdot would never have grown and prospered under Time-Warner's thumb.
The section of Time-Warner's online empire for which I used to write was Netly News, the company's attempt to put out a WWW publication aimed at "hip" Internet users instead of at the general public. It got about 100,000 steady readers, which was not bad back in the "old" 'net-days of 1996 and 1997. But 100,000 readers was a tiny number in Time-Warner's eyes. Josh Quittner and Noah Robischon, who ran Netly News back then, never could get Time's marketing and ad sales people interested in promoting their little publication because Time's business people were used to readerships measured in round millions, not in thousands or hundreds of thousands. So Time decided Netly was a failure and let it die a quiet death in early 1998, not out of ideological concerns but because it simply wasn't popular enough to meet their "success" criteria.
My personal fear of giant corporate voices controlling the Internet as a news medium is based not only on their potential political influence, but also on their ability to stifle innovation online. Do you think Rob Malda and Jeff Bates would ever have been allowed to do their schtick on AOL or through Time-Warner? Would Time-Warner have tolerated -- let alone supported -- freshmeat? What about other sites that cover Linux and Open Source news, like Linux Today, Linux Weekly News, Linux.com, and all the rest? What about even smaller, more "niche" sites like osOpinion, Technocrat.net, and 32bitsonline.com?
All of these sites, put together, don't attract enough readers to get a Time ad salesperson interested in actively marketing them. In Time's world, ad campaigns start at the $100,000 level and go up from there, and it really takes $1 million or more to get Time's corporate ears to perk up in any significant way. Web publishing, on the AOL/Time-Warner level, is like music or movies; they are interested in producing big hits and only big hits, and anything they don't feel they can make into a million-seller is going to be ignored.
It is true that AOL and Time-Warner will probably never be able to control the Web's content as tightly as Microsoft controls the desktop operating system market. But by making "their" information easier to find and access than information "they" don't control, and adding in the cross-promotion potential available to a company that has interests in everything from movie production to chat servers, within the next few years we could easily see a world where 95% of all Web users only access 5% of everything that's potentially available online. And if that 5% is controlled by a single giant, mass-market media conglomerate -- or even by two or three like-thinking, mass-market conglomerates -- the next generation of bright youngsters who have innovative Web site ideas will never get a chance to build a Slashdot-style following, no matter what operating system they use.
Re:NEW MODERATION REGULATIONS (Score:1)
Something is dreadfully wrong with Slashdot moderation recently. It seems that a few people with questionable motives have gotten into the moderator ranks... I've never seen bad moderation so rampant on Slashdot until the past few weeks. And I can't avoid posting as AC about moderation issues now because some offended moderator will just mark me down as flamebait or something..
It seems to me that Slashdot has grown enough that the moderation system has reached another milestone. We need to carefully consider what improvements we need to fix the current problems with moderation....
This is the sort of thing I worry about. (Score:1)
It's about time these people started serving the people. We need to force mandatory rates on these people and make content and bandwidth tying strictly against the law.
Of course that will never happen. Congress doesn't give a rat's ass about their constituents. All they care about is what loser companies such as the Bell and the worthless cable monopolies want.
Re:Again, what is this "Battle" we seem to create? (Score:1)
What about us non-us net users? (Score:1)
Re:so what now.. (Score:1)
rob malda is an AOL lamer (Score:1)
Commnder-Taco3785: guys, do you have any w4r3z
SoccerGrrl: whats that
Kobain432: whatcha need?
Commnder-Taco3785: free software
Commnder-Taco3785: im lookin for image-viewer plus 3.4
SoccerGrrl: why is it free
Commnder-Taco3785: or 3.5, if ya got it
Kobain432: try http://www.geocities.com/perl_on_amiga
Commnder-Taco3785: i haven't been online that long. that http stuff is confusing
Commnder-Taco3785: can you tell me some good w4r3z chat rooms
Kobain432 has left the room.
SoccerGrrl: where you from, taco
Commnder-Taco3785: michigan
SoccerGrrl: kewl! my cousin lives ther
MrGuitar has entered the room.
Commnder-Taco3785: where does he live
MrGuitar: hey guyz!!
Terry-love has entered the room.
Terry-love: Hi all
Commnder-Taco3785: where does he live
Commnder-Taco3785: a/s check
SoccerGrrl: f 13
[...]
--rob malda, in aol chatroom "teens 107", 5/22/97
the truth will come out
Re:It isn't size that matters... (Score:1)
Wait and see? Not much of a wait. It's already happening. Netscape 6 presets the user's homepage to Netcenter and prepopulates "my sidebar" with Time Warner content. Dropdown menus, built into the browser, direct users to AOL-provided email, chat, and content "channels."
Most Slashdot don't fully appreciate what's going on here for two reasons:
One is that they're overly obsessed with Microsoft as the Evil Empire. It is, but that doesn't mean it's the only Evil Empire.
The other is that the Linux version of NS6 doesn't fully implement the AOL integration. The Linux beta version's dropdown menus for Tinderbox, Bugzilla, and Mozilla.org distract you from the real purpose of this browser, which is to control and direct Web traffic to AOL properties. You'd get a better picture of that with the Windows version.
Have you looked at the version of Netcenter that automatically pops up when you use Netscape 6? THERE IS NO SEARCH BOX. To search, you have to blank the URL box at the top of the browser and type your search terms there.
People navigate the Web by clicking on blue underlined links. AOL owns them.
Size does matter. All publicly held corporations strive to deliver more profits and drive up share prices. In fact, it is the legal responsibility of management to do so. When any company finds a way to make more money and raise share prices, it'll do so. If it has to trample a little company, or trample you, then that's just your bad luck for being in the way.
When the same company controls the software you use to browse the Web, the ISP you use to connect to the Internet, the coaxial cable line coming into your home, all the cable news channels, the magazines on your coffee table, then maybe there's something you need to start worrying about.
Re:Thank God for ABC (Score:1)
Any wagers on if Leo's interview will ever hit the airwaves?
Re:netscape.net is toast (Score:1)
Re:rob malda is a closet racist (Score:1)
I suppose if everyone immediately stopped going to Slashdot and all that would help his case. Even more, you have to get millions of Slasheads to believe the AC. Good luck.
I'm just confused here (Score:1)
Now stop insulting Levittown, some of my friends live there
----------------------------
Re:False choice is no choice at all (Score:1)
Or their own, for that matter. Which is precisely a big part of the problem.
Thank God for ABC (Score:1)
Or, better yet: Leonardo DiCaprio interviewing Bill Clinton!!! Only ABC could bring you that level of journalism. Time-Warner/AOL can't hold a candle to that.
NewsPolice (Score:2)
Ok, what am I getting at? I'm in need of volunteers to help with a site to help in keeping the corporate media juggernauts in check. I'd like to find a few motivated individuals to help do a news media site that is dedicated to being a watchdog, keeping an eye out for fabrications and half-truths. So far, it is a blank slate in need of volunteers and time: www.NewPolice.org [newspolice.org]. Waddya think?
Adam
www.NewPolice.org [newspolice.org]
Re:I don't buy it... (Score:2)
The other issue is the number of stations/newspapers that do little more then parrot wire services stories. You want an extreme example of that in the internet world? Go to espn.com and then go to cnnsi.com. Supposedly these two are competing with each other. Yet quite often I see stories that are word for word the same. So two sources of information. Two very similar sources of info.
On the issue of journlists. You don't need to tell them what to say if you only hire your type of people. No need to censor people who will self-censor. You don't want stories about the tobacco industry then you don't hire people who think it's a problem. You hire people who think people/companies should be allowed to do what they want and that government should stay out. It's not very hard.
Lagging... (Score:2)
NEW MODERATION REGULATIONS (Score:2)
This AC was responding to the elitist attitude in its parent post. What's so offtopic about that?
Re:rob malda is a closet racist (Score:2)
1. You did this with malice -- intent to defame.
2. It's probably not true.
3. You posted this with reckless disregard to the truth.
4. Rob could drag your ass to court.
Re:Then this is a call to arms, isn't it? (Score:2)
AOL/Time Warner are trying to hit the most people posible, but what's wrong with that? I would rather sell to 50,000,000 people than 500,000 people.
Now that being said my primary news source for wold news is NPR/BBC. (But I do check the CNN web site every day)
The Cure of the ills of Democracy is more Democracy.
Not as bad as you think. (Score:2)
There are two things at work here. I'll take on the original article 1st and follow up with the stuff from this feature.
"AOL is powerful and can control huge amounts of content for vast numbers of people, so they should be broken up into more manageable pieces."
It's a nice idea but that's not how this thing works. Once upon a time IBM was the big bad antitrust bully. They practically invented FUD. These days nobody calls them a danger to anyone. Nobody considers IBM as a problem to freedom or to competition. Never mind that in real earnings IBM is 10X the size of Microsoft and by other measures ( number of employees, Property owned etc.. ) is even larger than that. Anty trust is about bullying the little goys, not simply having power.
The second matter is the control of information on the Internet. Simply put "It won't happen". MS wants it. AOL/TW wants. Every major corp wants to control the internet. Each has a shot at trying, none has a chance of success.
The problem is that the internet is the place for the tiny niche. If you are into nude Hermaphrodite wrestling then you can try find the other 4 people in the world that share your obsession. This is the power of the internet and simply owning a bunch of studios and most of the good writers isn't going to help.
The problem with the net is that Location isn't so important. Time Warner got to be powerful by making sure it owned many of the channels carried by your typical cable provider. On the net every provider can carry all the "channels". AOL/TW's attraction is therefore those items that they product themselves which in the grand scheme of things isn't that much.
Sure they own the Matrix but would you join AOL if that was your only attraction ? It takes more than that. The same goes for all the other content they own. Each time they move something behind the AOL service all they will achieve is pissing off those users who like that item. Paramount was forcibly made aware of this 2 years ago when they tried to close Star Trek fan sites and put everything under paramount.com which only worked with IE at the time.
Re:It isn't size that matters... (Score:2)
Good topic, but an unfocused analysis... (Score:2)
1. It slows down the Internet's ability to disrupt the status quo. Time Warner, as an old-media publisher, won't let smaller online projects disrupt their old-media revenue streams. So no Gnutella, for starters. It will be made abundantly clear that protecting old media is the way to get ahead at AOL/Time-Warner.
2. It pollutes the Internet with political influence. Becuase Time-Warner is heavily dependent on government approvals and licenses in broadcasting, it toes the line: CNN stands for Clinton News Network. We're all surfing to avoid that stuff, and here comes a ton of it.
3. It makes the likeliest alternative to Microsoft hegemony AOL hegemony. And that means not just a lock on technology in Internet access devices, it means the extension of old-media monopolistic control of distribution to the Internet. Yup, it could be that bad.
What's worse? Microsoft has learned going against the Internet amounts to urinating upwind. AOL has learned no such lesson, being the only online service company to successfully move their proprietary protocols and content forward into the Internet era. That plus the Time-Warner old media bad mojo is much worse than Microsost could ever be. IMHO Microsoft will focus its business back onto computing and software and continue to get rid of media/Web holdings (as they did with Expedia). AOL's aim is to control as much content and content-distribution as possible. Ick.
I disagree. (Score:2)
Thats just stupid. Do you really thing a linux user would be interested in AOL's 'exclusive content' let alone in AOL itself? It is obvious that anyone using an alternative OS is not AOL's target market. And as for handicapped people, it is not AOL's responsibility to accomodate them. Am I to assume you also complain that Tommy Hilfiger does not produce shirts wearable by the immensely obese?
Do you think Rob Malda and Jeff Bates would ever have been allowed to do their schtick on AOL or through Time-Warner? Would Time-Warner have tolerated -- let alone supported -- freshmeat? What about other sites that cover Linux and Open Source news, like Linux Today, Linux Weekly News, Linux.com, and all the rest?
Excuse me, but what in gods name does Time-Warner have to do with small websites like these? Absolutely nothing. There is not one thing Time-Warner could have done to prevent Slashdot from starting. You seem to be unaware of the fact that Slashdot was not started by some publishing conglomerate as a moneymaking venture. Time-Warner (or anyone else for that matter) does not have to power to stop a couple kids with a web server from saying whatever they want to say.
Maybe you should wait until some type of transgression actually occurs before you denounce the big bad corporations with such vigor. There is no reason to believe that what was a business move will become some internet controlling monster. It is already clear that even 'average' people (who you imply would not seek out anything other than what they were spoonfed by their AOL/T-W masters) want choice. Look at cable and satellite TV. What was previously dissemenation via only 4 major networks is now a mishmash of different genres, with more choice available than ever before. And pretty much anyone can get a local cable access show.
I will give AOL/Time-Warner the benefit of the doubt here, and I urge other Slashdot readers to give some thought to issues like these rather than just nodding and agreeing that large corporations are bad.
so what now.. (Score:2)
It's called a free market. If the market didn't like AOL, then people wouldn't be using it. Something else would appear as competition, and defeat them.
Regardless, it's not like all of your news/entertainment content comes from AOL.. News Corp, the Hearst company, Viacom, and numerous others are very large and produce a great amount of content. If you don't like AOL/Time Warner, fine, don't view their content. Having the government step into every situation where a company has gotten "too big" for the outsider is silly. It reeks of sour grapes, especially when the person doing the ranting touts something else that didn't succeed in direct competition with the winner.
-s
Re:You're being too USA-centered IMO (Score:2)
In short, most of the world recognizes the CNN "brand." Heck, most of the world's leaders try to catch CNN for news--it's only a bit later that the BBC is competing with their own satellite news channel.
Re:AOL Has Too Much Power... Over Simpletons (Score:2)
You wake up in the morning when your State-supplied radio starts piping State-controlled news into your ears (at an unchangable 7:10 everywhere). You get out of bed and put put on your State-supplied clothing (two sizes: too large and too small) and eat your State-supplied breakfast. Your State-supplied car is already on in your garage (clothes take 15 minutes to put on, breakfast 11 minutes to eat. At least that's what the State says) and it automatically filled the gas tank last night (3.49 rubles/liter).You drive down the road to your job for the State.
Gee, sounds just like communist russia to me...
--
Re:Have any of you *USED* AOL software? (Score:2)
No kidding? (Score:2)
Does anyone remember the stories of the AOL set-top box that were circulating around? Lets say that came to fruition and they told TW to replace all their cable boxes with AOL's box. This is almost always done at the customers expense by the way. Now all of TW's cable subscribers watch AOL-TV. Ads in the corners of the screen, some interactive WebTV crap, and a detailed database about everything every household does on their AOL box. There isn't a whole lot that can be done about this either because I don't know of many cities where the coax lines aren't owned by the cable companies. Some cities have imposed that the cable co's open up their loops but not every city. Even if all cable loops in the country were open and galavanting freely in the grass what would keep the megacorp of TW and AOL from buying them all up? Oooooh the DOJ might slap their hand and "break" them up. All the DOJ stands for is "Don't Offend Janet", they aren't going to whip out the bulldogs in the matter of a media conglomerate. Windows was an easy trial because they cheated and didn't even cheat that well. DO you think TW has become so large and been around so long without knowing how to cow politicians? The 21st century customer has new and improved buying power with a clean non-complaining tone.
Re:Then this is a call to arms, isn't it? (OT) (Score:2)
BBC WorldService gives a more worldwide view, since their target market is NOT the U.S., they have more stories from Africa, India, former British colonies, etc. which aren't even covered by mainstream press.
Whatever (Score:2)
Re:Cable modems and AOL (Score:2)
Why does everyone think that DSL is expensive?
Granted, its not available everywhere by any means, but neither are cable modems. I have Time-Warner here (they have a monopoly), and they told me that they have no definitive plans at this time to offer RoadRunner service in my area.
My DSL provider [telocity.com] is $50 a month, and I'm getting 784K, but I guess that is dependant on your distance from the CO.
Lots of others (Ameritech, Covad, etc.) are offering DSL at comparable prices.
Re:What about us non-us net users? (Score:2)
AOL has no presence in Europe. Nor will it ever have one. So I guess we don't have to be afraid about that (yet).
Bzzzt! AOL Europe is going strong and the Bertelsmann merger makes this worse! Check out this story from the Guardian: AOL/Bertelsman . You should be worrying already .... the americans are coming!
Re:Proof please? (Score:2)
I guess you slept through the furor when Alta Vista announced that it was going to do this. IIRC, they backed off due to the resulting outcry.
If you missed it, you can find it yourself by using a... search engine.
--
Re:NEW MODERATION REGULATIONS (Score:2)
Agreed. The last 2-3 weeks have seen some truly clueless posts moderated up to "5, Insightful". I never noticed it to happen before then, and now I see several almost any time I check the 10 Hot Comments box.
It's tempting to see a conspiracy behind it, but there does not seem to be a particular pattern in the subjects being promoted. Perhaps the pattern is too subtle to notice; perhaps the conspiracy is simply an attempt to discredit
More likely it's not a conspiracy at all, but rather an unintended side effect of the 10 Hot Comments box focusing attention that would have been more diffuse otherwise.
--
Re:It isn't size that matters... (Score:2)
Re:I don't buy it... (Score:2)
Thank you for your comments. I do agree with some of your points.
I want to point out that I am not arguing that the media in general is 'better' or more diverse or whatever now than it was then. I think the media has and always will be biased, towards specific nations, towards corporations, towards politicians, towards its readership, etc. This is inescapable. For a good example of this, take a look at today's Salon articles [salon.com]. The newspapers in Miami aren't reporting that some of the Miami relatives have criminal pasts. Why? Because a large portion of their readership is from Cuba, many of their advertisements come from Cuban-owned companies, etc.
The point is that the source of your information is at least as important as the information itself. That being said, I understand your point that many (who knows what the number might be) people just click on their AOL icon and blindly trust whatever shows up on their homepage. I agree this is a problem, and I have no idea what to do about it.
AOL hasn't really done anything wrong, and who knows if they will? And if they do do something wrong, who's going to report on it? This is all very sticky...
LL
Re:you actually believe all this? (Score:2)
I have clipping I found funny on this. It was on the front page of USAToday a while back. Right after the "war in Kosovo" was "over".
Here it is [usatoday.com]
--
Re:How can they stifle non-mainstream sites (Score:2)
Of course, I don't really think that Rob is even really valid in this post. It sounds like he's either paranoid or wants to get us paranoid. Even if "the Man" controls all the top search engines that doesn't go to sites TW/AOL doesn't like, someone will make one that does. Hell, they could even make it not go to the TW/AOL sites at all.
That, and they'd have to do a lot to actually make everything on the net as controlled as Rob was saying.
--
Re:Again, what is this "Battle" we seem to create? (Score:2)
Please, spare us the platitudes. You make the government. The government makes the rules - the companies have to play by them. If they don't like the Sherman act then they can set up in a different country that doesn't have an equivalent. The companies are more than happy to have rules (copyright and patents for example) that make them money, but cry foul when other rules may threaten their revenues. Sorry guys - its a package deal.
As for the homily to the poor families of the employees of these law-breaking companies: why not defend bank robbers - after all they broke the law to make money but they have families too, dammit!
Re:AOL vs. M$ Addendum (Score:2)
4. Attempts to suppress a Linux distribution [coyotelinux.com]
When you add the Soap Salesman's newest aquisition, Time/Warner to the mix....
Its about conformity and its beginning to change! (Score:2)
AOL brings LINUX to the masses (Score:2)
Check out This link [theregister.co.uk]
I mean, if they bring LINUX to the masses, can they really be evil?
A: You betcha!
Re:TIme Warner/AOL and Cable modems? (Score:2)
Officially, Time Warner does not provide support for alternate OSs. Locally, they run a newsgroup specifically for the people who want to. Their web master, who uses BeOS himself, actively participates in it. In fact, I would guess that I know at least a third of the regular participants in the group personally. Unfortunately, that is an indication of the small size of the group and the relatively small number of people who are connecting to Time Warner from alternative OSs. I think given that, the level of informal support that they give is admirable. Even though we don't fit their business model, they haven't shut the door. That's really all I ask.
Re:Ever notice.... (Score:2)
Those monopolies which you list are so heavily regulated by various governments that they are, in a sense, part of public government, and not privately-run companies motivated solely by the quest for increased profit. Otherwise, your local electric company would charge as high a price as the market could bear, and poor people would spend their nights in the dark. (For a case in point read chapters 27 and 28 of Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson, "The Path To Power.")
In distinction, what this article is describing is a news monopoly which is not regulated by the government, and through it, by the voting population. Instead, the news media to a great extent control that government, by shaping the opinions of the voters. The whole threat of privately-managed, unregulated monopolies is that "we the market" can't "cut these folks down to size."
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
TW MUTE ON DeCSS! MODERATE THIS UP! (Score:2)
Nice shot, mkwilbur! Thanks!
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:as much as aol sucks (Score:2)
It wouldn't have anything to do with the way that every new computer I see has their tickytacky software pre-installed on it, or the fact that most houses get their introductory offer CDs in the mail, attached to the newspaper, or stuffed into various merchandise about once every month, would it? But I think the most important thing is that their cheesy Win9x interface software automatically installs all the crap you need to punch your way out to the net with a whole lot less effort than their competitors's stuff.
This is slashdot, right? lots of tech types at least familiar with PCs here, right? OK readers, raise your hands, please, if you have ever, over the telephone, walked someone through installing TCP/IP in Win9x for a connection to a regular ISP. My, that's a lot of hands. Wsn't that remote telephone installation a pain in the ass? Remember where you told Mr.-or-Ms. New-B to go get his Windows installation CD, and the reply "Well I've got one but I don't know where it is..."? Remember the part where you explain to him or her what a DNS server's IP address is, and how one goes about finding it? (Catch-22 - you search the "support" section of the ISP's web page!) All these technicalities probably seem trivial to slashdot readers, but they are a sheer wall of incomprehension barring the new, computer-ignorant user. Hell, not that I am a hot hacker and I never took CS in college or anything like that but I wrote my first production C program six years before the day I first tried getting connected to a regular ISP out of Win9x, and I still couldn't get it to work until I called the ISPs 1-800 number and had a tech walk me through TCP/IP configuration.
In contrast, when the sucker, I mean user, sticks in that fatal AOL CD, and it loads up his system with all that bizarre toxic system software they use (don't get me started on that God Damned AOL ADAPTER &^%$#%$^&* [listen.to]), at least that user doesn't have to supply much more than the local area code, his desired AOL screen name, and his credit card number. Your Grandma can install AOL on her new Presario with a 95+% likelihood of success, and that's why AOL is so hot today. The guy who designed and implemented the AOL install is a true unsung genius and the true secret Promethean fountainhead of the vast AOL fortune. I'll bet that money-wise, he didn't get jack as a reward for all his boundless wealth-creation either, alas.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
Re:Have any of you *USED* AOL software? (Score:2)
Yeah, it's real neato. It used to be, before I got a TW cable modem running into a $250 P-100 running Linux and ipmasq, that the only way people in my office could get to the internet, and thus to email, was by running a modem into the telephone line. Several people had AOL accounts of their own, not knowing any better. Well, they'd get hold of a modem and grab their AOL CD, and install away on the PC at their desk, so they could do that email thing right? and that Satanic AOL Adapter [listen.to] would insensibly insinuate itself deep into their PC's system, and the next time they booted up, gee, they couldn't get to their files on the I: drive any more, is the network down?
But that was a version or two back, and the AOL interface might have changed some since then, maybe even for the better. I mean, surely all the guys that wrote the one I had such fun with have all been brutally murdered by now, haven't they? And it so happens that I have to put together a new computer tomorrow at work, and there has got to be one of those "500 hours FREE!" CDs of theirs lying around, so, aren't I curious? Hmmm....naah.
You know, these business idiots can never leave well enough alone, and even now you bet there are memos fluttering around the offices of TW/AOL about how they can "synergize" the combination of AOL and TW's cable modem service. I use TW's RoadRunner at three sites. It works great and I like it, but I have to wonder and unhappily anticipate, how and when are they going to screw it all up?
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
MS is down . .but not out (Score:2)
Fighting with an almost inexaustable supply of money. Fighting with time on their side (every day they delay, more peecees ship with IE). The focus should remain on ms anti-competitive tactics. Ms should be made to suffer for it's decisions to use it's monopoly to stomp all comers.
Then, and only then, will a message be sent to other companies (AOL included) that the tactics that ms uses will not be tolerated.
Remember, United we stand, Divided we fall.
___
Cable modems and AOL (Score:2)
"You will be able to have cable access on many platforms, Linux, Windows, even OS/2, you will not be required to use AOL's interface either"
For now, anyway. Cable is a monopoly and cable modem is cheaper and more widely available than DSL. Do you honestly think Time Warner won't eventually force its cable modem customers to use AOL? It's happening to Netscape's Netcenter users.
Where I live (Boston's Dorchester neighborhood), we actually have a choice of cable modem providers: RCN or RoadRunner. RoadRunner, a joint venture between Media One and Time Warner, is a much better provider (according to reviews on World Wide Wait [worldwidewait.com], Epinions [epinons.com], and Deja.com [deja.com]), but I can't shake the feeling that RoadRunner will be absorbed by AOL in the not-too-distant future. So if I want high-speed internet access, I must deal with RCN's awful service, or wait for DSL to come to the inner city at comparable prices.
I don't think I'll be retiring my modem anytime soon.
Re:True...but... (Score:2)
Anyway, it could be easer then you think.
Re:as much as aol sucks (Score:2)
It's quite simple, really. People want slick, prepackaged content, even if it means they don't get the whole story or they have to pay more. Think about it: The AP news wire is cheap, readily available on the web IIRC, and much more comprehensive than USA Today or even the New York Times. But people still buy those papers. why? because it's easier. You don't have to do anything for yourself. Ditto for AOL.
--
Re:Ever notice.... (Score:2)
As you noted, monopolies are granted by the government. When they've outlived their usefulness, they can be taken away by the government as well.
AOL Has Too Much Power... Over Simpletons (Score:2)
Unless AOL/TW has the ability to shut down Slashdot, their power is only marginal.
The fact is, the Internet was not one company's scheme to make money. It was built for communication, and evolved only because hundreds of people put their time and effort into it. No one company, name, or brand has ever controlled all the content on the Internet, save for the burgeoning years.
So what if AOL can influence millions of people who use AOL to read their content? Everyone still has a choice, and until AOL can take that choice away, like how Microsoft took away the choice for desktop operating systems on new PC's, their power is feeble.
------------
Re:Slashdot elitism (Score:2)
Re:True...but... (Score:2)
Re:It isn't size that matters... (Score:2)
Agreed. All does who doubt this need not look further than Cisco. It is the most valuable company in the US and it's equipment runs most of the Internet and yet everyone has nothing but good things [slashdot.org] to say about the company.
That said I doubt that AOL/Time Warner will be as ethical as Cisco but condemning them out of hand simply for being a large company is illogical.
Re:TIme Warner/AOL and Cable modems? (Score:2)
I also live in an area where Time Warner has the Cable TV monopoly. Last year they started announcing the coming availability of Cable Modems, which we were really looking forward to, after waiting on our modem too many times. The original word was that the new service would be available in mid-winter.
It is now mid-spring, and we are no closer to seeing cable modem service. In addition, we don't expect to see it in this area anytime soon, since if TW is as service oriented in their Cable Modem line as they are with their Cable TV, then I don't want any part of it. (Cable rates go up almost monthly, and available channels always seem to decrease.)
When Mindspring began offering ADSL in our area, we grabbed that immediately. (Their service is good, and they DO support all platforms). Not as fast as cable, but fast enough.
We also discontinued ALL cable TV service with Time Warner (except for minimum basic service, for local channels), and installed a satellite.
AOL has always had a bad reputation with the computer knowledgable. But at least they provide an honest service (no matter how masses oriented). Time Warner is dishonest.
Just my opinion
Gonzo
rediculous (Score:2)
believe that Slashdot has as wide an audience
as Wired or Salon? It's one thing to appreciate
open source software, but it's entirely
another to become outraged that businesses
have profitmaking as a motivation.
All business is not evil, and neither is AOL. AOL meets
the needs of a lot of people, which is,
plain and simple, why it exists.
Feel free to blame the hype, hysteria, big-business, desire for profit, etc.,
but realize that linux is a minority on the desktop for a number of very good reasons.
Rather than complaining that AOL doesn't work with linux,
develop some cool software for linux
that helps to make the platform desirable to
the masses.
Not as bad as you think ??? (Score:2)
The real info is in a second link to a fairly long boring article in Brill's content describing the multi-corporation hype used to push the Austin Powers movie.
I rented the original movie due the the first round of hype, and personally found it to be one of the least funny movies ever made.
It was interesting that when the second movie came out, every publication in America jumped on the bandwagon. Salon among others had five articles in one day and they weren't even owned by the same conglomerate.
At the time I was curious how they could afford to bribe every publication in America. Apparently if you own half of them, the rest will get in line thru some mutual back-scratching process.
It seems a lot of people actually liked the movie, but it intrigued me that I never found a negative review.
Re:It isn't size that matters... (Score:2)
>good or bad. It's not even the amount of power
>it has. Whether a company is good or bad depends
>on what it DOES with that size and power
I don't think using terms like 'good' or 'bad' about a company is appropriate. As I see it there are profitable companies and unprofitable companies. Of course a company don't necessarily need to be bad in order to make profits, but if necessary moral issues are secondary.
Admittedly some companies seem to make decisions based on moral, but I'm quite sure that they only do it because they believe it will pay off sooner or later, not in gratitude but in cash.
USA Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Face it, in Europe we have public TV channels, not owned by commercial companies, who bring mostly independant news, just because it's news, not because it sells more adds or will attrackt more viewers. In the USA however, everything that's on TV is there to attrackt more viewers, thus more ADDS, and thus more MONEY. If 'news' isn't selling enough it's not broadcasted, period.
So why are you so upset about this merger? does it change anything to the system already in place? nothing at all!
Large media-companies are always a topic for 'single minded propaganda' discussions, but please keep in focus of what your world in the USA already has and suffers from. The AOL-TimeWarner merger is nothing new or more threatening to the average people than the stations already in place.
If you are so concerned about a company controlling media or content, perhaps you should starting to get a bit worried about a company who REALLY controls the media of the internet: Cisco.
Or is that not close enough to the 'anti-MS' discussion?....
--
Re:AOL Has Too Much Power... Over Simpletons (Score:2)
You wake up in the morning when your AOL radio starts piping AOL news into your ears (at an unchangable 7:10 everywhere). You get out of bed and put put on your AOL clothing (one size fits all, or else) and eat your AOL breakfast. Your AOL car is already on in your garage (clothes take 15 minutes to put on, breakfast 11 minutes to eat. At least that's what AOL says) and it automatically filled the gas tank last night ($3.49 US/gallon). You drive down the AOL road (your car can't drive anywhere else) to your job at AOL.
What's scary is this already happens (albeit, with only information). Information is more valuable than anything these days, so what happens when one person controls it all? Just a thought.-Elendale (call me paranoid, but I think my scenario isn't that far out...)
Re:Again, what is this "Battle" we seem to create? (Score:2)
Simplicity I can appreciate. After all, there's a reason why programmers are so rare: it's a damn hard job! But simplicity is not what AOL offers. It's conformity and ignorance. The AOL service does nothing to even attempt to educate those who use it (ever seen an AOL site dedicated to education on such things as static vs. dynamic IP? Using POP mail? etc.).
I had to use AOL for a while and my real complaint (other than the fact that they won't buy enough hardware to handle their customers. Right on the CD it says "availability may be limited, especially at peak times") is that the simplicity comes in the form of being limited to what they want you to see. Most people don't know a real website when they see one. Oh well, I'll quit ranting now...
-Elendale (frustrated)
Both are dangerous (Score:2)
Replacability is the issue, it requires careful monitoring for network effects. In the case of AOL, all sorts of abuse is possible. First, because AOL now has a pretty huge cable infrastructure, they have the power to subtly stifle non AOL content. If it is bad to link an operating system with applications, then it is doubly bad to link content to the network that hosts it. Microsoft threatened speech for software developers, AOL/Time Warner threatens free speech for everyone.
While the abuse of power may not be present in AOL, it is entire reasonable to view AOL / Time Warner with considerable alarm. The benefits of the merger do not conceivably merit the amount of power they have accrued as a result of it.
This does not say that because AOL / Time Warner is worse than Microsoft's actions are ok. Whether you got shot in the head ten times or one time doesn't change the fact that you will probably die.
Microsoft should be allowed to bundle open APIs but not applications. Should be allowed to add whatever programmatic interface they want to Windows, but not bundle any application with it. If necessary, break the company up along those lines.
But
The AOL / Time Warner Merger should not have been approved, and in time will prove itself to be even bigger disaster than MS-DOS.
AOL/TIME-WARNER-KATZEN (Score:2)
--- Confound the government. Think.
Re:Again, what is this "Battle" we seem to create? (Score:2)
The really wacky part is that AOL likes to treat its technical support staff the same way. (I know, I'm writing this post on an AOL computer at a call center while talking to AOL members) AOL has tools that tell us exactly what to do "and that will fix the problem".
Do we see where this is going?
Yes, that RARELY if ever fixes the problem, and at the point that dumbly quoting to a user what the screen tells us ends, and actual human knowledge and ingenuity takes over all of the tech support staff are sorely undereducated.
It seems almost as if AOL wants to hide the technical workings of their products from their own technical staff. They want undereducated sweet voices to repeat what a poorly programmed tool says more than they want actual, intelligent, educated technicians to fix problems.
Now if they're this way with their own staff, do we really want them deciding what is important for the media world? (he said, desperately trying to avoid a -1 offtopic)
Don't just give me a fish, teach me to fish!
-MadDreamer
Re:It isn't size that matters... (Score:2)
Try this sometime - open up the Wall St. Journal to the NYSE listings and run your finger down the list of companies. Pretend that you're Santa Clause and make a naughty and nice list. Pretend that you have a workshop of genious elves at your disposal who can develop market-shattering technologies for good little multinationals.
Would you give Boeing a ream of pattents to practical hyperspace travel? Glaxo-Welcome the cure for cancer? Food replicator technology to ADM? Quantum computing to Intel? AI of human intellegence to Microsoft?
My stock portfolio aside, I certainly wouldn't grant any boons to a multinational. I submit that it is the size that matters. I'm not anti-corportate per se, but the very nature of decision making when billions of dollars of other people's money are involved forces large companies to behave in certain ways and not in others. There is no question of how AOL will behave now that it controlls Time Warner. It will behave in the way anyone with billions to loose and trillions to gain would behave, and you can be absolutely certain that your best insterests are not in mind.
Large corporations are inherantly agressive organizations. This is a great thing when that agressive drive leads to competition among buissnesses for the favor of customers. The aggressive nature of capitalism is what makes it work. The key, though, is that this agressive behavior is among buissnesses, not among buissnesses and customers, buissnesses and government or buissnesses and the law. If anything other than another large company fights a large company for control of something, the result will be very, very bad.
AOL doesn't really have anyone to compete with, and therefore should not exist in its present form. I say this not because it might turn out to be dangerous, but because it must turn out to be dangerous. How dangerous is a function of AOL's size, the determination of other companies, the alertness of government, the justness the law and the awareness of consumers.
This will NEVER be anything like microsoft! (Score:2)
In effect once microsoft had a certain market share it was guaranteed a monopoly because others would buy the software even if it was a worse value just for compatability reasons (hence the reason why this market is in need of government regulation.)
On the other hand the media market values diversity. If all your friends watch CNN you might want to watch ABC merely because you can then talk about what you have seen. It is for this reason that AOL-TIMe-WARNER can never become a huge monopoly. Their very success will generate a market for their competitors (those people who want something differnt).
Re:"Allowed" sites?? (Score:2)
If AOL doesn't give access to Slashdot or similar "hardcore" computer sites via their front end search engine, then most internet users will never find out that there is an alternative, and that AOL's "news" is actually propaganda. Propaganda relies on people not knowing that that is what they are being subjected to.
So people will continue to get online with AOL, browse with Netscape, listen to music with WinAmp, and watch Time Warner TV over Time Warner cable lines and use Time Warner 'Net connections.
Whether any of those choices are a Bad Thing or not is not the point. The point is that by controling so much information flow, AOL has the power to censor information, and to keep us from knowing that it was censored. I try to be as apathetic as possible, and that still scares the hell out of me. Especially since the government has continually proven that they have no idea what they should do about technology, but continue to make assanine laws anyway, just to give the appearance of progress.
Wow. I'm bitchy today.
MalSyned
Re:It isn't size that matters... (Score:2)
In our community, power is based on the respect and admiration of your peers, not how much money you can toss around, how many lawyers can protect you, or how many ideas you "own." All of the power that anyone in the open source community weilds can be taken away in a heartbeat, so anyone who has power has to use it wisely or, no matter how hard they worked to get it, they will lose it.
Patents, Copywrite protection, Intelectual property, and the control over the distribution of ideas: All of these things represent power that *cannot* be taken away, regardless of how that power is used (within the rediculous borders of the laws which allow these powers to exist in the first place.)
If enough people don't like linux, they can take over the operation themselves. But AOL will always own AOL. And Time Warner. And Netscape. And Napster (and, re: napster, btw... what kind of world do we live in where an instititution controls even the means by which you are able to undermine it?)
And the ideas that AOL owns and controls keep anyone else from producing true competition.
Well, I think that's enough of a rant for my first contribution to Slashdot. As always, post positive comments publicly, but direct all criticism to
MalSyned
It's a cultural issue, really. (Score:3)
Microsoft is _vicious_. They're like a rabid wolverine on crack with an uzi. They are a clear and present danger no matter _what_ they try to do, as it is always (1) try to kill somebody or (2) try to trap/extort somebody. They've been wildly ingenious at this and are never ever satisfied- which is shockingly unusual for super-market-leaders, as complacency is really the usual result of that position.
AOL is boring. They can be extremely callous and annoying to their customers, but that wolverine-on-crack approach just is NOT there, not remotely. Does this make them not a threat? Not exactly. They can still exert a chilling effect, but their boring 'follower' joe average culture is infinitely more likely to blandly comply with the pressures of regulation. You wouldn't see AOL forging evidence in an antitrust case. You might see them saying stupid things- that's a lot less dangerous, and my guess is that they would boringly roll any sort of regulation into their bureacracy, probably inconveniencing customers even worse- but that's really not the problem. Such oversight is not about making AOL better for its customers, it's to keep it from rolling over in its sleep and crushing anybody. Compare this with Microsoft and its uzis and enemies lists and strange throbbing pains in its corporate brain which cause it to do violent things when it observes things it doesn't like- and it's really obvious _why_ Microsoft is top priority.
The 'adult supervision' (i.e. government) will get around to AOL when it starts rolling over in its sleep too much. This is probably inevitable. However, it's going to be much more routine than the Microsoft situation, because AOL are essentially followers- they'll boringly jump through whatever hoops are called for, without whining or frothing at the mouth and biting Janet Reno, and that'll be mostly the end of it. Normal monopolies don't go for the throat like Microsoft does.
Again, what is this "Battle" we seem to create??? (Score:3)
The "Evil Empire" is now found guilty of marketing to a naive market, and now the AOL empire is going to be prosecuted for catching the other end of the Naive market???
SO were just going to sue *everyone* because they don't know better? Or because they think they have rights to be in business even if people don't want there goods and services??
That may be a bit off the wall, but so is this article. Who is slashdot or even ourselves to judge the 22 million people who appreciate AOL for the simplicity it offers
And most of all, why is AOL wrong for supporting Windows???? After all it *IS* the defacto standard UNTIL something better comes along that makes it easier and fundamentally more intuitive.
You people spend too much time bickering instead of deciding. There is no assembly of truth to operating systems and media giants. If there was to be a breakup, i'd still consider Cisco because they're practically the backbone of the internet, i'd still sue Bell Atlantic more so then AOL.
Everyone has there interests to protect the market they have cornered. And its lawyers and politicians that YOU vote in and YOU higher that give them this right. Laws or not, its YOUR decision and just because people are naive and want simplicity DOESN'T mean they're stupid nor does it mean a company should do whatever they can to refocus on linux because its better.. If it was better why are 22 million people NOT using it?
On the other hand, had this article not even brought up linux i would have considered it as being sightfull. But it plainly turned out to be dumb as Linux is NOT the reason AOL or Microsoft should be change. the Consumer and market is the reason. Had the market been fair, linux could have ousted Microsoft and AOL within a very short time span.. but nope.. we hire more people to make more laws or we just try and break the laws and bicker about how pointless they are.
either way, the linux people are playing just as shamefull as a game as any other business. Overly priced stocks, no profits, .com fever, network appliances, how many times can we reinvent the wheel? If microsoft wasn't innovative then why are we trying to duplicate the features? I would have thought linux would have engineered and new and improved way of computing.. but nope.. we sue or get the government to do it for us.. and now were looking at AOL for our next target.. NICE.. i'm proud to be an american, where atleast i know i'll never have job security no matter how productive or influential of a business i work for.
PS: I don't work for AOL or Time or Microsoft, but if i did, i'd be pissed if the government decides to take away what i worked so hard on for whatever reasons. (monopoly or not, you ARE talking about HUMANS with Respectfull JOBS and CHILDREN and FAMILIES TO FEED)
Time-Warner and your privacy (Score:3)
I have the details [corecomm.net] here that hilight my experience.
If you painfully remember Microsoft's insertion of your MAC address into all Word documents, you may find this interesting.
Note: This is reality. Upon written, resonable request [mailto], I will provide contact information for the guilty parties mentioned in my article.
weak (Score:3)
So basically, I don't understand how a huge company can get in the way of web development. Its never going to be as possible to control web content, simply by the fact that it is so easy to create.
Also, one has to consider marketing tactics. So far, nothing AOL/TimeWarner has done has been as distasteful as M$ tactics to create a monopoly and stifle the competition, such making it nearly impossible for PC vendors to ship with non-M$ OSes, etc. the list goes on and on. I think AOL/TimeWarner is far more likely to play by the rules. After all, we've already seen M$ get burned for stretching them, hopefully they won't get off lightly.
Okay, I'll stop rambling now and go eat breakfast
Spyky
Re:It isn't size that matters... (Score:3)
control, my son... (Score:3)
AOL/Time-Warner are of course perfectly entitled to regulate what is contained on their own servers but by dint of their very size and ubiquity they reduce the choice readily available both to their own users looking for anything outside aol.com/my.netscape.com and the first-timers who simply go for the biggest name.
Monopolies are not generally bad. Misuse of a monopoly position (a la MS) is. But when it comes to those who would provide millions with their only everyday access to the world outside their own town, one uniform point of view without competition can only be harmful. The day News International/Fox get onto the net proper is the day we kiss our freedom goodbye.
"Allowed" sites?? (Score:3)
I know we all suffer from largecorporationophobia here, myself included, but I don't see how controlling even 20% of the web (astronomically large unreachable figure) gives you complete control over its content. People who don't want to read AOL's propaganda can very easily find sites not run by AOL.
Furthermore, though it's true that most of the web's users are more interested in DiCaprio than De Icaza (sorry if I don't know how to spell), people in general tend to have sympathy for underdogs. That's why Linux and Be get as much publicity as they do. That's why large companies will never be able to capture more than a certain critical mass of internet content.
You're being too USA-centered IMO (Score:3)
Wake up! There *are* people living outside the States, believe it or not. This statement of 95% of all Web users... tsk tsk tsk.
Even within the States I'd doubt it, but if this is intented as a global statement, I'd say it's false. Period.
Most of the non-US citizens I know read most of their news (that's like, 75%) right from their local newspapers' pages (or broadcasting compaines' whatever). FEW read only AOL+Time-Warner-owned sites. One reason is that they're in a foreign language. Another is that the topics they publish really don't draw their attention.
Roblimo, you're not the only one found guilty of being far too USA-centered. Most of them never learn. Be better.
It is worse than anyone thinks.... (Score:3)
Panic Buying (Score:3)
Firstly, advances in technology are lowering barriers to entry across an increasing number of industries. The explosion of the independent film industry over the past few years is just one good example. I can think of many other examples of this phenomenon. Think of a few of the products that we would not have at all were it not for (relatively) cheap SGI worstations and stereolithography machines (rollerblades, &c).
Secondly, virtual companies that license brands, and outsource everything from design to fulfillment will soon be less risky to invest in, as well as more efficient and easier to manage than large, monolithic organisations. In the not too distant future, most companies will be service bureaus. Each will do one thing, and do it well. One of the last missing pieces is a set of clean, standardized interfaces that allow companies to couple and decouple more or less dynamically, treating one another like closely knit business units of the same firm. XML will soon fill this gap. Any firm that 'implements the interface' will satisfice for a given business need.
All of this contributes to the diminishing importance of economies of scale. It won't be long before a group of really smart grad students starts, say, a car company that that does to General Motors what Microsoft did to IBM. Executives at Time-Warner and the like realise this, which is why they're circling the wagons, merging with everyting in sight. I term this behaviour 'Panic Buying'. Like its frightful cousin, Panic Selling, it doesn't pencil out in the long run.
The problem with your argument... (Score:4)
is that you are arguing for the lowest common denominator. If that's the market that AOL, Microsoft, ABC, whatever want to go for, that's fine with me. However, these companies have to respect my right to go elsewhere if they don't meet my needs.
Here's where things get sticky though, what happens when these companies going after the LCM buy up everything. I no longer have any choice, I am stuck with whatever these conglomerants choose to give me, and I'm supposed to say "Thank you sir, may I have another!" Sorry, but I'm not going to play that game.
Also, it is with the utmost of arrogance that these big companies try to pigeon hole everyone into their little one-size-fits-all packages. AOL and Microsoft are big offenders here. Who died and made them the arbiters of what is supposed to be friendly and easier to use? I for one will vote that AOL is not friendly nor is it easy to use. In fact, AOL is just a big pain in the neck to use, and they have the absolute worst email client I have ever had the displeasure of having to use in a pinch. And I have similar complaints about MS software. Personally I think the "ease of use/simplicity argument" is pretty weak. It may be simple in some contexts, but certainly not in mine. I feel I have the right to access any available content by whatever means is most efficient for me in the situation I'm in. By forcing me into some canned interface that doesn't suit my needs makes me inefficient and costs me time and money.
Hypocrisy of Slashdotters (Score:4)
I mean look at AOL Time Warner's assets:
1. 23 million worldwide users of AOL and CompuServe--not a small group of users.
2. Time-Life Publishing, one of the world's most influential group of general-interest magazine publishers (Time, Sports Illustrated, Fortune, and others).
3. Warner Brothers movie studio, a major player in movie production.
4. The WB Network, an increasingly powerful TV network with both prime time and children's programming.
5. Warner Music, one of the most influential musical labels in the world.
6. The CNN cable channels, with CNN, CNN Headline News, CNNfn and CNN/SI.
7. TBS Superstation, TNT and Turner Classic Movies cable channels.
8. HBO Networks, with its multichannel premium cable channel offerings plus TVKO pay-per-view programming.
9. Time-Warner Cable, the second largest cable operator outside of AT&T Cable Services (neé TCI Cable).
10. Roadrunner, a broadband Internet service provider using the Time-Warner Cable infrastructure.
11. DC Comics, a major and influential comics publisher.
12. Hanna-Barbera animation studio (and its massive animation film library).
13. The world's largest movie film library, no contest.
I'm sure there are other assets I haven't mentioned, but just these ten parts of AOL Time Warner have _enormous_ influence on what we read in magazines, what we see in the movie theater and on TV programming, what we hear in music and soon what we can read on the Internet. This is the type of media control that William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer could not imagine in their lifetimes and it makes the fictional Elliot Carver from the James Bond movie TOMORROW NEVER DIES seem not as far-fetched as some people think.
In short, it has the very prospect of stifling free expression itself. The very possibility that unless it is approved by AOL Time Warner or it won't be shown is no longer a fantasy.
AOL Time Warner, in short, will make the power of Microsoft over desktop operating systems seem like a minor incident in comparison.
Re:I don't buy it... (Score:4)
I don't buy this for a second. How many sources of media and news did people then have compared to now? I would argue that they have _many_ more now. ,
Pretty hard to prove this one way or another. There were initially a lot of small, local town newspapers not controlled by Hearst. There were many more independent publishers of books at that time. Now a vast majority of stuff is published by subsidiary companies of Bertelsmann (now a subsidiary of AOL). I don't know if you appreciate the scale of it, but publishers like Random House are part of the Bertelsmann group.
Here's a question: Did TW ever try and influence how _you_ wrote your articles? Just because AOL owns CNN doesn't mean they can dictate what the reporters say and do, for the most part. I would argue that the integrity of Wolf Blitzer, Christian Amanpour, etc. will not be changed, and that if some corporation tried to control how they did their job they would scream bloody murder[...]If I don't like the way CNN is reporting, I'll change the channel. I guarantee you that CNN and NBC/CBS/ABC/etc. aren't all conspiring with AOL.
Most people are at least partially aware of the subtle pressure of not criticizing your boss, plus once you've talked yourself into working for some company you either reach a mental accomodation with that (read become compromised) or else you never saw anything wrong with them in the first place. And who wants to destroy the company that's providing their salary? It's a self regulating system. The other alternative is that you're very unhappy in your job and eventually leave it and do something else.
You seem to be arguing both that reporters are never inhibited about being critical about their own employers and that there are alternatives anyway.
The last point seems to ignore that there is at the least a gradual building of a behemoth that did not exist before. You are being carefree about the fact that this new diverse territory is being steadily coalesced into a single entity. I worry about this because I think it should be possible that the middle-of-the-road, straight-white, family-values, McDonald's-munchin', Disney-lovin' AOL users may occasionally once in a blue moon want to think about something outside the bounds of his/her usual life. I want there to be alternatives for that person to look at. But if the AOL search-engines and filters decide that /. is a site that caters to commie-linux-faggots and is blocked then they won't get to find it. They'll find the Reformed Baptist Ministry of Sacred Truth portal to WindowsChoices instead (5% of banner revenue contributed automatically to the Bush 2005 Campaign for A Better America).
I don't know how to take your guarantee. I don't believe that conspiracies are the only way of control being imposed. There can be tacit agreement between people with similar interests. They may bicker among each other fighting to be top of their own group. But ultimately they act in concert against those outside that group. Look at the example of Stephen Dunifer (sp?) with the micro-radio movement (Radio Free Berkeley) and the unified front presented against him by the commercial radio stations.
Emblematic of a larger problem (Score:4)
This is absolutely unacceptable.
The ability to distribute information through the population is critical to the maintainence and control of society, and allowing it to come into the hands of those whose stated purpose is making shareholders (i.e. not regular people, workers, the environment, etc) happy can only be dangerous.
Implicitly, if that one party gets control over things, the rest of us tend to get screwed over -- after all, they are looking after their interests, not yours and mine. Why would they bother to do anything that helps the other 90% of the American and 99% of the global population, unless maybe it happens to be as a side effect of an activity that is otherwise purely profitable to themselves.
The mass media are already too homogenous. It's bread & circuses all over again: we get fed a steady diet of nothing worth watching, and not enough people are complaining about it. And while, yes, the digital new media are somewhat immune to the influence of the old media, still the danger is present.
We really can't ignore this or allow it to go unchecked. Read up. Read Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" [fatbrain.com]. Listen to Disposeable Heroes of Hiphoprisy's Drug of a Nation [slab.org]. Watch C-Span rather than Jerry Springer; Adbusters [adbusters.org] rather (or in additon to ;-) Slashdot; wave signs, write letters, make web pages, consider civil disobedience and acts of anarchy a la "Fight Club [fatbrain.com]" -- but whatever you do, fight back and make a difference.
We need it, badly. We're on the wrong track these days...
I'd write more, and more cogently, but I'm too tired right now...
Don't forget Project Censored (Score:4)
Every year this project lists "the news that didn't make the news" -- stuff Noam Chomsky would shake his head at and say, "See, I told you so."
The 1999 top-ten list (I think they do 50 overall, with a special section in the yearly book for "junk food/fluff news" that got overreported):
Multinational Corporations Profit from International Brutality
2 Pharmaceutical Companies Put Profits Before Need
3 Financially Bloated American Cancer Society Fails to Prevent Cancer
4 American Sweatshops Sew U.S. Military Uniforms
5 Turkey Destroys Kurdish Villages with U.S. Weapons
6 NATO Defends Private Economic Interests in the Balkans
7 U.S. Media Reduces Foreign Coverage
8 Planned Weapons in Space Violate International Treaty
9 Louisiana Promotes Toxic Racism
10 The U.S. and NATO Deliberately Started the War with Yugoslavia
I actually had dinner with the guy who's head of this, Peter Philips. He's angry in a constructive way, and reading Project Censored makes me feel like I should be, too.
It isn't size that matters... (Score:4)
"Information seeks to be found." (Score:4)
You raise a good point - however, early in your article you state that AOL-Time Warner is unlikely to be interested in niche markets such as Slashdot, or blind-enabled web pages. It is the lack of availability in distinct informational markets that will keep niche players like Slashdot alive.
You go on to close with:
"And if that 5% is controlled by a single giant, mass-market media conglomerate ... the next generation of bright youngsters who have innovative Web site ideas will never get a chance to build a Slashdot-style following, no matter what operating system they use. "
This is antithetical to your earlier claim. If AOL-Time isn't interested in small markets, other players will be. Slashdot is a perfect example. Even my non-tech friends frequent off-beat websites that fill particular informational needs.
An oft quoted line in this forum is "Information seeks to be free". An appropriate corallary might be "Information seeks to be found."
Actually, more that a drowning out of the 'little voices', I'm frightened of the dribble that is fed into the minds of Joe Q. Public. We'll see the 'televisation' of the Web, with that 95% of accessed content being of similar quality to the nightly news or inane sitcoms.
(As an aside, I live in Atlanta, and our news mostly consists of half-baked, 20-second sound bites taken completely out of context... I've noticed that there is a marked decline in news quality in bigger cities. Am I alone in noticing this?)
Hey, it's just my USD$.02
jerdenn
More info about AOL (Score:4)
company timeline. [aol.com]
These Finacial Discolsures [aol.com] are informative.
This little animated GIF [aol.com] is a good start on learning just how many pies they have their fingers in.
Who owns the most AOL? [aol.com]
___
Then this is a call to arms, isn't it? (Score:4)
Re:True...but... (Score:4)
Actually, while this is true for services such as Yahoo, where it is a directory, more then a actual search engine, this is not entirely true for other engines.
Altavista, for example offers its 'real name' service, that if a user puts "Joe's Widgets" it will return the "Joe's Widgets Worldwide, Inc." homepage.
Ask Jeeves is a whore to corporate marketing, that much is true. We're definately at the mercy of the AJ staff as far as content that is given priority--but even then its just priority, and we're still given the rest of the search results.
As far as I know Google doesn't offer any such bubbling services, and for that reason among others (simple, straight-forward and accurate searching) is becoming extremely popular.
But what isn't commonly known is that the number one item that determines priority, or will put a search result to the top on a spidering engine is the number of links that outside sites have linking to it. So by defintion, the 'most popular' sites will come to the top--and this is usually what you want.
The interesting implication of this is the populus has a lot of control over this. On our personal homepages, posted personal bookmarks etc., we 'vote' for what pages will be listed at the top. So sites that have exceptional content, using the current search engine model will have priority over the best 'evil-empire' built site, unless the Evil Empire Inc., goes out and buys priority from all the search engines. And if this happens too much, search engines will loose a lot of credibility--take Altavista for example: how many of us still use it as our primary search engine? Google has filled the niche for people who like the power of Altavista's search engine, but don't like the bullshit Doubleclick ads all over the place, the RealNames, them trying to be a 'portal', etc (all stuff they started doing after they got sold off).
So I'd say that those are some pretty clear examples of how competition has flourished even in the midst of (albiet smaller) 'corporate entitites' trying to modify information access and priority.
-k
Slashdot elitism (Score:5)
article about GNOME/KDE: "If they can't figure out a command line every once in a while, why should they be using Linux? And do they really even need a computer?"
article about the US: "Well, screw the US anyway. They're stupid and backwards and Europe's so much better and thank God I don't live there any more. Too many idiots."
anything by Jon Katz: "SHUT UP! YOU SUCK! But you're right that geeks are fundamentally better than everyone else and are persecuted for it."
Add this to the fundamentally Libertarian / Objectivist / "if things were fair I'd be at the top of the heap because I'm better than most people" attitude and the rampant bragging about IQ's (you know who you are, all of you "my IQ is 160+" people) in any story that talks about intelligence, and you've got one hell of a scary picture.
If this is how the people who run the information technology that our society depends on feel, how humane can we count on them being? I, personally, wouldn't trust the Slashdot community further than I could throw it.
True...but... (Score:5)
Unless the corporate media buy all the major search engines on the 'net.
And even if they did, new ones would crop up.
You see, the vast majority of WWW users surf. They type phrases into search engines, and click on the results. As long as someone will be able to see slashdot.org, or my site, or some other independent site, we'll exist, and more people will publish independent sites.
Yes, the number of non-savvy folks out there who never even make it past the front page/portal/AOL experience will never see us, but that's okay.
If part of being independent IS being independent, we don't need EVERYONE, especially all the newbies, tuning in anyway.
Just my 2 cents.
False choice is no choice at all (Score:5)
I don't buy this for a second. How many sources of media and news did people then have compared to now? I would argue that they have _many_ more now.
Without a doubt many more publications under many new names are available to the consuming public today than previously. However, if one checks the corporate ownership of these various publications one notices a single fact about almost all: they are almost all owned by as few as nine media conglomerates, worldwide. From FAIR's webpage [fair.org] (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) here are several sources for this assertion:
- The Global Media Giants: The nine firms that dominate the world [fair.org]
- Corporate Ownership Matters: The Case of NBC" [fair.org]
- Media Monopoly: Long History, Short Memories -- ABC Was Born Out of Fear of Media Consolidation" [fair.org]
This is only a few links from The Corporate Ownership [fair.org] page, which was itself a link from the primary Media Woes [fair.org] page, containing links to discussions on the limited range of acceptable debate (something Noam Chompsky wrote a whole book about, see: Manufacturing Consent [amazon.com]), significant advertiser and corporate ownership influence, manipulation of debate by pressure groups, and PR as news (how simple corporate press releases get prime news coverage without even basic fact checking).The news media is an absolute mess... and frankly if it were not for the net I think we should expect even greater limitations in the range of acceptable debate and discourse throughout society. The net threatens the media conglomerates because it allows individuals to shift the debate not only away from what's acceptable to the power elite, but even worse: away from advertising influence, which is the whole point behind a unified corporate media -- shove those ads down our throats and get us to buy crap we wouldn't otherwise even consider. For this reason it's reasonable to fear a Time Warner/AOL merger simply because it represents not just more media power consolidating into fewer conglomerate corporations, but because it represents the largest ISP merging with one of the largest Media Conglomerates. If they succeed in controlling the individual expression of users and content distributors while monopolizing Internet access they will succeed in stripping the Internet of it's primary benefit to society at large.
I note that without organizations like FAIR, and a free press unhindered by corporate pressure, advertising pressure, and government pressure no one would know about stories like this: Government Psychological Warfare operatives work as interns at CNN News, and thus no one would have forced CNN to explain themselves with this statement [fair.org]. That's right, our government had five PSYOPS personel working directly in CNN's Newsroom and NOT A SINGLE PRIMARY NEWS OUTLET HAS EVER PUBLISHED THIS STORY!
Pretty scary, huh?
Observations (Score:5)
There are currently two trends with respect to media companies, consolidation and fragmentation.
AOL-TW is just one of a number of mergers. Yet at the same time we see the barriers to entery droping. /. was started and run by a couple of guys in college. Digital video is lowering the cost of moving making (think Blair Witch). Internet radio has lower start up and running costs than traditional radio, and no frequency constraints. MP3s and such allow musicians to cut out the RIAA middle men.
Speaking of the RIAA, as /. readers are well aware, they and the MPAA are fighting very hard to maintain the status quo.
This combination of fragmentation and consoidation can be seen in a number of areas. Newspaper reading continues to decline while web surfing is increasing. Network TV viewing is down, cable viewing is up. Yet TV networks are seen as valuable properties. And newspaper companies are investing in other newspapers, while providing free web access. A curious allocation of resources.
It will be interesting to see how these two trends play out. I'm routing for fragmentation and choice.
That said the problems of consolidation are real. Here in the US (and I suspect in most democracies) public opinion does matter. And the fact that AOL-TW controls and/or can influence where people get their info frightens me.
In addition to the problems associated with the large media conglomerates controling the access to and the content of information I see two other problems.
The first has to do with self censorship by reporters and journalists. While big the big names will be able to resist pressure to toe the company line, it could be a different story for the unknowns with no reputation to protect them. Consider a reporter just out of journalism school, with a family to support, a mortage to pay off, student loans, etc. Writing or even pursuing a story unflattering to the corporate parent could be seen as career suicide. So they don't, rationalizing that their new baby is more important then a story. Soon these stories never even reach concious awareness.
No one told this reporter not to persue these stories. But perceived self interest leads to self censorship.
The second problem has to do with perceived conflicts of interest. If Time has a story about AOL, would you believe it? (How about if Microsft commissions a poll about Windows?) If it is flattering then the fix is in. If it is unflattering it's just Time trying to show its independence. Either way the motives are suspect.
Finally these mega mergers lead to a very bland media landscape, since as noted by Roblimo they are going after mass markets. Has anyone noticed how similar the news shows on the networks are. Not just the nightly news but the news magazines and the morning shows as well. How many mob shows are on tap now that The Sopranos is a hit? How many Mars movies are out or in production? And where are all the fresh new musical acts? As an information and entertainment consumer I am very much pro choice.
I've rambled on long enough, and I'll leave it to someone else to explore the problems of a fragmented media landscape.
Steve M
I don't buy it... (Score:5)
I don't buy this for a second. How many sources of media and news did people then have compared to now? I would argue that they have _many_ more now.
>My personal fear of giant corporate voices controlling the Internet as a news medium is based not only on their potential political influence, but also on their ability to stifle innovation online. Do you think Rob Malda and Jeff Bates would ever have been allowed to do their schtick on AOL or through Time-Warner?
No, but who says they have to? Just because AOL/TW has huge market share doesn't mean that small, independent, special-interest sites can't become successful. In fact, one could argue that AOL is contributing to their success by getting millions of users onto the net who would never have been there before.
>The section of Time-Warner's online empire for which I used to write was Netly News...
Here's a question: Did TW ever try and influence how _you_ wrote your articles? Just because AOL owns CNN doesn't mean they can dictate what the reporters say and do, for the most part. I would argue that the integrity of Wolf Blitzer, Christian Amanpour, etc. will not be changed, and that if some corporation tried to control how they did their job they would scream bloody murder. (Of course, there are exceptions; reporters can be pressured into which stories to write, news can be edited to give it a slant, etc. etc. One example I can think of is the whole 60 Minutes/Tobacco story recently made famous in The Insider. But note that what happened: The producer stood up for what was ethically [in his profession] right to do, and CBS had some serious egg on their faces, and they suffered for it.)
This article strikes me as sort of Jon Katz-ish, the world is coming to an end, oh-my Big-Brother article. I don't buy any of it. If I don't like the way CNN is reporting, I'll change the channel. I guarantee you that CNN and NBC/CBS/ABC/etc. aren't all conspiring with AOL.
LL
Hey! (Score:5)
You would almost think it is impossible for anyone to control all the quality content on the web. After all... when a million monkeys at a million keyboards can make a million websites (http://www.geocities.com [geocities.com]), why would people need to stick to the big sites?
Oh... Quality content. That means stuff that people want to read, right?
------
Following line: Good example of Fair Use.
Re:True...but... (Score:5)
What's really important... (Score:5)
Ever notice.... (Score:5)
There *are* real monopolies. Electric companies, local telcos, cable companies. And they're all granted their monoplies by virtue of legislative action. And these monoploies, which were established under the pretext of maintaining market order, are the most durable of all.
Thanks for your concern, but no thanks for your help. We the market can cut these folks down to size without your help.
TIme Warner/AOL and Cable modems? (Score:5)
DaiTengu
--------
Damage Inc. BBS