Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   If you're looking for someone to blame for Section 230, it was AOL troll Zen ZZ03   (npr.org) divider line
    More: Interesting, Supreme Court of the United States, Ken Zeran's phone, Appeal, Supreme court, time of its drafting, important Internet law, Zeran's lawyers, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

1449 clicks; posted to STEM » on 11 May 2021 at 8:45 AM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



22 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-05-11 10:16:13 AM  
That article leads to an interesting idea, Section 230 coverage only covers your site if you authenticate users' identities.

Please destroy this idea.
 
2021-05-11 10:22:14 AM  
Apparently, it is perfectly acceptable to mess with the Zeran.
 
2021-05-11 10:42:05 AM  
What about Sector 7-G?
 
2021-05-11 10:50:15 AM  
So someone was creating fake ads and AOL had no idea who it was?
How is that even possible?
 
2021-05-11 11:29:27 AM  

kdawg7736: What about Sector 7-G?


Is that the one located in Sector Zed Zed Plural Alpha?
 
2021-05-11 11:37:49 AM  

fastfxr: So someone was creating fake ads and AOL had no idea who it was?
How is that even possible?


The irony is, AOL would have known. It was a pay for only service at the time, so every account was authenticated. You couldn't get to their chat services or anything else without an account.

So AOL absolutely could tie a user to a credit card or phone number or something at bare minimum.
 
2021-05-11 11:48:18 AM  

Quantumbunny: fastfxr: So someone was creating fake ads and AOL had no idea who it was?
How is that even possible?

The irony is, AOL would have known. It was a pay for only service at the time, so every account was authenticated. You couldn't get to their chat services or anything else without an account.

So AOL absolutely could tie a user to a credit card or phone number or something at bare minimum.


I suppose it would depend on how lax their ID verification was at the time and how easy it was to get a fake/hacked CC number into their system.
 
2021-05-11 11:58:25 AM  
Before section 230 communication companies had to either let anyone post everything, which worked fine on Usenet but we now know leads from 4chan->8chan->parler (those of us from kuro5hin.org saw this effect pretty early, and that had "user moderation".)

Or you could moderate things.  If you moderated anything, you were responsible for all content.  You could imagine how this might be a problem for deep-pocketed communications companies.  So they grabbed a bunch of paid off congresscritters and had them write the laws to have their cake and eat it to.

/the [cheap wine] fark filter dates from the usenet era
//newsreaders included their own moderation files (.killfiles) that let you ignore trolls
///I only remember one super-troll that managed a thunder-[cheap wine] in my .killfile.  Some guy on the early 3d card newsgroup managed to turn every thread he showed up in to a complete shaitshow.
 
2021-05-11 12:01:13 PM  
To be fair, people who used AOL would absolutely fall for something like this.
 
2021-05-11 12:55:59 PM  

AthensBoy: Quantumbunny: fastfxr: So someone was creating fake ads and AOL had no idea who it was?
How is that even possible?

The irony is, AOL would have known. It was a pay for only service at the time, so every account was authenticated. You couldn't get to their chat services or anything else without an account.

So AOL absolutely could tie a user to a credit card or phone number or something at bare minimum.

I suppose it would depend on how lax their ID verification was at the time and how easy it was to get a fake/hacked CC number into their system.


I don't think there was an option without dialing in, so they would have your phone number at a minimum. A court order to look that up at the phone company, and you're pretty screwed.

This was all before burner phones, SIM cards, etc. At the time, there no way you needed much more than the phone number they absolutely had because that's how modems worked.
 
2021-05-11 1:10:05 PM  
Fark, as we know it, would not exist if Section 230 did not exist.  At a minimum, every single comment would have to moderated, delaying postings by hours if not days.
 
2021-05-11 1:34:59 PM  

Quantumbunny: AthensBoy: Quantumbunny: fastfxr: So someone was creating fake ads and AOL had no idea who it was?
How is that even possible?

The irony is, AOL would have known. It was a pay for only service at the time, so every account was authenticated. You couldn't get to their chat services or anything else without an account.

So AOL absolutely could tie a user to a credit card or phone number or something at bare minimum.

I suppose it would depend on how lax their ID verification was at the time and how easy it was to get a fake/hacked CC number into their system.

I don't think there was an option without dialing in, so they would have your phone number at a minimum. A court order to look that up at the phone company, and you're pretty screwed.

This was all before burner phones, SIM cards, etc. At the time, there no way you needed much more than the phone number they absolutely had because that's how modems worked.


You could connect over tcp/ip (I did), but you absolutely had to have an account.

There were ways to get free accounts, but they were pretty good about limiting access.
 
2021-05-11 1:39:30 PM  

Geotpf: Fark, as we know it, would not exist if Section 230 did not exist.  At a minimum, every single comment would have to moderated, delaying postings by hours if not days.


The Internet as we know it would not exist without Section 230.  All you would have are things like 4chan (or 8chan or whatever 4chan would be without its minimal moderation) and yahoo-like portals to corporate websites.  Personal websites would be pretty much limited to AWS hosting.

Pretty much pre-Section 230 internet, now with weaponized trolls.  Trolling certainly existed then (and the term dates at least to the 1980s), but they were just honing their methods back then.  Now, they know how to concentrate, attack, and destroy.
 
2021-05-11 1:45:36 PM  
The biggest mistake that guy made was not changing his number after the first day.
 
2021-05-11 2:16:22 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-11 2:24:45 PM  

Ishkur: The biggest mistake that guy made was not changing his number after the first day.


If you are a business, keeping a steady phone number is a big asset.  I can see why he was reluctant to change if he had been in business for more than a year or two.

In college, I worked part time at an accounting firm that had the same phone number since the 1930's.  Heck, it was originally five digits and had 00 added to the end when my city went to seven digits for local calls in the 1940's or so.
 
2021-05-11 2:34:51 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: Geotpf: Fark, as we know it, would not exist if Section 230 did not exist.  At a minimum, every single comment would have to moderated, delaying postings by hours if not days.

The Internet as we know it would not exist without Section 230.  All you would have are things like 4chan (or 8chan or whatever 4chan would be without its minimal moderation) and yahoo-like portals to corporate websites.  Personal websites would be pretty much limited to AWS hosting.

Pretty much pre-Section 230 internet, now with weaponized trolls.  Trolling certainly existed then (and the term dates at least to the 1980s), but they were just honing their methods back then.  Now, they know how to concentrate, attack, and destroy.


We've also outgrown the days where trolling was performed by individuals for personal amusement.  Now you have professional psy-ops campaigns with the intent of manipulating political and commercial activity.  Weaponized trolls, indeed.
 
2021-05-11 3:01:15 PM  

GRCooper: Quantumbunny: AthensBoy: Quantumbunny: fastfxr: So someone was creating fake ads and AOL had no idea who it was?
How is that even possible?

The irony is, AOL would have known. It was a pay for only service at the time, so every account was authenticated. You couldn't get to their chat services or anything else without an account.

So AOL absolutely could tie a user to a credit card or phone number or something at bare minimum.

I suppose it would depend on how lax their ID verification was at the time and how easy it was to get a fake/hacked CC number into their system.

I don't think there was an option without dialing in, so they would have your phone number at a minimum. A court order to look that up at the phone company, and you're pretty screwed.

This was all before burner phones, SIM cards, etc. At the time, there no way you needed much more than the phone number they absolutely had because that's how modems worked.

You could connect over tcp/ip (I did), but you absolutely had to have an account.

There were ways to get free accounts, but they were pretty good about limiting access.


I was just having flashbacks of being buried under a mountain of AOL CDs at the movie theatre I worked at.

I would think that, even with modems, there would have been a way to spoof the number you were dialing in from if you were really that dedicated with the technical knowledge.

I'm betting AOL was just lazy and didn't want to do it and potentially expose shadiness. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
2021-05-11 3:07:10 PM  

AthensBoy: GRCooper: Quantumbunny: AthensBoy: Quantumbunny: fastfxr: So someone was creating fake ads and AOL had no idea who it was?
How is that even possible?

The irony is, AOL would have known. It was a pay for only service at the time, so every account was authenticated. You couldn't get to their chat services or anything else without an account.

So AOL absolutely could tie a user to a credit card or phone number or something at bare minimum.

I suppose it would depend on how lax their ID verification was at the time and how easy it was to get a fake/hacked CC number into their system.

I don't think there was an option without dialing in, so they would have your phone number at a minimum. A court order to look that up at the phone company, and you're pretty screwed.

This was all before burner phones, SIM cards, etc. At the time, there no way you needed much more than the phone number they absolutely had because that's how modems worked.

You could connect over tcp/ip (I did), but you absolutely had to have an account.

There were ways to get free accounts, but they were pretty good about limiting access.

I was just having flashbacks of being buried under a mountain of AOL CDs at the movie theatre I worked at.

I would think that, even with modems, there would have been a way to spoof the number you were dialing in from if you were really that dedicated with the technical knowledge.

I'm betting AOL was just lazy and didn't want to do it and potentially expose shadiness. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


There definitely would have been ways. You could dial into a bbs then dial back out from there.

I was one of the guys in charge of transitioning AOL from the client (those CDs) to the web. You're welcome. :-)
 
2021-05-11 3:54:47 PM  

GRCooper: AthensBoy: GRCooper: Quantumbunny: AthensBoy: Quantumbunny: fastfxr: So someone was creating fake ads and AOL had no idea who it was?
How is that even possible?

The irony is, AOL would have known. It was a pay for only service at the time, so every account was authenticated. You couldn't get to their chat services or anything else without an account.

So AOL absolutely could tie a user to a credit card or phone number or something at bare minimum.

I suppose it would depend on how lax their ID verification was at the time and how easy it was to get a fake/hacked CC number into their system.

I don't think there was an option without dialing in, so they would have your phone number at a minimum. A court order to look that up at the phone company, and you're pretty screwed.

This was all before burner phones, SIM cards, etc. At the time, there no way you needed much more than the phone number they absolutely had because that's how modems worked.

You could connect over tcp/ip (I did), but you absolutely had to have an account.

There were ways to get free accounts, but they were pretty good about limiting access.

I was just having flashbacks of being buried under a mountain of AOL CDs at the movie theatre I worked at.

I would think that, even with modems, there would have been a way to spoof the number you were dialing in from if you were really that dedicated with the technical knowledge.

I'm betting AOL was just lazy and didn't want to do it and potentially expose shadiness. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There definitely would have been ways. You could dial into a bbs then dial back out from there.

I was one of the guys in charge of transitioning AOL from the client (those CDs) to the web. You're welcome. :-)


Oh, so it's your fault. :P
 
2021-05-11 6:59:12 PM  

GRCooper: There definitely would have been ways. You could dial into a bbs then dial back out from there.


I did it with a punch down tool at my buildings demarc.
 
2021-05-12 8:00:51 AM  

SafetyThird: GRCooper: There definitely would have been ways. You could dial into a bbs then dial back out from there.

I did it with a punch down tool at my buildings demarc.


Have also changed inside wiring to my advantage. You learn stuff in college :-)
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.