Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

The Internet Not for Old People 607

Alien54 writes to tell us the Daily Mail is reporting that if you want an internet connection and you are over 70 you may be in for a surprise. From the article: "After walking the Great Wall of China and making plans for a trip to Russia, Shirley Greening-Jackson thought signing up for a new internet service would be a doddle. But the young man behind the counter had other ideas. He said she was barred - because she was too old."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Internet Not for Old People

Comments Filter:
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @01:49PM (#16033243) Homepage Journal
    I know I've spent too much time because whilst reading the article (another sign - I'm not actually meant to do that) I noticed something in a quote:

    "Somebody has decided when you turn 70 you lose a lot of your mind. I find this is ridiculous."

    This lady is obviously intelligent, she spelt rediculous correctly...

    People should have to pass a test to get on the internet, it should consist of lots of to/too there/their/they're type questions and only if passed you get access (I would have years of my life back because I would fail it)

    I wonder if it can be retroactively applied though and if it was, would slashdot have managed 1 million user accounts?

    Having said all that, the guy who rejected her should get reprimanded for his actions, if a person is competent enough to go into a store and is prepared to go through the motions of ordering they should be supplied the product. Its not like she was an anonymous web packet arriving with credit card information and an order.
  • Another idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Flyboy Connor ( 741764 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @01:51PM (#16033249)
    Personally, I think you would have to pass an intelligence test before you should be allowed to have an Internet connection. You should show that you posses the basic common sense that ensures that you won't let your PC be turned into a zombie. Of course, that means that about 80% of the current population would be barred.
  • I little shallow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by el americano ( 799629 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @01:52PM (#16033255) Homepage
    Unusual case. Surely this strange store policy in the UK doesn't warrant the headline, "The Internet Not for Old People." I have no doubt that she eventually got her connection.
  • Well... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Spazntwich ( 208070 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @01:53PM (#16033257)
    Our society discriminates based on age at the younger end in all sorts of aspects.

    The ISP was legally covering their asses, and last time I checked a free market economy allowed a company to decide with whom they'd like to do business (short of random anti-discriminatory acts the US has set, but I don't believe age is a protected factor).

    Maybe she should just sign up with another company that's happy to have her business, rather than waste time being an attention whore over a minor issue.
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @01:58PM (#16033284) Homepage Journal
    I know that.
    It was me that spelt it wrong to try to make the point.
    Obviously I fail it on multiple layers.

    [NO CARRIER]
  • by Elemenope ( 905108 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:00PM (#16033287)
    Rarely is it that rules exist for no reason, but this one is kind of like the king whose subjects suffered from paper cuts, so as a solution he banned all the books.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:00PM (#16033288)
    So apparently they want younger (and probably more technical) people to read the contract so the 70+ people know what they're getting. Stupid, but it's not a rule without a reason.

    Maybe if you need a "younger" person with you to read the fine print in the contract, maybe the problem isn't with being over 70, maybe the problem is too much fine print.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:05PM (#16033305)
    I think that if you require someone to explain the contract, then the contract is too freakin' complex. And that's bad for both sides - you get episodes like this, and people looking for and using loopholes you may not have known were in the contract.
  • by jb.hl.com ( 782137 ) <joe.joe-baldwin@net> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:06PM (#16033306) Homepage Journal
    Bear in mind that the article is sourced from the Daily Mail, well known for spinning articles in interesting ways. (I recall they saw the introduction of a home test kit for chlamydia as a bad thing because it signalled a rise in chlamydia rates...nothing to do with going to an STD clinic being embarrassing, then).
  • by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:10PM (#16033320)
    Meanwhile in the real world, older people are more likely to understand the subtle implications of the fine print, while younger people are impatient and will happily sign their lives away.

    As for technical ... the world moves on .. there are people in their 70s who were programmers in the 1960's. How old are Kernigan and Richie? (IBM's expert witnesses) they are older than me and Bill Gates anyway!

    Damn right e-mail is for oldies. The youngsters can use skateboards to visit their friends :-)

  • by Vlad_the_Inhaler ( 32958 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:10PM (#16033326)
    Some journalist reported what she said (may have said: this *is* the Daily Mail) so the jury is still out on which spelling she would have used.
    (although I can't imagine someone like her would have got it wrong)
  • Re:Another idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pilkul ( 667659 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:14PM (#16033348)
    You're right, let's just shoot anyone with an IQ below 120.

    You haven't quite thought this through. As median cognitive ability goes up as a result of all this shooting, more and more people will drop under the 120 IQ line until we finally end up killing everybody.

  • Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ultramk ( 470198 ) <{ultramk} {at} {pacbell.net}> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:14PM (#16033351)
    "Insightful"?

    There's a reason there are anti-discrimination laws in the US, and yes, age IS one of the protected factors. So we discriminate against people at the younger end of the spectrum... thousands of years of experience show that younger than a certain age, people tend not to behave responsibly. Are there exceptions? Of course! ...But how many 12 year-olds would you want having driver's licenses?

    This isn't a "minor issue", this is turning the most experienced, and often wisest segment of our population into second class citizens. Look at the average ages of our Supreme Court Justices. Now tell me that they can't handle signing up "all on their own" for a damn cell-phone because they might get "confused," because it's so darn "complicated."

    Speaking for everyone over 30, BITE ME.

    m-
  • by deft ( 253558 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:14PM (#16033352) Homepage
    He's following company policy. He works there... it is not his problem, it's the companies.

    Thats like getting mad at the cashier because your Big Mac went up 20 cents. I assure you he doesn;t set policy.
  • Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by chakmol ( 88099 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:18PM (#16033375)
    Our society discriminates based on age at the younger end in all sorts of aspects.

    So that makes it all ok!

    Maybe she should just sign up with another company that's happy to have her business, rather than waste time being an attention whore over a minor issue.

    She did the right thing, IMO. This was such a pissing-off action by the ISP that quietly running off to another company would not have made Carphone Warehouse suffer some like they needed to.
  • Re:Seems fair. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EnsilZah ( 575600 ) <.moc.liamG. .ta. .haZlisnE.> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:20PM (#16033384)
    Only you can't kill anyone with an internet connection.
    Believe me, i tried.
  • Re:Another idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pilkul ( 667659 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:23PM (#16033393)
    I doubt the grandparent is actually that clever, considering that his grammar is poor, his post was a non sequitur, and the idea that people vote Republican because they have less cognitive ability is itself moronic.
  • Re:Another idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:25PM (#16033405)
    The point is that you shoot about 80% of the people, then when the score is renormalized, another 80% of the population gets shot, then you repeat. Ultimately, you get to one person with an IQ of exactly 100 (the only guy alive, thus perfectly average) who shoots himself.
  • Re:Another idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:27PM (#16033413)
    You haven't quite thought this through. As median cognitive ability goes up as a result of all this shooting, more and more people will drop under the 120 IQ line until we finally end up killing everybody

    That presumes that this would be an iterative process.

    A one-time date-based test would do nicely.

  • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Abcd1234 ( 188840 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:38PM (#16033461) Homepage
    This isn't a "minor issue", this is turning the most experienced, and often wisest segment of our population into second class citizens.

    And this is new? In the western world, we take the most experienced, and often wisest segment of our population and throw them into rest homes because we're too damned lazy/selfish to take care of them ourselves. This is just the continuing of a trend... in our culture, the elderly are considered a useless, incompetant burden on the young. It should be amusing to see how we handle the baby-boomers as they enter their 70s and 80s...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:40PM (#16033479)
    What an increidble bad idea. Internet doesn't kill people, wheres is my freedom if I'm not allowed to use Internet? Why not extend your "wonderful" idea to knifes, regulate the ability to have babies...and control every potencially dangeous aspect of your life? Why are people allowed to walk in the street? They may cause accidents!

    You're just mad because you'd fail the test.
  • Re:Having RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:55PM (#16033559) Homepage
    > I've worked in sales for a cell company and you know honestly, it was
    > difficult getting some (not ALL) of the elderly customers to understand
    > what exactly they were wanting to sign up for.

    How tedious of those old fogies to actually want to understand what they are contracting for! Much easier to deal with young suckers who will sign anything at all without reading it, isn't it?
  • by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) * on Sunday September 03, 2006 @02:57PM (#16033569) Homepage Journal
    He's following company policy. He works there... it is not his problem, it's the companies.

    He's a representative of the company. Even if he doesn't personally set the policy, that doesn't make him any less legitimate a target of one's anger. I have friends who feel the incessant need to explain to cashiers are other service reps, "I understand you're just doing your job, but..." That's silly.

    Companies hire these kinds of people specifically for the purpose of you getting mad at them so that, if they're lucky, you won't do something that might bother the higher-ups. So feel free to cuss and fuss to your heart's content, that's what they're there for. (And yes, I used to be one of them, and until very recently, part of my job involved appeasing angry people.)

    Of course, by the same logic, one should also realize that other than as a cathartic release, fussing and cussing at these people doesn't do any good, because like I said, part of their job is to make sure your ranting ends with them and doesn't bother the people-in-charge. If you do want to make a difference, you'll have to figure out some way to go around these paid bullet-takers to get to the people who actually can make some sort of difference. If they get bothered enough, believe me, the policy will change.

    At my job, when people did go over my head or otherwise around me and my boss got bothered, guess what. Whoever's problem that was suddenly became my top priority, whether it was legitimate or not. And if someone went over my boss's head or otherwise went around him, well, I'll leave it to you to imagine just how much attention the problem got.

    In an ideal world, if you fuss and cuss at the lowly service rep, what he should do is report to his manager that this customer is very mad and feels like this is a very important problem. If his manager gets enough of these types of complaints, he'd report it to his boss, and it would eventually propagate to someone who sees a pattern of people getting very angry at the service reps, which impacts the company's bottom line, and would make a change. Unfortunately in today's corporate society, what happens more often than not is that the service rep's feedback isn't seen as the constructive feedback that it is, and the rep gets fired for making a stink instead of just keeping his damn mouth shut, so the service reps just sit on these types of problems instead.

    A couple of years later, when the company's stock price has tanked because everyone has figured out what lousy customer service they have, the board of directors sits around in a meeting scratching their heads over why things are going so badly, and they end up laying a bunch of people off, thinking that somehow solves their problem.

    *shrug* Welcome to the corporate world at work!

  • by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:10PM (#16033614)
    If you sell contracts to old people that they don't understand - then people are going to complain you are taking advantage of old people.
    If you don't sell contracts to old people who may not understand - then people are going to complain you are discriminating against old people.

    Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You can't give certain members of the public special protection, without taking away some of their rights. You must either treat old people as total equals to young people, or you must treat them like children. If you want to "protect" seniors as a group under the assumption that they are more easily taken advantage of, there is no way you can treat them as fully responsible adults. The two are mutually exclusive.

    I think we have reached the point in society where no-matter what you do, how you act, or how honestly you are trying to do the right thing, people are going to be perpetually outraged and trying to destroy you.
  • Re:Seems fair. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by macemoneta ( 154740 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:19PM (#16033657) Homepage
    Your dad may be skilled, and I'm sure he is. However, for every skilled elderly person there'll be many more with no clue how the Internet works.

    And the same just can't be true of some under 25-something. I wouldn't trust any of my (4) nephews to setup their own cable routers and home networks, even though they were all born with keyboards in their hands. Exposure to technology doesn't imply cluefulness. Your statement is ageist.

  • Re:Seems fair. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dema ( 103780 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:19PM (#16033659) Homepage
    You've obviously never worked in tech support. 95% of the population knows jack shit about computers, the internet, and/or contract language. If "covering their ass" is what they want to do they should administer a test based on the contract -- but it's far easier (and cheaper) to just enforce an arbitrary limit on age.
  • Re:Another idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RexRhino ( 769423 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:19PM (#16033662)
    Cuba and North Korea already have this. You have to pass a rigorous government screening process to access the Internet. They make sure no stupid people use the internet (and, of course, if you question the government, or it's policies, or the ideology it is based on, then you are obviously stupid and don't qualify for using the Internet).

    But, we are all so open-minded freedom-loving democratic people in the western world, that we would never use government licencing or regulation to supress dissenting political beliefs. No one would ever dream of doing such a thing!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:22PM (#16033680)
    So this store "mis-sold" = pushed stuff onto older people and got complaints and as a result they bar older people from purchasing their products? Two wrongs do not make a right. How about enforcing a bit more ethics among their sales staff? Of course, that's more work than pushing overly complicated contracts on people. Or, god forbid, actually offer understandable contracts?

    I'm only 35 but I can actually remember when eg. phone contracts just had a monthly fee and a per minute charge that varied with distance - concepts which are intuitively understandable. Whereas nowadays the typical ad for a phone contract features a price and then at least 10 sub-clauses along the lines of "price only valid between 10pm and 2am if you still have bonus points left and the moon is full and only if you sign up for the next 10 years". Most *young* people I know, though, won't complain because they think that's "normal" and they want the product ASAP and don't want to think too much about it.

    Now, maybe I'm an old fart (seeing as I seem to be talking about the "good old times" already) but I think it's high time that this kind of advertising and contracts were forbidden. It's happened before, too, in the banking sector. Can't remember where I read it but apparently it used to be that banks pushed their products like that. After a while it was forbidden and banks now are required to show the effective annual premium and stuff has become understandable again.
  • by Duds ( 100634 ) <dudley.enterspace@org> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:23PM (#16033682) Homepage Journal
    So it's ok to treat people with no control over things like shit because you have a self-esteem problem.

    Gotcha.
  • by pthisis ( 27352 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:34PM (#16033721) Homepage Journal
    No, but it's okay to talk about poor policy with people who accept a company's policy and profit from it. The idea that the corporation is an entity unto itself controlled only by people in central offices where the front-line workers have no responsibility is BS. Every worker at a company has some responsibility for the company's actions and policies, especially the policies they enforce themselves.
  • Re:I agree! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:39PM (#16033739) Homepage Journal
    Young people like myself are just told to accept that car insurance is going to be higher for us simply because we're young.

    You've never been told that. What you've been told is that your rates are higher because people in your demographic have higher average claims per customer than do other groups.

    I pay triple the car insurance my senile grandmother does despite the fact that I've never so much as gotten a parking ticket.

    You haven't, but other people your age have had disproportionally more. Insurance companies are very competitive, and if one could underwrite the youth market at a substantial discount and still make a profit, they would. The fact that none have says a lot.

  • by jb.hl.com ( 782137 ) <joe.joe-baldwin@net> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:45PM (#16033771) Homepage Journal
    Congratulations: you're an asshole!
  • by Duds ( 100634 ) <dudley.enterspace@org> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:46PM (#16033775) Homepage Journal
    talk yes.

    Shout and swear as was implied. NO.
  • by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:48PM (#16033781) Homepage Journal
    I think the contract fine print is there deliberately to screw over the users. I doubt that will be fixed unless there is some external pressure, like with disability protection laws or anti-discrimination laws. "The market" seems to tolerate it, allowing plenty of room for abuse so I think it would have to be fixed with consumer protection laws.
  • by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:51PM (#16033788) Homepage Journal
    He's a representative of the company.

    Precisely! If you are unwilling to be a representative of the company, find another job!

    I was in Best Buy last week. It was my first time I've ever been in one. And because of my experience, will probably be the last as well. I was given very poor service by the "representative" in the computer section. No need to go into how bad his service was, because the kicker was the cashier at the front counter. I told her about the bad service, and she smiled and said, "here's a complaint form to fill out."

    I dont' want to fill out a freaking form! I want to TELL you about the bad service. Because I thought you might care about it. There was no one else in line, so it wasn't like I was holding anything up. If you don't care enough about your customers to spend thirty seconds listening to one, then I hope your stock tanks!

    "We're sorry you aren't happy. Have a nice day. Please come again."
  • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:52PM (#16033795) Homepage Journal
    Well... Them and most of the gov seem to not know much about the internet.

    That doesn't imply a lack of intelligence. A lot of the judiciary is pretty old and can handle legal issues that are far more complex than what it takes to operate a computer.
  • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @03:56PM (#16033815) Homepage Journal
    If you want to blame someone, blame the people in your age group for driving like idiots.

    Well maybe Mrs. 75 year old should 'blame the people in her age group for not understanding contracts so well', hmm? Wasn't the point that that was a stupid assumption because people are individuals and not necessarily all the same as their 'group'?

    If you have a better way of judging relative risk, start your own insurance company, or just submit your proposal as an application for the Nobel prize for economics. It'll be a shoe-in.

    How about ONLY using an individual's personal actions as a factor in determining the charge?

    We get cheaper insurance because, gee, we don't fuck up as much.

    Then you don't get to sign up for this service because, gee, your age group is too retarded. Oh, was that another dumb rampant generalization?
  • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jez9999 ( 618189 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @04:04PM (#16033853) Homepage Journal
    Cheaper car insurance is about as discriminatory as people living in flood plains having to pay higher house/disaster insurance.

    No, it's much more discriminatory because you get to choose whether you live in a flood plain, but not your age or gender.

    Discriminatory would be barring them insurance just because they are young.

    It would also be charging them, as an individual, more or less because of certain of their demographics.
  • by supersocialist ( 884820 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @04:04PM (#16033858) Journal
    You might have a point when you get up to store managers, but even they have very limited power in a lot of chain stores. The wage slave actually manning a register only has any kind of power if the store is run by a reasonable manager, and all you do by yelling at some poor kid is vent your frustrations and get a black mark like "URINATES ON DVDS--DO NOT RENT!!!" on your account.

    For that matter, all you get out of talking about policy with peon-level clerks is maybe some sympathetic "uh huhs" and "okays" but the policy won't change and the best they can do is fetch a manager to make an exception in your case--this probably won't happen if you're rude about it. Most of the time, regardless of how calm you remain, all you'll do is hold the clerk up while lines build, other work piles up, and he has to stand there, all smiles, pretending he really, really cares why you think you should be exempt from the policies that are set well over his head.

    Seriously, if you're angry enough to make some high school girl behind the register cry over your abuse, take it to the manager. You can even ask to see the manager in your scariest, angriest voice if it makes you feel better about yourself. A store manager may have the power to help you, if they want to, and they're probably seasoned enough to take a little abuse--tell you to fuck off when you well deserve it.

    This shit is why I miss washing dishes. The only customers I hated then were the ones with gum.
  • Re:Another idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RsG ( 809189 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @04:26PM (#16033930)
    In a few generations, we'd all be like Stephen Hawking!
    I think, with the current obesity rates being what they are, we're apt to wind up just as immobile as Stephen Hawking in a generation or two anyway...
  • by It'sYerMam ( 762418 ) <[thefishface] [at] [gmail.com]> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @04:28PM (#16033938) Homepage
    Well, did you fill out the form? If so, did it get answered? If you couldn't get anywhere, did you ask to speak to a supervisor or manager? A complaint form is a perfectly viable method of dealing with problems, as long as it's taken seriously. Just because you don't get to inconvenience a cashier is no reason to label the procedure bad.
  • Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MadEE ( 784327 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @04:44PM (#16034003)
    Well maybe Mrs. 75 year old should 'blame the people in her age group for not understanding contracts so well', hmm? Wasn't the point that that was a stupid assumption because people are individuals and not necessarily all the same as their 'group'?
    There is a huge difference here; the ISP is not taking on any risk from the individual with the contract. ISPs are very well shielded from liability so her violating the contract is unlikely to offer greater cost to the company. The reason insurance companies charge different rates for different people is because they are essentially exchanging your liability risk (and this changes with age) for money if you have more risk then naturally it will cost more, you are getting a different product. The problem with this case is that regardless of age the service is the same, same speed, bandwidth and such regardless of age.
    How about ONLY using an individual's personal actions as a factor in determining the charge?
    And that history is just supposed to pop out of nowhere. You need good data to determine someone's risk that is why they use a heck of a lot more factors then just age and it's not a coincidence that the longer you have the insurance the more your rates drop (or rise), your personal history starts growing in importance..
    Then you don't get to sign up for this service because, gee, your age group is too retarded. Oh, was that another dumb rampant generalization?
    There is nothing wrong with generalization in business so long as there are facts and statistics to back it up.
  • by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @04:51PM (#16034027)
    This is more of a cover-your-ass routine so that people with little prior understanding of technology don't buy something completely unsuitable then come back ranting and raving.

    Are you saying that only elderly people can be technological lunkheads? I've run into plenty of people whose microwave oven clocks are still flashing 12:00. If you want to have a restriction aimed at keeping the ill-informed and "unsuited" away from the internet, then maybe the store should administer a technology test to every applicant. That would make way more sense than some arbitrary cutoff based on age. Which is still damning the idea with faint praise.

  • by mikael_j ( 106439 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @05:01PM (#16034056)
    C) Hopefully I do in front of as many customers as possible, to cause the most possible discomfort in the highschool drop out serving me, and his buinsess college dropout boss.

    Hey, I work in customer services/internet helpdesk, I'm college educated (I'm posting on /., guess my major, here's a hint: it wasn't creative writing..) and I deal with assholes like you all the time. Where I work I'd estimate that at least 70% of the bottom-rung underpaid drones are in the same situation as me, they didn't know the right people and there aren't enough IT/CE jobs for all of us so we got stuck enforcing corporate policies.

    Here is my advice for those of you running into some customer services rep who is just enforcing corporate policy: Don't be an asshole! Chances are that this person is just working there because there weren't any real jobs and hates the absurd and crazy rules as much as you do. Most of the time we are genuinely trying to help but our hands are tied by the rules, and you getting pissed off is not a problem for us compared to losing our jobs for going against company policy.

    /Mikael

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @05:13PM (#16034097)
    My guess is that their experience is that old people have a hard time grasping the concept of the 'net, thus creating many (too many) support calls. They aren't shopping online, they are not buying ringtones, they don't follow the latest fad and hype, in other words: They cost money and create none.

    That's what this is about, in a nutshell.

    There is a load of clueless morons on the 'net, also causing support calls (and, trust me, the most inane you can imagine), but they at least swallow the whole online crap (because they're too ignorant and unwilling to figure out how to toy with it 'til you get it for free (and legally so)). They cost, but they also make you money. So that's "acceptable".

    They are, though, the real problem of the 'net. Not old people. Old people don't download spyware loaded screensavers, they don't start any junk sent to them just 'cause it's labeled "free pr0n", they are usually very cautious and few of them actually cause a real problem to the 'net as a whole. Only to their provider with their calls.

    Unfortunately, that's who they need to connect.
  • not in the US (Score:2, Insightful)

    by oohshiny ( 998054 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @05:15PM (#16034103)
    The ISP was legally covering their asses,

    From what? The over-70 folks are still legally competent until declared otherwise by a court of law.

    and last time I checked a free market economy allowed a company to decide with whom they'd like to do business

    You are very much mistaken. Not only is discrimination based on age specifically illegal in many countries (including the US), who can do business with whom is indeed subject to many legal regulations. A free market economy is not the same as anarchy.
  • by Mistshadow2k4 ( 748958 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @05:16PM (#16034110) Journal
    /. doesn't just need "-1 WRONG," it also needs "-1 No Sense Of Humor."
    It's needed even more for meta-modding. It's very common to mod a post down because they either didn't get the joke or didn't like it... then come back and abuse their mod points by modding anyone down who dared to even ask why the post was modded down.
  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @05:22PM (#16034130) Homepage Journal
    He should be forced to spend some time being 70. Fortunately he'll have a hard time avoiding this punishment (And the alternative would probably be worse...)
  • by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @05:48PM (#16034212)
    So it's ok to treat people with no control over things like shit because you have a self-esteem problem.

    You are one amazing corporate apologist. You've been able to turn "arbitrarily fucked with" into "a self-esteem problem" in one sentence and not even one of the other responders has questioned it. Bravo! I think you have excellent potential for a job in Washington as a lobbyist.
  • by linguizic ( 806996 ) * on Sunday September 03, 2006 @05:57PM (#16034237)
    Here's a phrase that's worked quite well for me, and I don't mind spreading it around:
    I would like to speak to your manager.
    Don't take out your anger on the little guy, aim it at the right person. And besides, who says that you have to be angry about it. I think people are getting much to adversarial.
  • by Gordonjcp ( 186804 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @06:01PM (#16034249) Homepage
    You *do* know that nothing they publish is actually true, right? That their entire output is only for whipping the rabid right-wing types up into a frenzy?
  • by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @06:03PM (#16034256)

    As for the poor minimum wage kids serving me, tough. I hope they get fired. If making a burger is above their skillset, then they really don't deserve much sympathy.

    And I hope that other people will show you as much sympathy as you show them, when you are weak and need it. Maybe that will teach you a little lesson about the nature of evil and why embracing it is not such a good idea after all.

  • by dubl-u ( 51156 ) * <2523987012&pota,to> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @07:55PM (#16034623)
    So it's ok to treat people with no control over things like shit because you have a self-esteem problem.

    For the record, I'm always nice to low-level staff. The closest I come to being mad at them is to day, "Ok, I understand you can't fix this. Can you just put me in touch with whoever you'd call if I were furious and ranting?"

    But people working those front like jobs are not prisoners. They picked a job, pursued it, and willingly turn up every day. They have control over the situation, too.

    If you are making money by treating people poorly (hello, telemarketers!), do not fool yourself into thinking that you aren't responsible for your actions just because somebody else takes most of the money. That just makes you a jerk and a chump.
  • by dubl-u ( 51156 ) * <2523987012&pota,to> on Sunday September 03, 2006 @08:08PM (#16034669)
    The idea that the corporation is an entity unto itself controlled only by people in central offices where the front-line workers have no POWER is what's accurate.

    It's accurate only as long as people like you keep justifying the behavior of people who support systems like that.

    Back before spam became a fact of life, I spent a lot of time tracking down individual spammers and getting them banned. I ended up talking to a number of them, and you know what? It was never their fault, not really. It was just that they really needed the money, or that they had a quota to meet, or the baby was on the way, or they just had to have that new car, or they were just doing what their boss told them. They were just a tragic victim of circumstances, boo hoo.

    That's bullshit. We all have circumstances. We all can be ethical in an imaginary perfect world. What really matters is what you do in the face of real life. And that real life will always include assholes who will pay you to to help them be assholes.

    Large, faceless, asshole corporations are, historically, a relatively new thing. My bet is that they have passed their peak. Rather than helping to prop them up, why not help speed their fall?
  • by penguinbrat ( 711309 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @09:24PM (#16034913)
    What your talking about is being abusive, I know your being a smart ass, but there is no gotcha about it - no legit excuse for it, regardless of reasoning...

    What the parent is talking about however, more or less, is that those in charge of these corporations are the ones being abusive - only in an inderect and backwards way, they know there customers are going to be pissed, and they place pawns between themselves and those very customers - consequently, abusing those pawns.

    I would take it a step further and say that CS is not about support anymore (other than convenient/automated support), it's more of a buffer zone. I can't remember the last time I had the *default* customer support that didn't make things worse one way or the other, the only time anything gets resolved is with specific departments or management.

    Back when I was a kid, there used to be a saying, something stupid about the customer always being right - I don't think anyone has anything close to that modo anymore, more along the lines of "the customer is always wrong and try to pursude them to our way of thinking..."
  • by mckyj57 ( 116386 ) on Sunday September 03, 2006 @10:18PM (#16035094)
    and I deal with assholes like you all the time.

    I see. You view the people you talk to as assholes.


    Where I work I'd estimate that at least 70% of the bottom-rung underpaid drones are in the same situation as me, they didn't know the right people and there aren't enough IT/CE jobs for all of us so we got stuck enforcing corporate policies.


    There are plenty of real jobs, just not for people with attitudes like yours.
  • by bratwiz ( 635601 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @03:41AM (#16036401)
    I think it is an excellent proposition to require the elderly to "take a test" to determine if they know "what the Internet is"... provided of course that the phone company mandating it also take a test to determine if they know "what customer support is".

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Working...