Re: AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old
So not sure of you are aware, but Slashdot is running a posting stating the headline that AOL Monitor Accused of Luring 15-Year-Old for Sex which is false in context if you read the article. Also I have some insight on how these “AOL Monitors” work; since people have very minimal perspective them besides faulty articles and rumors.
First, to summarize the article: Some [woman] online is suing AOL because when she was 15 she was conversing with an [edit]“Monitor” and she was considering meeting that fellow around the age of 17, but never did. Now she is 19 and suing for psychological damages somewhere around $250,000. The Community Leader was/is (not clearly disclosed, 23 years old, male).
First, [edit] has this program for tenured [edit] members call Community Leaders so they can empower the service and its members on how to use the service, and to moderate chats, message boards and other “public” areas on AOL. The requirement is that they commit to about 3 hrs a week to this “community work” of talking with other members abnd also creat lively good discussions. As a reward; they get a free unlimited usage [edit] account ($23.90 value). Most people who do this are usually either Retired people, or Stay-At-Home types who like the internet. Some of the featured areas are [edit] where moderators regulate chats. They do a FINE job of protecting the community and [edit] . I see a number of accounts with these [edit]scrambling passwords and leaving notes that[edit] . Its not a bad thing, but helps parents talk to their kids about online safety. These [edit] like what they do since it helps everyone have a safe, more rewarding online experience.
The abuse comes in when there is a line of trust with these accounts. [edit]does its best job of screening applicants for a [edit] position. They must have an [edit] acct for a minimum of 1 year, with NO terms of service violations, and must pass a criminal background check. A majority of applicants are refused for various reasons and only the outstanding few are accepted. They have an online training session, and a lot of legal guidelines and disclosures to adhere to, and then they begin. Their moderations are reviewed, but mainly to ensure no misuse of moderation powers ([edit], deleting posts, etc). Since [edit] does not log its members for what they type; [edit] does not have the ability of logging [edit] unless it is reported via the ‘Notify [edit]‘feature. [edit]is very strict with those accounts and if you misbehave you are gone from the program.
[edit] does not pay the Community Leaders. They are compensated in the form of 1 free [edit] account. So they are not employees. However, employees (paid) do oversee the program of [edit] Community Inc., and they do their jobs well and this story doesn’t (or atleast, shouldn’t) reflect on their level of quality and professionalism on the service. As a result, [edit] did fire that [edit] , and will be legally pursuing the issue.
I hope that clears some things up on that article. Feel free to comment. 
