MSN.com

[=?iso-8859-1?B?SvZzaA==?=]

So, aside from my maniacal ranting, I think we're in agreement in this case?
I think reasonable people can call MSN's actions stupid or bad for
business, but thats about it.  Im just reacting to the sort of
"shocked horror" the press gave it as if its something
all that newsworthy in the war between good and evil.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Lawrence Murphy" <garym@canada.com>
To: <fork@xent.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: MSN.com


> >>>>> "j" == josh  <J> writes:
> 
>     j> <rant>...  There is no law that says that a web site author has
>     j> to make their content available to all browser users.  
> 
> Actually, if the site in question is a government project, or
> supported significantly by government money, there is a law which says
> it must be accessible to the handicapped, and another law that says a
> government service cannot bias users to a brand name.
> 
> For the other sites, to have a big sign on the front door of your
> business that reads "You must wear Gucci shoes to enter this
> establishment" is just plain stupid.  Even most of the "dress code"
> restaurants have softened their stance in recent years (some even
> provide you with a jacket if you arrive without one).  To do otherwise
> (and then rant that you went out of business) is just plain bad
> planning.
> 
> For MSN, however, well, I don't remember the last time I needed to go
> there, so I really don't care.  It's not an essential service, it is a
> service for _their_ subscribers, ie it's a Microsoft club, a customer
> value-add, so who cares if its closed to Microsoft product owners?  I
> wouldn't trust their news to be objective just because there's an
> influential brand name on the label.  I wouldn't expect Nike or
> Jordash branded fashion or globalization/human-rights News to be
> impartial either.
> 
> 
> 
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> 
>