Proudly Boycotting the Internet Link Exchange

ILE BOYCOTT UPDATE
Surprise! Look what banner has been accepted to ILE!

Note: This banner was accepted as a replacement for the one below, which was rejected by Link Exchange. The site owner is also no longer a member of Link Exchange

Well...gosh! I was quite shocked to find this "Impeach Clinton" banner (the first one on this page) in circulation at the Internet Link Exchange during July, 1997, especially after they had actively censored other banners (which I would consider less "offensive" than this one). In fact, the whole reason I became annoyed with the Internet Link Exchange was due to its selective censorship! (if you have not yet done so, please see how this all started)

I contacted ILE to get clarification on their present terms so this explanation could be as accurate as possible, they did not respond. I was still curious as to why ILE, after making such a fuss about other banners, suddenly began accepting banners which they considered "too offensive" before. I certainly was not annoyed that ILE was accepting these banners now - in fact I was quite pleased! I just wanted to clarify with them their current terms, so I could provide accurate information. But again, I received no response. So, I asked some of the site owners, who had had their similar banners censored, if they had any idea what was going on. I was finally enlightened by The Right on the Web (ROTW)

Believe it or not, Internet Link Exchange began allowing this type of banner for what is believed to be purely damage control reasons after the ROTW jumped into the mess. ILE was not allowing these "Anti-Clinton" banners or "Abortion" banners at all until ROTW submitted their impeach Clinton banner--the one which I have listed as a censored banner. ILE first wrote to ROTW telling them that they would not accept the impeach Clinton banner. But later, for suspicious reasons, ILE backpeddled on their decision to censor Right On The Web's banner. ROTW gets about 50,000 visitors per month and ILE may have thought that ROTW could cause a lot of people to drop ILE. Therefore, they allowed ROTW's banner (without notification) and one of ROTW's webmasters caught it one day while browsing the ILE site!

ROTW wrote them immediately on behalf of everyone on the Internet who was censored or became a victim of ILE's political correctness. ILE wrote back and basically backpeddled! It seems that now, since ROTW did this, "impeach Clinton" banners may be allowed grudgingly through by ILE. Whether or not the complaints from other site owners had any bearing on the situation is not known.

So, if people want to submit an "anti-Clinton" banner, it looks like ILE will now accept them. The thing is, it took a large site like ROTW to complain to get ILE accept these banners. When the smaller sites complained, ILE did nothing. And ILE's reasons were still inconsistent They told ROTW that the banners they accepted had to be as "bland as milquetoast" (this "bland as milquetoast" statement is documented in ILE's e-mail to ROTW) and ILE told me that all banners had to be "G" rated. Are these banners "bland as milquetoast" or "G-rated"?

Political Correctness can never be repackaged--It must be removed. People must be given a choice. For instance, if a department store had a horrible customer service record, people boycotted it on the internet, and news got out that one customer was satisfied, does that mean that everything is honkey-dorey? No way. Too many innocent sites were victimized---this cannot be corrected---and others have a right to know before they choose ILE or another exchange.

If the conclusions that I and the owners of Right on the Web came up with are incorrect, I would love to hear from Link Exchange.