Things I Hate About the Internet; Part 1 of 2 Discussing Some of the Iniquities of the Internet.

Robert Theobald (RIP) reckoned that the internet would and could be a great leveler with its inherent ability to provide access and equity to all comers (users). Was he right about Y2K and is he right about what might happen to the internet?
The internet and the way we use it raises multitudinous questions; is it our friend or foe? Or both.
Are internet based businesses, in the foreseeable future going to be governed and overseen by some universally effective legislative body with real legal teeth that requires steadfast adherence to certain protocols? Perhaps we'll first get the protocols without teeth. I'm seriously trying to be optimistic.

I have worked (or tried working) on the internet for many years now and many of the practices of a company I often work for would be deemed illegal and in breach of Industrial laws in the land I physically live on. The internet has thrown many of us who work and try to make a living on her (or is it him) straight out to those internet wolves that exploit us and etch away at hard earned industrial gains made in the 'real world'. It sure makes me worry that the internet could become the dangerous and evil force of an insidious oligarchy whose collective name is corporate greed.

So - allow me to start with a complaint about FAQ; that supposedly logical internet invention designed to make sure we all remain being 'square pegs in square holes' or, alternatively go insane. Well I don't know if I was born with a recessive gene that makes me oh so often a 'round peg trying to be in a square hole' or do I just happen to be smarter than your average FAQ pages?
In fact my hatred of FAQ first manifested many years ago. I think I managed to survive a year or so reading them. My patience with them soon wore thin however - and these days I tend to avoid them and look straight for the 'Live advice' or company phone number.
Some companies have FAQ pages that most likely collectively contain about as many words as several, or even hundreds of PhD dissertations. Do these companies seriously expect me to plough through such hyperbole when all I wish is that some basic site function would happen as it should?
So smug are some companies about the effectiveness of their supposed all encompassing FAQ that they make it nigh on impossible to send them an email unless you want to try guessing an email address such as pleasesomeonelistentome@dumbwebsite.com.

Such internet sites have completely abandoned the notion that a potential customer might want to contact them about anything. Some companies are so deluded that they imagine no-one will ever need to contact them ever about anything at all. Perhaps for these companies there should be a FAQ of the Year Award which they could then place in a prominent position somewhere on the site!!!
I decided a couple of years ago to actively boycott such sites.
And I think that these sites represent the worst of the greedy on the net; they want to sit back and forever reap rewards that they imagine require no further maintenance or work on their part. They are completely unwilling to keep the customer satisfied.
Now I boycott most FAQ particularly if a site has more than about 3 pages of them.
After all I do want to solve my problem now instead of spending a few frustrating hours twirling round in a FAQ vacuum hoping to find a relevant answer that through some strange quirk of intangible logic must surely be in the FAQ pages somewhere.

These days I look for that "Live Help-Person' button which, thankfully a few sites are now getting the idea of having. In fact I always try now to avoid using sites that do not have a live person or a company phone number posted very clearly somewhere at the top of each and every of their FAQ pages.