Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
On Or About 20 Aug 96, 18:09, Rich Graves wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming here? Is spamming free speech?
Yes.
So is mailbombing the motherfucker, or more productively, virtually picketing his ISP until they kick him off for net abuse
That is the kind of self righteous crap that gives me the creeps!!!
Ethically? We don't talk ethics much here, but I'd say it's highly unethical to abuse a service paid for by the pooled resources of many.
I pay for my net access. I pay for my Sunday paper, it's full of ads too!! Ethics??? Let's rat out on the EVIL spammers!! Let's turn them into thier ISP!!! That's a load of CRAP!!!! Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Ross Wright wrote:
On Or About 20 Aug 96, 18:09, Rich Graves wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Vipul Ved Prakash wrote:
I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of spamming here? Is spamming free speech?
Yes.
So is mailbombing the motherfucker, or more productively, virtually picketing his ISP until they kick him off for net abuse
That is the kind of self righteous crap that gives me the creeps!!!
From your earlier message, though, describing the "spamming" you do, I really don't see you as needing deterrence. When I hear "spam" I think of
Good. That's called deterrence.* The market decides. the Jeff Slaton/Vernon Hale/Crazy Kev/John Reese variety of carpet-bombing both Usenet and millions of email addresses indiscriminately. OTOH, if you really target your audience well, especially if a human and not a bot is in charge of selecting prospects, then I'd call that "cold calling," not "spamming." Unsolicited email is moderately annoying, but I don't think it's anything to complain about. I filter all mail from unknown addresses anyway. * - The cool thing about this kind of deterrence is, since you're only defending virtual turf, you can sabre-rattle to your heart's content without worrying about having to actually follow through. -rich
... I pay for my net access. I pay for my Sunday paper, it's full of ads too!! Ethics??? Let's rat out on the EVIL spammers!! Let's turn
When my ISP tells me that I must accept spammed advertising with my monthly fee, as the Sunday paper effectively does with its ads, your analogy might have some meaning. And I have the option of sending the ads to the advertiser, telling them that the ads suck. Free (commercial)speech for you (perhaps at our expense), but no free speech for us? EBD
them into thier ISP!!! That's a load of CRAP!!!!
Ross
=========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906
Free (commercial)speech for you (perhaps at our expense), but no free speech for us?
This is peculiar. Nobody seems to mind ads in Newspapers, printed magazines, TV, and for that matter web sites. That is unwanted stuff too, but now someone is paying for it. Though one can argue it out, on many grounds : 1. If the guy has to pay for it, he'll do it in limits. 2. He must have selected the context carefully, so the ad is most prolly of some use to its audience 3. He'll tend to talk sense. - Vipul
Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com> writes:
Free (commercial)speech for you (perhaps at our expense), but no free speech for us?
This is peculiar. Nobody seems to mind ads in Newspapers, printed magazines, web sites. That is unwanted stuff too, but now someone is paying for it. Thou many grounds :
1. If the guy has to pay for it, he'll do it in limits. 2. He must have selected the context carefully, so the ad is most prolly of some use to its audience 3. He'll tend to talk sense.
The advertizers in printed & broadcast media exercise a great deal of control over the content. E.g., a magazine that gets revenues from tobacco ads isn't likely to run a story about tobacco companies trying to addict kids. That's why you see more anti-tobacco content in broadcast media (who can't run tobacco ads) than in printed media. (And there are cross-ownership restrictions.) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Vipul Ved Prakash writes:
Free (commercial)speech for you (perhaps at our expense), but no free speech for us?
VVP> This is peculiar. Nobody seems to mind ads in Newspapers, printed VVP> magazines, TV, and for that matter web sites. That is unwanted VVP> stuff too, but now someone is paying for it. In the first three cases, the advertising subsidises the cost of the media - ever notice that the advertiser-free[1] channels are more expensive? In the last case, I decide to request the advertising, increasing my time on-line, potentially increasing my cost of access. In the case of email spam, the advertiser decides to force me to receive the advertising, increasing my time on-line, potentially increasing my cost of access. -- #include <disclaimer.h> /* Sten Drescher */ ObCDABait: For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. [Eze 23:20] Unsolicited solicitations will be proofread for a US$500/KB fee.
participants (6)
-
Brian Davis -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Firebeard -
Rich Graves -
Ross Wright -
Vipul Ved Prakash