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

> ... 
> 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.

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!!!

Good. That's called deterrence.* The market decides.

>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
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