"Spam"

by Chris Bowers, Mon Aug 01, 2005 at 01:23:08 PM EDT

I just took the Paul Hackett action that is currently at the top of the recommended diaries over at Dailykos. I didn't send it to everyone I know, but I did send it to around seventy-five people, mostly avoiding professional contacts and concentrating on family, friends, and activist acquaintances. I encourage you to do the same.

Apart from the action, I want to comment on something I noticed in the thread that I find really annoying. Also, it is by no means the first time I have seen it in progressive circles. Simply put, I just can't stand it when more-internet-polite-than-thou progressives complain about email related voter contact, such as email capture and notifying your personal email list about causes or candidates, because they feel such forms of voter contact are "spam." I feel such complaints are such an absurd form of apolitical internet ultra-libertarian nonsense that when I encounter them my first instinct is to start hitting my head against a nearby wall.

Phone banking is spam. Direct mail is spam. Flyering is spam. Canvassing is spam. Polling is spam. Many other forms of retail politics, such as a candidate showing up in a diner, are spam. Home and worksite visits by union organizers are spam. Almost every single form of voter contact is spam. Yes, it's spam, but that is how politics works. You contact people who may not be paying attention in order to offer them information about a candidate or a cause. The entire point is that you are contacting them because they are not paying attention and because they are not currently involved in the fight. You are contacting them to see if they would be interested in joining the fight, and to measure support for your cause.

Spam is a real problem in many inboxes, but to condemn email capture or volunteer email list forwarding would be to condemn nearly every form of voter contact currently in existence. What's more, email "spam" of the sort we are talking about is actually far, far easier to deal with than the other forms of voter contact I have mentioned here. All you have to do is click a friggin' button to deal with it--you can't say that about really any other kind of voter contact.

If you are serious about waging politics online, or indeed in any other sphere, you have to accept such actions as legitimate forms of voter contacts. Of course they should always be done politely. Of course they should always include ways for you to unsubscribe. Of course they should not be done in excess. However, the blanket condemnation of email capture and volunteer email forwarding is an inherently apolitical and defeatist position that also covers pretty much every other form of voter contact known to the human race. As the Internet continues to rise in importance in political campaigns, so will the importance of such forms of voter contacts. This is something people need to accept, so that we can all move forward.

Tags: Activism (all tags)

Comments

41 Comments

Shadow_head_small
Spam This
Yeah, emails about big events used rarely and to people you know is not a big deal.

Bloggers understand the problems with spam. A lot of us end up on lists of people who will send us 5 or 6 messages a day (along with every other blogger in the country). It's a blog feed in our inboxes that we didn't sign up for. That's a problem.

Receiving an email from a friend alerting me to something going on is appreciated.

by Left in the West 2005-08-01 01:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
well put
I sent out 2000 emails last night and this morning.  AOL didn't even shut me down.  You just have to use common sense.
by Susie Turnbull 2005-08-01 01:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I dunno...
... I have an extensive voter email list here in upstate New York. Covers several different counties, state legislative districts and a couple congressional districts... as well as smatterings of folks in parts of the rest of the state and across the country.

A special election such as this is a bit different since it is the only election going on at the national level right now. But my experience has been that when I blasted everyone with campaign stuff from one congressional district many folks in the other got upset and my email list shrunk. Others got involved.

I think emailing out-of-district folks needs to be done with discretion. There are times and manners in which it is appropriate and others when it is not.

It is my job to ensure this list remains an effective tool for local purposes. We're heating up in our local races right now. For a special election like this I can see a mass blast but during the normal season I don't believe it is an effective tool. I would be very interested in hearing quantitative results from similar efforts. My own experience is short enough not to be authoritative.

by Andrew C White 2005-08-01 01:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I dunno...
The list you have is very different--you definately should NOT send everyone on that list an email. We both know that would be an abuse of the list, and would ultimately reduce its effectiveness for future campaigns. But even as you note, that list is used for voter contact. There's nothing wrong with that sort of voter contact, as some would have you beleive.

BTW--what part of Upstate New York? I'm from there.

by Chris Bowers 2005-08-01 02:20PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: I dunno...
You're Ithaca or Syracuse area as I recall? I'm over in Bruno territory, Stephentown, Rensselaer County within walking distance of the Massachusetts border.
by Andrew C White 2005-08-01 07:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Spam = unwelcome e-mail. Period.
See: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:Spam

I don't see what the beef is here. If someone doesn't like unsolicited email that is their right.

Personally, I have a filter on my email that blocks everyone except family, friends, and business contacts who I put on my "ok" list. That's how I like it and that's how it's going to remain.

On the other hand, unlike physical mailboxes where owners rarely have any effective means of combating junk mail, email users have tools available to deal with spam as long as they're willing to balance convenience and security. I say send the mail...if they don't like it they can erect filters like mine.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-01 02:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Definitions
I don't care how Google defines spam. All words are defined by how they are used, not by how they are defined in the dictionary.

You can set your personal preferences any way you like--that's you business. But dumping on this form of voter contact is the same as admitting defeat.

by Chris Bowers 2005-08-01 02:18PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Definitions
How dare you question Google.

Words are used according to how they are defined in the dictionary. Anything else would be an incorrect use of the language. I believe anyone with a doctorate in english composition could verify that for you. Otherwise, dictionaries would be pretty useless don't you think?

I didn't dump on political emails, I just stated my opinion that people are free to dictate their email preferences and there's nothing wrong with that. Your argument sounds like telemarketers arguing they have a legitimate business right to interrupt me in the middle of dinner to sell me on a free cruise.

Because people are free to do what they like, you'll have plenty of happy blogger activists gleefully accepting your every chain mail and memo. Myself, I'd rather see you place it on your website where I can choose to access it or not, therefore allowing me to retain my freedom of choice. Or, you can always have a voluntary mailing list.

Kind of like asking for voluntary donations for a new laptop. If you solicited everyone at MyDD with a form to fill out with checkable boxes of donation amounts, I doubt you'd have had such an enthusiastic and quick response.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-01 02:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Um . . .
Words are defined in the dictionary based on usage.

Not the other way around.

If dictionaries are exhaustive and authoritative, how come they're constantly being revised and updated?

by catastrophile 2005-08-01 03:54PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Um . . .
The same reason proper usage of terms and definitions are constantly revised, and why new terms are added and obsolete ones deleted -- languages are periodically revised over time. That doesn't diminish the authority of a dictionary for official usage.

If words are defined based on usage, then slang should receive precedence over official words since they are the origin of the latter.

This is a great case for ebonics -- one cannot ignore its authenticity as a bona fide language of African Americans, and equal representation demands that words such as: da shizzle, biatch, and trick-ass-ho, be immediately reconsidered for routine use in college essays, theses, and dissertations.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-02 09:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Academia
can use whatever standards it wants. F@ck, $#!+, and c@cksucker show up in many dictionaries -- is your assertion then that those words are acceptable for casual use in dissertations?

This is not a legal brief or a white paper. It's a polizzle bizzle, my nizzle, and as such, it's a forum for normal people to communicate. And the language is being revised, not periodically, but continuously, every moment.

Some bending of language does go on, especially when people are trying to sound better-educated more-intelligent older than they really are, but I think it's fair to say that expanding the existing "book" definition of spam -- a word that doesn't appear in my 1983 Webster's at all -- is a less-than-egregious crime against the language. People are already using the word to describe things other than e-mail.

The intent of writing is communication. Dictionaries are simply a means to that end. A crutch, if you will. Nobody here -- including you -- had any trouble grasping Chris' meaning. That makes the use valid. If he'd started posting here in ebonics, pig latin, or Aussie slang, I'd understand your objection, but this seems like pointless formality.

by catastrophile 2005-08-02 10:46AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
email
Email is the new telephone call.
by blueflorida 2005-08-01 02:42PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not until you have lived it
I live in OH-02 and am now under seige by phone, with both Hackett and Schmidt calls coming in around 1 or 2 per hour for the last 3 days, following a lighter but also obnoxious barrage in the previous 10 days. It was this bad in Oct-November, when Ohio was the ripe plum on the tree for both Bush and Kerry, and it was this bad in June when 16 candidates from both parties were competing in the primary for Congress.

I support Hackett, have donated $$$, phoned and mailed and showed up at rallys and done all I could. (I've met Paul on three occasions and he's a truly genuine person  who does as much listening as talking. If you have donated time or money, you have done the right thing).  

BUT the phone calls are beyond obnoxious.  We're talking phone spam here, and people from both sides of the aisle are fed up!  I fear that too much phoning will cause a backlash--and people will stay home tomorrow. I'm serious.

by seven7 2005-08-01 02:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not until you have lived it
My city council district had a very compeititive race this spring and we were inuandated with phone and paper spam. It does matter to the degree that often candidates spend the money without thinking what they are sending out. Those guys at Yale argue that the only effective campaigning is face to face.

And it's true I think. Most of the spam is ineffective. What does work is events where one can actually meet said candidate and the old networks in things like churches and labor unions. The netroots are awesome tools for disseminating information in non-local races and great to organize the converted. But does it really matter in this race....I dunno.

by risenmessiah 2005-08-01 03:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not until you have lived it
When I started calling my precinct (I am captain of mine and adopted two others) I listened to people's tales of lumbago, or how they lost their job and can't find work, or how they can't around so they need an absentee ballot, and so forth. I planned to keep calling and keep listening, but I stupidly gave my call lists to some volunteers two weeks ago.  They were willing to just do sampling calls to see what sort of support is out there.  When I asked for my precinct call lists  back last week, they were in the hands of a well-oiled call machine that makes lots of calls, but doesn't really listen to people. I had a vision of really acting like a precinct captain who cultivated relationships so that every time they hear from me in future elections, they would regard me more and more as a friend. I guess I am a throwback to another time when not only was all politics local, but it was also personal. Sigh.
by seven7 2005-08-01 03:51PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not until you have lived it
seven...

  I was thinking about this a lot yesterday.. we went to our local LD picnic (poorly attended) and I got to talking to others and even dreamed about it last night about how do we get people reinvolved when there are so many distractions in our lives (TV, movies, internet, etc.), such short attention spans and so much lack of interest even tho those may be the same people that say that the politicians don't care about "them".

  How do we reinvolve people without pissing them off?  Technology can be great and it can be horribly bad when used incorrectly.

  The email "spam" is not that bad, especially if you target it.

by kevin22262 2005-08-01 04:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not until you have lived it
Oy. That's pretty awful. I had a rough time once canvassing my neighborhood (though I had yet to move there) not to get people to vote for Democrats, but simply to have us help them register to vote. After three hours...one person decided to take me up on my offer after visiting some forty houses. You immediately feel on the defensive, even when you are simply saying "hey you voted Democrat a while ago...would you like us to register you again?"

Nevertheless, you are fighting the good fight.

by risenmessiah 2005-08-02 12:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
My comments..
You are saying what I have said and what I said at Dkos.. but you did it so much better, with more words and bigger words.   :)

  Thanks Chris!

By the way... From Wes Clark...

This is a robo call from Wes Clark to voters in Ohio!

http://home.comcast.net/~dissentispatriotism/clarkrobo.mp3

by kevin22262 2005-08-01 04:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: My comments..
That is a great call! Very short and sincere. Good for Wes Clark and good for Paul Hackett.
by Curt Matlock 2005-08-01 04:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Spam
Phone banking is Spam.
Canvassing is Spam.
Pork intestines is Spam.
Chicken guts is Spam.
by Sam Loomis 2005-08-01 04:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
worth making a distinction...
There's a subtle distinction between "holier than thou" commentary (and you're quite right about that being a little annoying) and sounding a note of caution.  I think there is a fair debate to be had about when "spam" of the e-mail, door-knocking, robo-calling, cold-calling, or any other type crosses the line into excessive (or even counterproductive).  You're right that it's the medium that is the key point here.  But it's the how, and the how much, and the when.

Despite advances, the tools are still crude (especially as deployed on the internet), and need continual refinement.  

As for the particular case here, Paul Hackett probably inadvertently hit a nerve with some DKos commentators through the use of particular key words like "spread this virally" and "email to everyone you know."  But he's not an internet organizer, he's an attorney and Marine, so a hefty amount of slack is warranted.

by arenwin 2005-08-01 09:53PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Agreed.
The distinction should have been made, and slack should have been cut.

That said, my biggest problem with the whole episode wasn't whether or not this was or wasn't spam, but with the suggestion that it somehow hurt the campaign to wonder aloud about the question.

The demand was made loudly and abruptly that anyone with questions (although they were ostensibly invited by Hackett himself -- obviously a military-style rhetorical device, this "Any questions?" business) keep them to themselves until after the election.

I find it interesting that nobody ever offered the DCCC the same cover and courtesy. Of course, that would have been met with incredulity. A demand that everyone keep their mouths shut until after the election and give the DCCC a chance to execute its strategy, such as it might be, without question or dissent? Utterly absurd. And yet, here was the same request being made.

Ultimately, nobody was hurt by it. But an awful lot of energy was spent by commenters, many of whom went into rhetorical flourishes designed to evoke the notion that they were really doing something, when in fact, not only were they only sending some e-mail, but they weren't even actually doing that, because they were too busy arguing with people who didn't want to send any.

by Kagro X 2005-08-02 06:59AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Its a simple question, really.
Who owns what's inside your head?
by turnerbroadcasting 2005-08-01 10:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
People who don't like free political speech
People who don't like free political speech as expressed in email and telephone contact can always hang up. Delete. I do.

In the mean time those constituents who have little or no contact with political organizations otherwise often appreciate an informed partisan taking the time to update them and commiserate about the issues important to them. Smart politicians and parties would have resources available to their phone bank people so that they can pass along constituent services and issues related points that are gleaned from such calls.

I remember, as a kid in 1960's south Philadelphia, the ward leaders going door to door and pamphleteering. Frank Rizzo and other party leaders regularly stopped by neighborhood block parties. Hell, the block parties were often held by ward leaders on the blocks were the ward offices were specifically for party building purposes. Party organizations were much stronger then than they are today. Coincidence? I think not.

My only complaint about all of the electronic contact these days is the lack of personal one on one. Phones, at least, still enable this somewhat. Phone calls that are a nuisance to political insiders are a lifeline that breaks the isolation of constituents who feel increasingly isolated from the politics of our nation.

My two cents worth...

by aahpat 2005-08-02 06:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: People who don't like free political speech
Speaking of cents...I don't have a home phone. I use a cell phone for domestic calls and internet phone for international calls. Yet still I have received telemarketer calls and political polling bots on my cell, wasting my minutes and thus costing me money.  This is akin to calling me collect to sell me something and very unwelcome, not to mention illegal. So it's not a simple matter of hanging up with phone calls anymore.

With emails, my valuable resource is time. Spam is unsolicited mail and is proven to result in diminished productivity and loss of time to deal with it. That's why I have to have a strict filter on my email account, though I allow trusted sources.

I can't wait for Bill Gates and others to help implement a "postage" to email, which they've been working on the last couple years, where every email costs a penny. Then maybe people will think twice about sending out 2000 emails every day, clogging up the bandwidth pipelines and pissing off netizens like me.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-02 10:00AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Don't just talk shit
Closing avenues of contact with constituents reaps its own obvious rewards.

Don't just talk shit about the established paths of constituent contact without providing alternatives that are viable, reliable and affordable.

by aahpat 2005-08-02 06:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Don't just talk shit
  1. Voluntary mailing lists
  2. Websites/blogs, where people are given choice to participate by signing up

Viable, reliable, and affordable.

What next, political action groups selling each other emailing lists of constituencies? If I get unsolicited emails from a candidate, that will probably cost my vote and I know I'm not the only one.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-02 10:07AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Don't just talk shit
I say this more out of curiousity to try to please someone hates unsolicited contact, and not just to be a smart ass, but:

How do you propose to ask people to join your voluntary mailing list? Or promote your blog or community site? Are we limited to people we already  know, visitors to other blogs or individuals who may randomly Google search a candidates name?  What about the people who are not part of the online community? How do you suggest we make first contact?

I'm totally serious. I really want to know how to reach a person who never heard of you before without making an unsolicited contact. I have always believed that taking a message to a stranger who may or may not agree with you and asking that person to respond is fundamental to democracy, but maybe I am wrong. I would like to know.

These are the questions that the netroots need to answer if we want to have the kind of impact that it takes to win.

by Levana 2005-08-02 01:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Don't just talk shit
I'm totally serious. I really want to know how to reach a person who never heard of you before without making an unsolicited contact.

You tell a friend, who tells his wife, who tells the neighbor, who tells a coworker, who tells a friend ...

That, I believe, is the essence of grassroots organizing.

Commercial spam works on the premise that if I send out 1,000,000 emails, I only need a return rate of .0001% in order to make a profit.  Furthermore, the commercial spammer (and his employer) could not care less about the 99% of recipients who are irritated by the email.  They only care about that one out of 1,000 that will pony up.

At the heart of political organizing is the notion of conversion.  You don't want to spend all your time preaching to the choir.  But, with your unsolicited email blasts, that is all you are going to wind up doing.

mp

by pdxlooie 2005-08-03 09:56AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Don't just talk shit
Essentially then you are telling everyone to STOP ALL political discourse directed at you that you have not previously approved. You are too important to be distracted with having to hang up a phone or delete an email.

Then there is the problem of you projecting your dislikes onto others. Just because you are intolerant of free political speech that you have not previously approved does not mean that all other Americans as similarly disposed.

I was a hard news photojournalists for nearly twenty years. In that time I took a lot of crap from people who really hated what they considered blood and guts shots. Accidents and victim incidents. then one day I was talking with a woman and her child and the woman told me about how her child tried to keep her from getting onto an escalator after the child saw a picture of someone who had been injured on one. The bloody news picture educated that young child to greater caution. The woman was proud of her child's ability to learn from a news picture.

I no longer shoot. But to this day I still hear crap from people who hate such pictures but since I know in my heart that those pictures educate people and our world safer I know to ignore the intolerance of those who cannot accept such pictures.

I've spoken with old folks who are shut-ins who greatly appreciate having people call them and express an interest in them.

Personally I hate ad inserts in newspapers. I know others who go through them page by page in every paper they can get their hands on.

Don't project your dislikes into the lives of others. Don't limit the political potential of others based on your personal dislikes.

by aahpat 2005-08-02 02:06PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Don't just talk shit
The author of this thread was the one projecting his dislike: that of people who take a strict libertarian viewpoint regarding their email correspondence.

I'm simply advocating the viewpoint of people like me who do take unsolicited email seriously and are offended by it. I'm not projecting anything, because obviously people like yourself will continue to conduct themselves how they best see fit, as well you all should. However, you should be aware that there is a line that if crossed may well be counterproductive to your desired result. There's a potential for alienating the same people you seek support from.

Most campaigns are smart enough not to cross the line of decency, however thanks to the non-political spammers out there who consciously abuse the system, many people have a low-tolerance for unsolicited mail and will interpret your efforts as annoying and rude.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-02 03:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Don't just talk shit
Essentially then you are telling everyone to STOP ALL political discourse directed at you that you have not previously approved. You are too important to be distracted with having to hang up a phone or delete an email.

Well, I'm telling you that you do not know what is best for me.  What a concept, eh?

It's a shame that so many on the Left are every bit as obsessed with controlling my life and limiting my liberty as the Right.  It doesn't leave many political options for those who believe in personal liberty.

mp

by pdxlooie 2005-08-03 10:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Definitions and Outcomes
Sorry, Mr. Bowers, but your decision to redefine a term to suit your own agenda does not obligate the rest of us to accept your usage.  All you are really doing is demonstrating a fairly profound ignorance of the origin and meaning of the word "spam" as it relates to email.

I have email filters that capture 400-500 junk emails daily.  Compared to some people, that's a percentage, but it is a substantial amount (Rob Malda has stated that he gets over 2000 a day -- you do know who Rob Malda is, right?).  For you to say that dealing with that amount of junk mail is no big deal is so outrightly nonsensical that it's offensive.

It's against the law for a campaign worker to drive by my house and stick a flyer in my mailbox.  Do not attempt to justify to me that breaking that law is acceptable.  It's not.  Just so, sticking campaign flyers in my mailbox on my computer.  

Finally, Mr. Bowers, you are doing a disservice to those who might be tempted by your justifications of abusive behavior.  Many ISPs have monitoring mechanisms in place that track how much email customers send.  Those mechanisms are designed to detect customers who send more than an allotted amount of email within a given amount of time.  Someone who blasts out 1000 or 2000 emails in an evening may well wake up the next day to find their internet connection severed and themselves unable to retrieve any documents, such as a web site, that they may have stored on the ISP servers.

Here is relevant notification from the Terms of Service of my ISP, which is boilerplate text that will be found in some form at every other ISP:


The use of Spire Technologies accounts or services for unsolicited mass mailings or postings (commonly known as "Spam") by any customer will cause that customer's services to be terminated immediately and without warning, and the customer will be held legally responsible for the damages to Spire Technologies, both monetary and in reputation.

Readers, please note:  Being labelled a spammer can get your connection cancelled and it can get you onto spam blacklists. I, like many others, have a keyboard shortcut in my mail client that reports spam to those lists. Spam blacklists are used by many antispam tools (such as spamassassin, the one I use) and by many ISPs, as well.  Getting off those lists can be  nontrivial.  In the meantime, you may find yourself unable to send email to any accounts hosted by ISPs that will reject your mail before it ever gets to your correspondents' inboxes.

All readers of MyDD should reject Chris Bowers' call for generating unsolicited mass emailings.  It's apparent that he doesn't understand the technology well enough to be giving advice about it and consequently, his advice could get you into real trouble.  It's that simple.

mp

by pdxlooie 2005-08-02 07:12AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Definitions and Outcomes
I think that you should review the laws to which you are referring. Political speech is protected by the constitution and therefore is not supposed to filtered by automated SPAM filters. In fact, all types of political speech are protected, so someone could put a flyer on your door--just not in your mailbox. I think we have to be cautious about throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we rail against all forms of unsolicited communication. In fact, advertisers can get more access to email addresses of citizens and pay money to get around SPAM filters, but political campaigns and non-profits don't have access to those work-arounds. Why should corporations have more rights than citizens? We need to keep our eyes on the prize here. I don't send a letter to Coca-Cola for contacting me too many times in one day, because they don't care since the second most recognized word in any language the world after "OK" is "Coca-Cola."

I have been on the receiving end of many angry emails, letters, and calls from liberals who don't want to be bothered, but also want us to win. I don't like hearing those complaints because the reality is that campaigns are usually trying to contact new people and not re-contact current supporters, so that means something has gone wrong with the campaign. Our side needs better coordination, technology, and support. I understand that people get frustrated, but I think we all need to keep this in perspective.

I think it is important to be strategic in all communications and to do what is most effective. If I were running a campaign, I would want to have a variety of tools in my tool box, but I wouldn't use a hammer on a screw. I know that I have to contact a new person at least three times to get his or her attention and that all of those contacts need to come from different sources or media. If email is one of the tools that I have, and winning is important to me, than I will use it. But, if email doesn't work--then I won't. I think Chris is right, in the sense that if all you have to do is click a button to get rid of an unwanted email then it is no big deal. I also think that points out that email alone won't do it, and we need to be comprehensive and strategic if we really do intend to win.

by Levana 2005-08-02 09:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Definitions and Outcomes
Why should politicians have more rights than citizens? If I don't want your email in my email box, that's my right. My email box is my property, which is why I can slap my glorious filter on it, resulting in it being returned to you and therefore costing you time to deal with the results.  The biggest price you pay is the loss of my vote and any donations I might have given -- nobody likes pushy candidates.

You're conveniently using a George W Bush "with us or against us" definition of free speech.  The 1st amendment must be interpreted on a case by case basis in the context of what the founding fathers intended. If you want to use your definition you have to be consistent and called on it in EVERY case. I don't want to hear any complaints from you about freeper trolls, racist incitement, swift boat liar smearing and mischaracterization, etc. All protected first amendment rights...right?

But go ahead, push spam on me and I'll withhold my vote.  Pan-handle me and I'll withhold my donations.  Run a smart campaign that doesn't assume you are entitled to my support based on my past voting history, allowing me to retain my own initiative and freedom of choice, then you're more likely to have a positive outcome.

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-02 10:23AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Definitions and Outcomes
I am not suggesting that people "push spam" on anyone. I am only suggesting that we be careful what tools we throw away for fear of pissing people off. As you clearly are now.

Corporations have more rights--and by rights I mean  resources-- to contact you via email than I do. In fact, if a marketer paid Yahoo or any other ISP enough, they would contact you and it would get through to your inbox, be hightlighted, and be personalized. Your inbox doesn't really belong to you, you just rent it from an ISP. I just think we should be more pissed about that than Chris sending 75 emails to people he actually knows about Paul Hackett.

by Levana 2005-08-02 10:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Definitions and Outcomes
I think that you should review the laws to which you are referring. Political speech is protected by the constitution and therefore is not supposed to filtered by automated SPAM filters.

You are conflating two different issues. Automated SPAM filters are not regulated entities and they can filter anything they wish. If you buy certain commercial web-filtering products, you might be surprised to discover that they filter all kinds of things "unexpectedly" -- such as the NOW web site or the DNC web site. At a former employer, I was prevented from reading an article at the BBC web site because it had the word "nude" in the headline. The same rules apply to email spam and spam filters.

If you are shooting out hundreds or thousands of emails from your home DSL or cable modem connection, you are almost certainly violating your terms of service. Comcast is not required to respect your argument that you are exercising free speech. It can close the pipe as soon as it becomes aware of your activity. You are required to buy a business or SOHO connection for that type of activity.

If your spam goes into my spam folder, I won't dig it out. If it doesn't go in there, but goes into my inbox, I might just delete it unopened once or twice but if it keeps reappearing, I probably will report it to Spamcop et al as spam. It's a single keystroke for me to do so, just as easy as deleting it. (And I'm restraining myself from getting started on your claim that, since I already get 500 spams a day, 1 more won't matter.)

Why should corporations have more rights than citizens?

Why, indeed? Largely because Democratic as well as Republican legislators want it that way. An excellent account of how we arrived there can be found in Jack Beatty's Colossus: How the Corporation Changed America. Quite readable.

I don't send a letter to Coca-Cola for contacting me too many times in one day, because they don't care since the second most recognized word in any language the world after "OK" is "Coca-Cola."

Actually, they probably would stop immediately, because it is a public relations issue for them. Also, to the extent that they control their own advertising and outreach, CC actually has the ability to retrieve and control that information.

Big problems for political campaign groups are a lack of concern about the PR aspect (as evidenced here) and a lack of control over the campaign outreach. On election day last November, I did some "gotv" calling for DFA. Almost everyone I called from the DFA list had already been called 2, 3 even 4 times already that day. The result was a lot of irritated voters. Of course, that happened because DFA and six other organizations bought the same phone lists and called people without coordinating with each other -- probably without even knowing who else had the list.

I control my phone by the simple expedient of not answering it whenever caller ID shows an 800 number and certain other times. I control my email inbox in a similar manner. I am on the mailing lists for a half-dozen or so political organizations. They are the only ones that get anything but the delete button or the spam folder.

It beats me how anybody thinks we are going to win elections by irritating voters.

mp

by pdxlooie 2005-08-03 09:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
A First Amendment protection for political speech
pdxlooie on Tue Aug 2nd, 2005 at 11:12:01 AM

So what country, without a First Amendment protection for political speech, do you live in anyway? (Must be some southern state that has not yet accepted the Bill of Rights.) Political speech flyers in mail boxes is illegal? LOL! Tell that to the politicians who send me dozens of mailings each year. In the mail!

Putting flyers in mail boxes and on door knobs is older than the First Amendment. To say otherwise demonstrates a profound ignorance of purpose and protections of the First Amendment.

by aahpat 2005-08-02 07:25AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A First Amendment protection for political
So you infer that you are inundated with junk mail at home, yet you insist this makes it right for you to do the same to my email box with spam? Two wrongs make a right?

Sorry but the great thing about the internet is empowering the user. You'll never get anything through my filter that only allows trusted sources.

Isn't the first amendment grand?

by Vote Hillary 2008 2005-08-02 10:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A First Amendment protection for political
Fine, it won't get through your filter. Why, then, does it matter to you if it gets sent?

The call from the Hackett campaign at dKos asked for emails from individuals to friends and family members. The day that sort of communication constitutes spam is the day my inbox gets a whole lot less educational, and I think my friends and family would say the same.

In an earlier comment, you talk about email from political campaigns--that's different, isn't it? And I've yet to meet a campaign that sent me email without my having opted in, or one that didn't wholeheartedly respect my decision to opt out when it got to be too much.

by segmentis 2005-08-02 02:09PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: A First Amendment protection for political spe
Putting flyers in mail boxes and on door knobs is older than the First Amendment. To say otherwise demonstrates a profound ignorance of purpose and protections of the First Amendment.

Educate thyself.  Mailboxes are regulated by the USPS and Federal law.  You cannot legally put anything into them except delivered mail.  Yes, I can mail you a flyer.  No, I cannot (legally) walk up to your box and insert that flyer.  Yes, unless you have a "no solicitors" sign posted, I can rubberband it to your door knob or slip it behind the screendoor.

Perhaps, you need to spend some time campaigning and leafleting neighborhoods.  Or even just get a newspaper delivery route.

mp

by pdxlooie 2005-08-03 09:28AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------