[wpietri]

You are welcome to disagree with the notion for your inbox. If you want spam, godspeed. But other people get to decide for their inboxes.

And as to this: "You know people are going to do it. It is their job." This always puzzles me. So what?

Telemarketers are just doing their job. Door-to-door salesmen are just doing their job. Pickpockets and hit men are just doing their job. That people have found a way to make a living from being an asshole does not mean I have to support them in any way.

In the end, the purpose of most advertising and sales activity is to manipulate people into buying something regardless of the purchaser's utility or need. This is a fundamentally disrespectful activity; the people they attempt to manipulate owe them no respect in return.

[thingexplainer]

> You are welcome to disagree with the notion for your inbox.

And we did, by implementing Bayesian spam filters, not be making spam illegal. It's a bit rich to think we can legislate a global Internet.

> Telemarketers are just doing their job. Door-to-door salesmen are just doing their job. Pickpockets and hit men are just doing their job.

These are differences of kind, not degree.

> That people have found a way to make a living from being an asshole does not mean I have to support them in any way.

Feel free to spend your money how you please, but do we really have to write it into the law?

Why is junk mail legal but spam is not? It's because Congress could understand the mechanics of junk mail, not because junk mail has any sort of moral or societal value lacking in spam.

> In the end, the purpose of most advertising and sales activity is to manipulate people into buying something regardless of the purchaser's utility or need. This is a fundamentally disrespectful activity; the people they attempt to manipulate owe them no respect in return.

This is a pretty cynical view of marketing. Do you work somewhere with a marketing department? Is that what they do?

[wpietri]

> It's a bit rich to think we can legislate a global Internet.

Yeah, if something is hard we should just give up right away and save time.

> These are differences of kind, not degree.

All of them have in common that they make their living in ways that are mostly negative-sum interactions, ones that they make profitable. All of them are also partly or totally illegal in many jurisdictions because society recognizes that negative-sum issue.

> Why is junk mail legal but spam is not?

Junk mail has a much higher ratio of production/delivery cost to recipient cost. It's societally much less of a problem.

> This is a pretty cynical view of marketing.

I said "most sales and advertising" for a reason. There are other ways to market things. And it's not impossible to do advertising or sales usefully. It's just not the bulk of what goes on.

But if you'd like to check, see what gets salespeople paid. Is it when the value is delivered or when the sale is made? You could also see how much ad agencies do to test the value of products before they hype them. Or whether they go back and make sure that they aren't giving purchasers the wrong expectations.

[thingexplainer]

> Yeah, if something is hard we should just give up right away and save time.

You misunderstood me, and it is true that I did not speak plainly. The Internet is a global resource which we cannot legislate because it isn't something we have authority over. A counterargument might go, "so is the radio spectrum, and we regulate that," and that is so, but I don't think you'd like an Internet where it's illegal to send someone an email if there country hasn't signed a treaty with your country (as it can be, simplistically, with ham radio).

> All of them have in common that they make their living in ways that are mostly negative-sum interactions, ones that they make profitable.

Pickpockets and hitmen are a drain on society in every conceivable way, but to say you're being unfair to telemarketers is a bit of an understatement. When they call trying to get me to fill up empty spaces on cruises so they don't feel like ghost ships, they are offering me something that (if you squint and pinch your nose) has value, and Carnival certainly sees value in what they're doing. Who is getting fleeced here?

Are they in a line of work that I wouldn't be comfortable with? Yes they are, but that doesn't make them the same as thieves and murderers. I can understand not being interested in entertaining moral relativism, but a nuisance is just not the same thing as a threat, and treating them as similar leads to poor decisions.

> Junk mail has a much higher ratio of production/delivery cost to recipient cost. It's societally much less of a problem.

Which of these is an existential threat, receiving unsolicited sales pitches, or running out of fossil fuels?

> I said "most sales and advertising" for a reason.

I said you were being very general, presumably I had a reason too.

> ...see what gets salespeople paid. Is it when the value is delivered or when the sale is made?

Don't salespeople deliver value to their employer when they make a sale? Isn't it their job to make sales and engineer's (or whatever specialty's) job to create whatever valuable thing will be delivered to the customer? Do you get paid for things you don't do?

> You could also see how much ad agencies do to test the value of products before they hype them.

Is it the ad agency's job to make sure my Anker cable won't overvolt my battery? Or is that the role of Anker and relevant regulators?

> Or whether they go back and make sure that they aren't giving purchasers the wrong expectations.

We can agree this is definitely their responsibility, and to forgo it would be dishonest.