|
|
|
|
|
|
by xenocyon
1736 days ago
|
|
|
As a consumer, I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, I like energetic spam blocking without fear of legal liability, even if there are occasionally a few false positives. On the other, I do not want ISPs/telecoms to be the arbiters of traffic (net neutrality). The net-neutral solution is for ISPs/telecoms to not spam-block, but rather have spam-blocking be an optional, additional, layer that the consumer can choose at will, or not have at all. But the problem with that solution is that it requires the consumer to do extra work to obtain spam protection, and the consumer would not be protected by default. It also means extra work by all parties delivering spam messages. Unless spam ceases or things otherwise change, I think the clunky solution we currently have is fine for the most part. |
|
|
Then make it set to "on" by default, and if more than 50% of customers switch it off then change the default.
I also think that this should be a requirement for social media. You should be able to opt out of separate filters for "spam", "misinformation", "breast-feeding", and whatever other reasons a social network has for banning legally protected speech.