|
|
|
|
|
|
by mdavis6890
1737 days ago
|
|
|
The problem is that just receiving the message is in-and-of itself bad for the end user. It's not the volume you think (assuming the other poster is accurate about relative volumes) - it's far, far more. Imagine getting 1000 SMS/day that all have a "spam" warning attached, or worse, no warning at all. You'd just stop getting any value from SMS at all, and ignore it. I mean, going back to the postal service - even the weekly pile of "here, throw this away for me." dead trees we receive (in the US) is mildly irritating. Imagine THAT x 1000! I'm grateful for the silent block in this case. I mean, my social security number is being canceled, I'm about to be arrested by the IRS, the FBI found a suspicious package with my personal information in it and my car warranty (didn't know I had one) is up for renewal. And that's just this morning. What more can I stand? One of these days I'll press 1 out of desperation... Also I hate govt/big-corp censorship as much as the next person, but none of this seems remotely political or ideological. And consider the alternative. |
|
|
That's not the issue - the issue is not alerting the sender that the message has failed.
It's not a big deal if the receiver never receives the message - we can find a different way of reaching out or fix the content problem or whatever. But we never find out. As far as the sender is concerned, the message succeeded.
This is a problem and the very bad spam heuristics employed by even the most competent actors (gmail, for instance) mean that anyone can be impacted by this.