[HN Gopher] Google gets the green light to flood US Gmail inboxe...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Google gets the green light to flood US Gmail inboxes with
       political spam
        
       Author : samizdis
       Score  : 16 points
       Date   : 2022-08-11 20:29 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
        
       | chmod775 wrote:
       | Considering that e-mail is essentially an utility at this point,
       | this doesn't surprise me.
       | 
       | In many countries it's considered vital to democracy that
       | political campaign ads be privileged. I don't think the US are
       | any different?
       | 
       | Also from an outside perspective, the portrayal of the republican
       | party in this article is again... eyebrow raising. Nice
       | editorializing though. I guess polarization is still the main
       | goal of political reporting?
        
         | mattzito wrote:
         | What do you see as polarizing/editorializing instead of factual
         | reporting in that article?
        
           | chmod775 wrote:
           | Starts with the title: "Google gets the green light to
           | _flood_ US Gmail inboxes with political _spam_ " instead of
           | something like "Google gets green light to exempt campaign
           | mail from spam filters".
           | 
           | Then almost the whole article is dedicated to the best
           | arguments of the opposition, while cherry picking a single
           | proponent argument and presenting it in the worst possible
           | light. The only time a non-opponent gets a proper quote is
           | when Google is justifying having a pilot program - and
           | they're more of a neutral party here.
        
             | throwuxiytayq wrote:
             | I think that's quite honest reporting given both the volume
             | of emails that will be sent, and how unwelcome they will
             | mostly be. (I mean, I'm not American, so I won't be getting
             | those, but I know which folder they'd be going to if I
             | were)
        
               | chmod775 wrote:
               | > I think that's quite honest reporting given both the
               | volume of emails that will be sent, and how unwelcome
               | they will mostly be.
               | 
               | I prefer factual and un-opinionated over "quite honest".
               | Where I come from the former is considered the proper way
               | to report on politics. Anything else smells wrong.
        
         | altruios wrote:
         | Yep. Language like that is par for the course now...
         | 
         | Recently more and more people caught on to the fact that for
         | (most of) us, inflammatory language generates interests which
         | translates to clicks.
         | 
         | It's not about what you are saying but how you are presenting
         | the argument.
         | 
         | Thoughts no longer compete on the vector of 'truth', but on a
         | new vector of 'stickiness' - where diction and presentation are
         | significantly focused on in the pursuit of profit...
         | 
         | Just like news journalists before us intended... /s
         | 
         | In America: political mail is the greatest offender in this
         | regard - information designed to be digested quickly, easily,
         | and build 'trigger words' in their constituents... in
         | traditional mail it's the biggest waste of paper (from the hand
         | to the trash for a half a glance)... with email you give
         | politicians with corporates backed finances running amok with
         | targeted advertising.
         | 
         | This is a future hell-scape of further political division and
         | money flooded into the waiting mouths of advertisement
         | agencies. This is not a pro-human decision - thanks to our
         | current political landscape... This may be more appropriate
         | with healthier and more stable democracies.
        
       | quantified wrote:
       | Just give me a UI button to add my own spam filter rule.
        
         | mattzito wrote:
         | There is- you can add filters that will route emails directly
         | to spam based on the criteria you define
        
           | kencausey wrote:
           | I agree, but I'm hard pressed to come up with the appropriate
           | criteria at least in advance of getting any real life
           | examples. At the moment, I can't think of anything better
           | than 'republican|democrat' but I bet that will generate both
           | false positives and false negatives.
           | 
           | That said, I doubt that I have to be concerned about it as
           | I'm pretty unknown in political circles, other than having
           | signed up for vote.org years ago.
        
             | JumpCrisscross wrote:
             | > _I 'm hard pressed to come up with the appropriate
             | criteria at least in advance of getting any real life
             | examples_
             | 
             | A wide filter would be "ActBlue" and "WinRed." Otherwise,
             | every jurisdiction has copypasta boilerplate in its
             | political emails. Find yours and filter.
        
             | zindlerb wrote:
             | I setup a filter to archive any email with the phrase "paid
             | for by" this has been pretty good at filtering all
             | political spam. Although it may generate some false
             | positives.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-08-11 23:02 UTC)