Re: domain name list

From: Adam Lasnik <alasnik_at_smilezone.com>
Date: Thu 3 Aug 2000 20:05:12 -0700

Brad,

I've spent some time debating whether or not to write
you (and this list)... unsure of whether we'll be able
to sway you from the Dark Side, or perhaps whether
you're simply having fun riling up a lot of folks.

But, in the interest of possibly educating you AND
others who may be unsure why spam is just, well,
wrong, I've decided to offer up a few points.

BRAD JENSEN <brad_at_elstore.com> WROTE:
> 1. The cost of one additional email to a person in the
> USA who is not paying for connect time is zilch. In any
> case, an email takes half a second or less of connect
> time.

Bad assumptions.

- Many people pay per-minute charges to retrieve and/or
read e-mail. This includes people on limited AOL
plans, those who lack local phone numbers to ISP's,
and those (like many in Chicago) who do not enjoy
unmetered local phone access. While it may take just
a fraction of a second to DOWNLOAD your mail, for
those who scan through their e-mail, your e-mail can
easily take up a few seconds of time. Add your spam to
the countless others many of us get daily (I average
30-50 spams per day, I'm afraid), and those seconds
add up. - How do you know your spam won't reach
people outside the U.S.? Indeed, in most other
countries, people do pay (and often pay dearly) for
their internet time.


- And indeed, what about the issue of cost in time
spent? When I get spam with unobvious subject titles,
I have to take time to scan, then delete the e-mail.
Assuming that the time of many of your recipients is
worth $120 an hour (not unreasonable for sysadmins),
it takes 5 seconds (on average) to scan/process your
e-mail for all one million of your spam recipients...
and that makes a cost of nearly $17,000. And that's
just taking into account time wasted... not bandwidth
costs, telecom costs, server costs, archiving costs,
etc.

BRAD JENSEN <brad_at_elstore.com> WROTE:
> 2. Every form of advertising is paid for by the
> listener. The listeners who purchase products pay for
> the advertising to everyone who listens to, watches, or
> reads the medium that contains the ads. In some
> mediums, such as magazines and public radio, people
> either pay for the vehicle directly, or through taxes,
> or tax advantages. The postal service subsidizes
> periodical postal rates, and even book rates for
> shipping.

Wrong assumptions again.

When I pay for a magazine, I do so with the clear
understanding AND AGREEMENT that part of the materials
will be advertising. When I turn on commercial TV, I
understand that part of the bargain is that I will be
subjected to 'x' minutes per hour of advertising. If I
don't agree to this, I don't watch commercial TV, and
I don't read the ad-filled magazines. But more
importantly, I receive agreed-upon value for any
tradeoff; if I decide I don't mind the ads, I receive
content (magazine articles and TV shows) in exchange
for being subjected to advertising.

Where's the benefit of spam? I do not receive an
agreed-upon benefit. You have no contract with me,
implicitly or explicitly. I gain nothing by being
subjected to your advertising.

And your argument about advertising pass-thru costs is
also irrelevant. I have the right to buy products
that are not heavily advertised. It's about choice;
whereas in contrast, I have no choice about receiving
your spam. My ISP pays for it. And I pay for it in
time spent.

BRAD JENSEN <brad_at_elstore.com> WROTE:
> 3.While the illusion of 'free radio' pleases the ego of
> the listener, there is nothing particularly ethical or
> moral in this. It's an appeal to the greed of the
> listener.

Huh? We're gonna talk morals here? Look at any survey
on the internet... how many people view spam as
ethical? How many folks even feel INDIFFERENT to
spam? There are reasons why we don't culturally
support peanut vendors screaming "Peanuts! Get your
fresh roasted peanuts!" in hospitals or churches... or
even my house, for instance. If you don't recognize
that there's a moral consensus about the evils of spam,
you're just sticking your head in the sand.

But why then, you ask, is postal junk mail more
accepted?

Easy. It SUBSIDIZES my 1st class mailing costs rather
than costing me money (and no, THIS is not subsidized
by my tax dollars -- the US Postal Service has been
self-sufficient for years!) In contrast, it's common
knowledge (and much decried... AND proven in many court
cases) that spam *COSTS* money to ISP's, and these
costs are passed on to consumers. See the difference?
Postal junk mail = subsidies for consumers. Spam =
extra costs for consumers.

BRAD JENSEN <brad_at_elstore.com> WROTE:
> 4. The guy who runs the opt-in lists is selling the
> attention of his readers. He's buying that attention by
> giving them a list they find interesting.

DING DING DING! People that sign up on these lists
*EXPLICITLY AGREED* to get e-mail on certain topics.
It's a win-win. These folks get something of value (a
sweepstakes entry, e-mail targeted to their interests,
etc.) and the e-mailers reach a targeted audience.

What do you reach? A POTENTIALLY targeted audience
that HATES spam and has NOT gotten any agreed-upon
benefit from your spam.

BRAD JENSEN <brad_at_elstore.com> WROTE:
> All advertising is spam, it's just some advertising is
> less spamlike than others, in the eye of the beholder.

You totally lost me there. Spam, IMHO, fits some pretty
clear criteria:
1) E-mail sent to a lot of people whom you DO NOT
   PERSONALLY KNOW *AND*
2) E-mail sent without these folks' permission

But beyond all the legal and economic reasons why you
shouldn't spam, aren't the moral issues here clear
enough for you, Brad?

People hate spam. People hate spam so much that
they've been begging legislators to pass anti-spam
laws. AOL has claimed (and I believe honesty so) that
one of their top five user complaints is spam.

Pissing off bazillions of customers = bad business over
the long haul.

What part of this do you still not get?!?

Regards,

Adam the SmileGuy | adam@smilezone.com | http://smilezone.com/ <--VISIT :)
Humor, music, chat, pictures, free stuff, e-cards, personals, FunPolls,
contests, poetry, and much more... everything to make you smile! :-)





Received on Thu Aug 03 2000 - 22:05:12 CDT