interesting-people message

Subject: [IP] -- more on -- THE ULTIMATE SPAM-KILLER: MORE SPAM?

From: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 20:03:49 -0400

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 17:12:48 -0500
From: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq@quarterman.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] -- more on -- THE ULTIMATE SPAM-KILLER: MORE SPAM?
Sender: jsq@quarterman.com
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq@quarterman.com>

In case nobody else is willing to rehearse the usual arguments again,
here they are:

>>>Actually, I've purchased a few products from spam.  I was especially
>>>intrigued by foreign drug distributors offering me American made
>>>pharmaceutical at great discounts, or drugs sold over-the-counter there
>>>that are prescriptive here (I bought Claritan at 1/4 the U.S. price last
>>>year before it became over-the-counter here). The Internet is a natural
>>>for enabling jurisdictional arbitrage.  I support a person's right to
>>>self-medicate.

Those things are possible without spam.

>>>>Don't even click on a Web link contained in a spam because it
>>>>tags you as a live e-mail address. And keep your address off public Web
>>>>pages, where it could be scooped up and used to bombard you with

>>>>solicitations. In the meantime, those struggling to clean a cloggedmailbox

>>>>can get satisfaction from that hopeful image of the spam business

>>>>collapsing under its own weight, with spammers spamming otherspammers to a

>>>>painful spamming demise." (Wall Street Journal 25 Aug 2003)
>>>
>>>Despite a continuing clamor in the popular press, I fail to see why spam
>>>should be banned (at least in the U.S.).  IMHO, its protected speech.  It
>>>should be treated no different, legally, than 4th class (junk) mail which
>>>I sometimes read if I'm looking for a sale on a particular product or
>>>local service.   The fact that it costs us time to deal with is little
>>>different than physical mail.

Senders of paper mail have to pay a price that the carrier has determined
adequate to transport paper to the addressee.  Senders of spam pay little
or nothing, and whatever they do pay has not been calibrated to cover costs
of intervening carriers or recipients.

>>>  The fact that it costs us some small
>>>amount to download (as an amortization of our monthly ISP costs) is again
>>>a red herring.

That's an interesting opinion, but it seems that many other people do
not consider irrelevant all the effort and expense end users and ISPs
incur due to spam.

>>>Spam persists because it works.

It works for a tiny number of people who derive income at the expense
of millions of others who unwillingly subsidize it.

>>>  After word-of-mouth, its the cheapest
>>>form of marketing ever invented.  Its especially useful for
>>>small/guerilla businesses with unusual offers or products. Traditional
>>>channels would be way too expensive.  Companies with well established
>>>branding generally have little interest in it.

Perhaps because legitimate businesses have come to realize that spam
is a very quick and effective way to damage their brands.

>>> Spam is the great
>>>equalizer between the very small and the very large.

Perhaps in the sense that spam permits the very small to steal from
very large numbers of people.

>>>As the article states, there are practical things you can do to limit
>>>your exposure to spam, but most Netizens are ignorant or lazy and fail to
>>>do so.

Why should people have to take steps to limit their exposure to something
the overwhelming majority of them don't want and that costs them time
and resources?

>>>  (I rarely get more than a few spams per day.)

Generalization from a single case is usually considered bad logic.

>>> The noise
>>>surrounding spam email seems like just another case of people demanding
>>>government step in to protect them against their own stupidity and in
>>>doing so limit the freedom of others.

Spam isn't about freedom.

Spam is about theft.

Spam is about degradation of discourse.

Spam is about damage to the Internet and to civil uses of it.

I don't support any of those things.

>>>steve
>>>
>>>A foolish Constitutional inconsistency is the hobgoblin of freedom,
>>>adored by judges and demagogue statesmen.
>>>- Steve Schear

John S. Quarterman <jsq@quarterman.com>


-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/