Indeed. But if I'm too lazy to unsubscribe, and hit the "spam" button again, that also implies I don't want the messages to continue -- which, by your definition, is spam.
I don't believe it's contradictory because they were two comments from two different contexts (the locally binding topics were different).
My two arguments:
A user interprets an email as spam if he received it and does not want it. The use of the "continue" word meant the email would be repeatedly sent and he wished it would stop. This was the essence of the original statement.
Proving there is exactly 2 types of email: spam and not spam. This was under the topic: is spam boolean?
You seem to be focused on the part inside #2 where I wrote that the type was mislabeled. I presume you're thinking Flag Spam -> labels email as spam -> email is mislabled -> email is not spam due to inversion, which violates argument #1.
The email in question is still spam or not spam. In this case it's just labeled incorrectly.
I would agree that "labeled incorrectly" was an oversight. It's not the thought I intended so I would modify it to say "may or may not be labeled incorrectly". My intention was not to determine spam or not spam inside the #2 argument. In fact I was trying to explicitly avoid that as evidenced by the previous comment "The email in question is still spam or not spam". Naturally, the conclusion in #1 would be invoked because the conclusion in #2 was purposely avoiding the conclusion made in #1.
That question is obviously not specific enough. You appear to be arguing one of three things:
Or it means you want to stop receiving them, but you're too lazy to unsubscribe.
We're talking about whether spam is boolean. "Too lazy to unsubscribe" is completely irrelevant to this thread because it doesn't magically create a third state of email (spam/not spam/???). You're talking about a misuse of the tool which doesn't magically create a 3rd state of "spamness". The email in question is still spam or not spam. In this case it's just labeled incorrectly.
If your intention was to yank a point out of context just to disagree with something, then you're not saying much because you're arguing a different topic. Even if I played along, I can easily reject your point because if none of us can rely on the definition of Flag as Spam, then none of us can mount any sensible argument.
I could retort by saying "What if the user pressed Spam but meant to press Save?" That's a misuse of the tool. It's irrelevant in exactly the same way your case is irrelevant by sharing the fact that the email was mislabeled in error. It doesn't affect the topic at hand: is spam boolean?.
You know.. I don't mind the overrated ratings even though that post is rated -1 to begin with, so how one could be overrated at -1 the lowest rating available (lol) God only knows. But, the Troll rating was just plain mean (as well as inaccurate). Heh.
Quality of data matters, yes, but the size of list matters enormously as well. Try to earn that 6 figure salary on a list size of 10 quality emails. Not very easy. Try to earn that salary on a list size of 50 million low quality emails, easy.
There is often an inverse relationship between size and quality which is due to the method of data collection. So, one could argue that 6 figures can be earned on a 10 quality emails because the quality would be inversely proportional (ie approaching infinity) to the size. The problem is quality maxes out at a certain point because quality tends to stratify into a small number of levels. This is related to the collection method used:
scraping web pages and bulletin boards: very low quality & low cost
coregistration: low quality & low cost
1 click signup: medium quality & medium cost
2 click signup: high quality & high cost
paid signup: very high quality & very high cost
Since the potential for quality maxes out, focus will be heavily focused on increasing list size because its potential is seemingly infinite or bounded only by the world's population size.
If you opted-in by joining something, then it is not spam, even if you don't want it, and are too ignorant to follow the opt-out directions. It becomes spam if you follow the opt-out directions, and the messages continue.
Unfortunately, most won't have any idea that the reason they no longer get them is due to yahoo.
Effected readers would be unlikely to complaind to yahoo, because (A) large corporations are bureaucratic and make it too difficult to get a complaint like that one listened to by the right people, and (B) users don't know how to make the complaint, (C) corporations normally ignore complaints like that anyways, and (D) effected users would want an immediate resolution, which can only be obtained one way (by partially switching from yahoo to something else).
Why would someone contact Yahoo as a first step? A user of average intelligence would first contact the list owner because the list owner is the smaller organization. It's the one losing money due and thus motivated to solve the problem. More likely, the user would attempt to contact both.
If you're going to assume something is not occuring due to technological ignorance, then you must also consider those hurdles influence everything else one does on a PC: daily operation, connect to the internet, attain a Yahoo email account, submit a signup request, enter an activation code, etc. If they've accomplished those, they can surely locate the customer service address and send an inquiry (or demand for action).
You have very few decisions available to you when you receive an email.
Save it
Delete it
Flag it as spam
Detail: We'll assume you've already read it because you have to read it to decide which action to take. If you've not read it, then you've delegated that task to a filter that reads it for you by proxy. Unread email doesn't count. It's essentially in the queue waiting for you to make the decision. You can't make a decision on unread email so we ignore that case. We'll also ignore Forward and Reply to simply the problem.
Saving it means it's not spam. We're assuming you're saving it because you truly want to keep it and that we're not playing definition games with saying "you're saving it to report it later" type of nonsense. We're meaning exactly what we say.
Flag as spam clearly means it's spam
We have one option left, delete it. What does delete mean? I'm assuming you'll say it represents the indifference case, but how can one be indifferent yet perform a positive action? It's because thought is distinct from action, and it is thought that classifies spam, not action.
Deletion could mean a few things. That you've deemed it spam but wish not to flag it. This is a special case where it's clearly spam but your action implies something different. This supports the preceding conclusion: thought is distinct from action.
Other reasons are: that you've deemed it not spam and no longer need it, so the email had temporary value. That you weren't the intended recipient--an error on behalf of the sender. That you're uninterested in the product, request, message, inquiry, appointment, etc. (whatever the email contained). For all of these, they are cases where you believe the email was a one time occurrence that will not happen again, or that you believe the email was harmless, or that the email was not spam. None of these possibilities would lead one to believe the email was spam, so therefore it wasn't spam.
When you say the determination of spam is not a boolean case, you may be thinking of subjectivity rather than result of the decision: spam vs not spam. Although classifying spam is very subjective and there are no concrete criteria for determining "spamminess", it is a boolean classification once the decision is made. There may be a degree of spamminess, but there cannot be a 50/50 scenario where an email is half spam and half not spam. If you allow that definition to be valid then you allow ambiguity to enter your decision process, which is bad if you're trying to make consistent choices.
120,000 subscribers probably means 5% paid, 95% unpaid: so a 1 year signup is $24, then 6000 * $24 = $144,000 per year, plus ad revenue, let's use a conservative 2.5% email click-thru and another 2.5% ad CPA (and averaging a 50 cent CPC), 1 email per user per week: 115,000*0.01 = 28,750 clicks * 7,187 * 0.50 ~= $3500 per month (approx), about $186k gross per year. There's probably additional banner click revenue, but his site is sure to be low-volume, negligible profit there.
So.. he's probably pulling about $175-200k a year (give or take, but I'd be surprised if it was more than $250k), but consider you need to subtract ISP costs of about $1k a month, lawyer & accountant fees, advertising costs, which usually runs very high, maybe 30% (conservative since I've seen ad costs up to 50-75%), he's probably clearing $100k to $150k per year. Not much left over to hire a secretary. Very small time operation.
The reason people don't use the unsubscribe link is due to trust. Do you trust a spammer? Why would you when they've demonstrated they're untrustworthy. Even if they're not a spammer, you believe they are so the thought process is the same.
You click the Spam button instead. You trust your email provider more than a spammer. That's why.
Huh? It's an OPT IN MAILING LIST, with a very deliberate signup process, you can't inadvertently or accidentally sign up. You have an interesting definition of what spam is, well not so much interesting as stupid.
You're assuming four things: 1) a live user is on the receiving end of the email, 2) coregistrations, 3) a newsletter today can never be spam tomorrow, 4) the opt-in accurately portrayed what the subscriber would get
Most users use disposable accounts to test a subscription to minimize spam, so this occurs regularly. This indicates a user wants access to a site in some fashion, probably temporarily. It's also indicative that the user doesn't want the email or wants to test the waters. This disposable account is in essence a dead account; email to a "dead" account is spam if you consider the ISP's perspective. If the newsletter was wanted, the user would either login and read it or transfer tit to a live email account. In that case, the account getting the email would be a live account.
Ever heard of co-registrations? You signup for website A and get auto-signed up for websites B, C, and D. The fine print was small so you missed it. By your definition, emails from B, C, and D are not spam, but the majority of people would disagree.
Consider the dot bomb. Many companies turned harmless newsletters into spam lists due to intense financial pressures. I know this because I witnessed numerous companies go this route. Opt-in yesterday does not mean opt-in for today.
Identifying spam is a subjective decision. You're operating with an assumption that opt-in gives the list owner full right to blast whatever they want to the subscriber because "The user opted-in! They asked for it!" What if the user signed up to an advice column, but got an email with 5% advice and 95% porn ads? Was the opt-in fair? NO. Most people would consider that spam.
You have an interesting definition of what spam is, well not so much interesting as stupid.
And you're ignorant. Rather than request clarification for something you did not understand, you cry "stupid" like a typical slashmonkey beating his chest. I hold these viewpoints because I have industry knowledge in this topic, which you were unaware of.
The person being hurt is the mailing list owner, who isn't a customer of Yahoo
If no one is upset over its absence, then it indeed was spam. The determination of spam is based on whether you want it to continue or not. The lack of complaining subscribers suggests it wasn't.
The remaining Yahoo subscribers may or may not notice they ceased receiving it. Many will assume that the mailing list has closed all together.
Do you have any idea how utterly small that is? I'm surprised they can pay their bills with a list that small--even with a fraction of those being paid subscribers.
It is not the librarian's decision to make, no more than it would be mine if I were a teenager working there at the time the officials walked in.
The one who holds the gun is the one making the decisions. No sane person is going to say "No" to a man with a gun, a badge, and government backed authority to shoot. And, certainly no one is going to argue at length with a cop over a publicly owned computer
The librarian should be subject to a thorough questioning of her judgment, with retraining or dismissal as indicated.:)
It's so easy to condescend when you've not been interrogated by an FBI agent, talking in cryptic legal terms, threatening to arrest you if you resist their investigation.
They said they found water and they said they found something else. I'm guessing the something else is a material that's associated with life on Earth: whether it be building block that life needs or the byproduct of biological processes.
My guess is the latter: complex organic molecules.
It's one thing to troll a board anonymously and call other anonymous members names because it's quite apparent that sort of behavior is silly childish trolling, but it's a whole different thing when the trolling is targeted against someone's real name.
The damage is greatly worsened when you know both the anonymous troll and victim are related in some way geographically or attending the same university. That's when the threats become elevated from stupid trolling to a real threat because the troll has demonstrated he has the desire, ability, and means to carry out that threat. Then consider the troll has the advantage of surprise because the victim has no idea who that person is. It could be a lab partner, a teaching assistant, the person sitting next to her in class. There's no way to know. At this point we're way past harmless trolling. We're in the realm of felony behavior.
There is a very long history of men sexually victimizing women. Idiot trolls, such as these, use that knowledge to magnify the hurtful effects of their threats. It demonstrated they were consciously and willingly performing this behavior. Conscious intent plays a huge factor when determining if something is a crime. It clearly was in this case.
And finally, even if these trolls weren't intending to carry out these threats, one could argue they were acting to recruit others to do it on their behalf. So now the victim has to worry about not one individual, but all individuals.
I'll tell you this: for those women, that situation was a fucking scary place to be in.
Anonymous posters libel Jane Doe 1 and 2 on the forum
Website refuses to remove the comments on the grounds of freedom of speech
Jane Doe 1 and 2 sue and discover the identities of the anonymous posters
Jane Doe 1 and 2 sue anonymous posters, as well as add website administrator Ciolli to the suit
Ciolli is later dropped on the grounds that ISPs and administrators cannot be held liable
Ciolli sues Jane Doe 1 and 2 on the grounds of defamation
Here's where the hypocrisy comes in.
We know illegal felonious comments (threats of rape and murder) were allowed to remain posted on the website. We know the website administrators (including Ciolli) claim to have allowed those messages to remain posted in order to "protect" freedom of speech of the anonymous defendants. But why is freedom of speech OK in that case, but not OK when the Jane Does bring lawsuit against him? Was it because he suddenly found himself being dragged into the mix? Did he find out it was an awful thing having people making false accusations about him? Did he find out libel is NOT protected by freedom of speech after all?
He got a taste of what it's like to be libeled, slandered, and defamed in a horrid way and then suddenly changed his tune. He wanted to deny the Jane Does the freedom of speech and their freedom to bring lawsuit, but he didn't appear to be concerned about the harm caused by the messages posted by the defendants.
One must not let the slashdotter near bright light, especially sunlight, which can kill the slashdotter; one must not get water on the slashdotter; and, most importantly, one must never feed it after midnight.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe it's contradictory because they were two comments from two different contexts (the locally binding topics were different).
My two arguments:
You seem to be focused on the part inside #2 where I wrote that the type was mislabeled. I presume you're thinking Flag Spam -> labels email as spam -> email is mislabled -> email is not spam due to inversion, which violates argument #1.
I would agree that "labeled incorrectly" was an oversight. It's not the thought I intended so I would modify it to say "may or may not be labeled incorrectly". My intention was not to determine spam or not spam inside the #2 argument. In fact I was trying to explicitly avoid that as evidenced by the previous comment "The email in question is still spam or not spam". Naturally, the conclusion in #1 would be invoked because the conclusion in #2 was purposely avoiding the conclusion made in #1.
On your list, I was arguing #2.
We're talking about whether spam is boolean. "Too lazy to unsubscribe" is completely irrelevant to this thread because it doesn't magically create a third state of email (spam/not spam/???). You're talking about a misuse of the tool which doesn't magically create a 3rd state of "spamness". The email in question is still spam or not spam. In this case it's just labeled incorrectly.
If your intention was to yank a point out of context just to disagree with something, then you're not saying much because you're arguing a different topic. Even if I played along, I can easily reject your point because if none of us can rely on the definition of Flag as Spam, then none of us can mount any sensible argument.
I could retort by saying "What if the user pressed Spam but meant to press Save?" That's a misuse of the tool. It's irrelevant in exactly the same way your case is irrelevant by sharing the fact that the email was mislabeled in error. It doesn't affect the topic at hand: is spam boolean?.
You know.. I don't mind the overrated ratings even though that post is rated -1 to begin with, so how one could be overrated at -1 the lowest rating available (lol) God only knows. But, the Troll rating was just plain mean (as well as inaccurate). Heh.
Then it would be a simple matter to prove it wrong. Since you couldn't, you must be a simpleton with low IQ.
Quality of data matters, yes, but the size of list matters enormously as well. Try to earn that 6 figure salary on a list size of 10 quality emails. Not very easy. Try to earn that salary on a list size of 50 million low quality emails, easy.
There is often an inverse relationship between size and quality which is due to the method of data collection. So, one could argue that 6 figures can be earned on a 10 quality emails because the quality would be inversely proportional (ie approaching infinity) to the size. The problem is quality maxes out at a certain point because quality tends to stratify into a small number of levels. This is related to the collection method used:
Since the potential for quality maxes out, focus will be heavily focused on increasing list size because its potential is seemingly infinite or bounded only by the world's population size.
My other reply addresses this thought. I do not wish to repeat, so I will refer to the other post. http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=634587&cid=24460737
Why would someone contact Yahoo as a first step? A user of average intelligence would first contact the list owner because the list owner is the smaller organization. It's the one losing money due and thus motivated to solve the problem. More likely, the user would attempt to contact both.
If you're going to assume something is not occuring due to technological ignorance, then you must also consider those hurdles influence everything else one does on a PC: daily operation, connect to the internet, attain a Yahoo email account, submit a signup request, enter an activation code, etc. If they've accomplished those, they can surely locate the customer service address and send an inquiry (or demand for action).
Spam is indeed boolean.
You have very few decisions available to you when you receive an email.
Detail: We'll assume you've already read it because you have to read it to decide which action to take. If you've not read it, then you've delegated that task to a filter that reads it for you by proxy. Unread email doesn't count. It's essentially in the queue waiting for you to make the decision. You can't make a decision on unread email so we ignore that case. We'll also ignore Forward and Reply to simply the problem.
Saving it means it's not spam. We're assuming you're saving it because you truly want to keep it and that we're not playing definition games with saying "you're saving it to report it later" type of nonsense. We're meaning exactly what we say.
Flag as spam clearly means it's spam
We have one option left, delete it. What does delete mean? I'm assuming you'll say it represents the indifference case, but how can one be indifferent yet perform a positive action? It's because thought is distinct from action, and it is thought that classifies spam, not action.
Deletion could mean a few things. That you've deemed it spam but wish not to flag it. This is a special case where it's clearly spam but your action implies something different. This supports the preceding conclusion: thought is distinct from action.
Other reasons are: that you've deemed it not spam and no longer need it, so the email had temporary value. That you weren't the intended recipient--an error on behalf of the sender. That you're uninterested in the product, request, message, inquiry, appointment, etc. (whatever the email contained). For all of these, they are cases where you believe the email was a one time occurrence that will not happen again, or that you believe the email was harmless, or that the email was not spam. None of these possibilities would lead one to believe the email was spam, so therefore it wasn't spam.
When you say the determination of spam is not a boolean case, you may be thinking of subjectivity rather than result of the decision: spam vs not spam. Although classifying spam is very subjective and there are no concrete criteria for determining "spamminess", it is a boolean classification once the decision is made. There may be a degree of spamminess, but there cannot be a 50/50 scenario where an email is half spam and half not spam. If you allow that definition to be valid then you allow ambiguity to enter your decision process, which is bad if you're trying to make consistent choices.
Yea... only if it's 1 guy.
120,000 subscribers probably means 5% paid, 95% unpaid: so a 1 year signup is $24, then 6000 * $24 = $144,000 per year, plus ad revenue, let's use a conservative 2.5% email click-thru and another 2.5% ad CPA (and averaging a 50 cent CPC), 1 email per user per week: 115,000*0.01 = 28,750 clicks * 7,187 * 0.50 ~= $3500 per month (approx), about $186k gross per year. There's probably additional banner click revenue, but his site is sure to be low-volume, negligible profit there.
So.. he's probably pulling about $175-200k a year (give or take, but I'd be surprised if it was more than $250k), but consider you need to subtract ISP costs of about $1k a month, lawyer & accountant fees, advertising costs, which usually runs very high, maybe 30% (conservative since I've seen ad costs up to 50-75%), he's probably clearing $100k to $150k per year. Not much left over to hire a secretary. Very small time operation.
The reason people don't use the unsubscribe link is due to trust. Do you trust a spammer? Why would you when they've demonstrated they're untrustworthy. Even if they're not a spammer, you believe they are so the thought process is the same.
You click the Spam button instead. You trust your email provider more than a spammer. That's why.
You're assuming four things: 1) a live user is on the receiving end of the email, 2) coregistrations, 3) a newsletter today can never be spam tomorrow, 4) the opt-in accurately portrayed what the subscriber would get
And you're ignorant. Rather than request clarification for something you did not understand, you cry "stupid" like a typical slashmonkey beating his chest. I hold these viewpoints because I have industry knowledge in this topic, which you were unaware of.
If no one is upset over its absence, then it indeed was spam. The determination of spam is based on whether you want it to continue or not. The lack of complaining subscribers suggests it wasn't.
A paying subscriber will know.
Or so wikipedia claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_is_True
Do you have any idea how utterly small that is? I'm surprised they can pay their bills with a list that small--even with a fraction of those being paid subscribers.
Doesn't apply when a terrorist is involved. Ever wonder why all suspects and perpetrators are now called terrorists? Now you know.
The one who holds the gun is the one making the decisions. No sane person is going to say "No" to a man with a gun, a badge, and government backed authority to shoot. And, certainly no one is going to argue at length with a cop over a publicly owned computer
It's so easy to condescend when you've not been interrogated by an FBI agent, talking in cryptic legal terms, threatening to arrest you if you resist their investigation.
From the page:
They said they found water and they said they found something else. I'm guessing the something else is a material that's associated with life on Earth: whether it be building block that life needs or the byproduct of biological processes.
My guess is the latter: complex organic molecules.
42
You are also modded down if you identify yourself as a female posting a negatively critical comment. Topic does not matter.
Conversely, you're modded up if you're a female who says she dates nerds.
It's one thing to troll a board anonymously and call other anonymous members names because it's quite apparent that sort of behavior is silly childish trolling, but it's a whole different thing when the trolling is targeted against someone's real name.
The damage is greatly worsened when you know both the anonymous troll and victim are related in some way geographically or attending the same university. That's when the threats become elevated from stupid trolling to a real threat because the troll has demonstrated he has the desire, ability, and means to carry out that threat. Then consider the troll has the advantage of surprise because the victim has no idea who that person is. It could be a lab partner, a teaching assistant, the person sitting next to her in class. There's no way to know. At this point we're way past harmless trolling. We're in the realm of felony behavior.
There is a very long history of men sexually victimizing women. Idiot trolls, such as these, use that knowledge to magnify the hurtful effects of their threats. It demonstrated they were consciously and willingly performing this behavior. Conscious intent plays a huge factor when determining if something is a crime. It clearly was in this case.
And finally, even if these trolls weren't intending to carry out these threats, one could argue they were acting to recruit others to do it on their behalf. So now the victim has to worry about not one individual, but all individuals.
I'll tell you this: for those women, that situation was a fucking scary place to be in.
Here's where the hypocrisy comes in.
We know illegal felonious comments (threats of rape and murder) were allowed to remain posted on the website. We know the website administrators (including Ciolli) claim to have allowed those messages to remain posted in order to "protect" freedom of speech of the anonymous defendants. But why is freedom of speech OK in that case, but not OK when the Jane Does bring lawsuit against him? Was it because he suddenly found himself being dragged into the mix? Did he find out it was an awful thing having people making false accusations about him? Did he find out libel is NOT protected by freedom of speech after all?
He got a taste of what it's like to be libeled, slandered, and defamed in a horrid way and then suddenly changed his tune. He wanted to deny the Jane Does the freedom of speech and their freedom to bring lawsuit, but he didn't appear to be concerned about the harm caused by the messages posted by the defendants.
That's hypocrisy.
Does that mean Ashley Simpson fans on Yahoo get a full refund?
All your Chuck Norris are belong to us.
Time warp: a view into the devices of BC geeks.
Geekdom is eternal.
...and, I wonder if everyone driving these cars will be arrested.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070522-michigan-man-arrested-for-using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car.html
One must not let the slashdotter near bright light, especially sunlight, which can kill the slashdotter; one must not get water on the slashdotter; and, most importantly, one must never feed it after midnight.