Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin
> On 29 Aug 2023, at 03:31, John Levine via mailop wrote: > > It appears that Anne Mitchell via mailop said: >> I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a big win >> for Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP. > > Mike Masnick at the always interesting Techdirt blog has a longer take. You > can tell from the URL what he thinks of it. > > https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/28/as-predicted-judge-laughs-gops-laughable-google-spam-bias-lawsuit-right-out-of-court/ Reading that article was a trip down memory lane for all the spammers that sued ISPs to try and get them to deliver the mail. I’d forgotten e360 sued Comcast, though. laura -- The Delivery Expert Laura Atkins Word to the Wise la...@wordtothewise.com Delivery hints and commentary: http://wordtothewise.com/blog ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin
It appears that Anne Mitchell via mailop said: >I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a big win >for Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP. Mike Masnick at the always interesting Techdirt blog has a longer take. You can tell from the URL what he thinks of it. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/28/as-predicted-judge-laughs-gops-laughable-google-spam-bias-lawsuit-right-out-of-court/ R's, John ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin
It appears that Mark E. Jeftovic via mailop said: >-=-=-=-=-=- >-=-=-=-=-=- > >Maybe one of the reasons the right-side of the political spectrum are >more aggressive spammers, is that it's a knock-on effect from being >marginalized within mainstream channels and leftist BigTech platforms. > >Maybe if it was a more level playing field they'd feel less inclined to >do so. Perhaps but that's a much broader problem than anything related to e-mail or big tech. My impression of the US right wing is that they are desperately trying to return to a foggy memory of the 1950s, and the country isn't cooperating. My recollection of the 1950s is that they weren't actually all that great, particularly if you weren't a white guy. Can we return to talking about e-mail now? R's, John ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin
Maybe one of the reasons the right-side of the political spectrum are more aggressive spammers, is that it's a knock-on effect from being marginalized within mainstream channels and leftist BigTech platforms. Maybe if it was a more level playing field they'd feel less inclined to do so. - mark On 2023-08-26 11:05 PM, Jarland Donnell via mailop wrote: That's been a lot of my finding as well. While I fully empathize with efforts to tackle bias, spam from affiliates of the RNC is worse than their counterparts. Mainstream bias is worse in the opposite direction, spam is worse in this direction. It's quite fair to notice the flaws from every angle and that they're different (regardless of whether or not anyone feels they're equal, just different). Given that I'm more likely to be biased in the opposite direction, it's noteworthy that I see more spam from affiliates of the complainant in this case. They're more numerous, they're more clickbaity, and they're more often targeted at people who didn't consent via any double opt-in procedure. So, a solid win for all of us. On 2023-08-26 14:54, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote: BigTech is overflowing with extreme-leftist bias - especially with their social media fact-checkers - and (to a lesser extent) this bias overflows into their spam filtering and search results - HOWEVER - the RNC and so many right-wing politicians are among the WORST to try such a lawsuit because the RNC, and many of their affiliates, spam like crazy and are OFTEN using shady-as-hell practices, such as using crappy third party senders who sent to 100% purchased lists, in addition to sending from newly-bought domains with zero reputation. It's a cesspool. And they make some of the most unethical low-rent ESPs wealthy in the process. The owners of some of those of those ESPs are spoiled rotten rich brats who think that rules don't apply to them. Likewise, every time I'm dealing with their spam, and I think about the CEOs of these shady ESPs they're using - I get this image in my mind of one or another of the shady drug dealers in the movie, Boogie Nights. THAT is who they really are! (I have inside info about them - this is a good summary of what these people are like!) I do know of a few ethical ESPs that cater to conservative politicians and who do send ethically/correctly - but they are few and far between. Ironically, that the RNC tried this complaint - will only make the leftist bias from BigTech - worse! Likewise, the Republican bill to unravel 47US230 - is a total disaster - and all co-sponsoring that are either idiots are didn't even hardly read it. 47US230 probably needs improvement because it's somewhat abused - but their proposed fix utterly fails to understand how much 47US230 protects antispam and antimalware "good guys" from being run out of business bu frivolous slapp lawsuits. Everyone will suffer greatly if 47US230 is altered or replaced in an unwise way. Rob McEwen, invaluement -- Original Message -- From "Anne Mitchell via mailop" To "Gellner, Oliver via mailop" Date 8/26/2023 2:29:46 PM Subject [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a big win for Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP. In the order (in which the RNC complaint was dismissed) the court basically not only smacked down the RNC, but made clear that the Communications Decency Act (i.e. Federal Law) was developed in part to: "encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services" ..and the court goes on to say that "Permitting suits to go forward against a service provider based on the over-filtering of mass marketing emails would discourage providers from offering spam filters or significantly decrease the number of emails segregated. It would also place courts in the business of micromanaging content providers filtering systems in contravention of Congresss directive that it be the provider or user that determines what is objectionable". There's a lot more, it's a great opinion (full text of the court order is included in our article): https://www.isipp.com/blog/rnc-v-google-republican-national-committee-gets-smacked-down-by-court-full-text-of-order-here/ Anne --- Anne P. Mitchell Attorney at Law Email Law & Policy Attorney CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Cha
Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin
That's been a lot of my finding as well. While I fully empathize with efforts to tackle bias, spam from affiliates of the RNC is worse than their counterparts. Mainstream bias is worse in the opposite direction, spam is worse in this direction. It's quite fair to notice the flaws from every angle and that they're different (regardless of whether or not anyone feels they're equal, just different). Given that I'm more likely to be biased in the opposite direction, it's noteworthy that I see more spam from affiliates of the complainant in this case. They're more numerous, they're more clickbaity, and they're more often targeted at people who didn't consent via any double opt-in procedure. So, a solid win for all of us. On 2023-08-26 14:54, Rob McEwen via mailop wrote: BigTech is overflowing with extreme-leftist bias - especially with their social media fact-checkers - and (to a lesser extent) this bias overflows into their spam filtering and search results - HOWEVER - the RNC and so many right-wing politicians are among the WORST to try such a lawsuit because the RNC, and many of their affiliates, spam like crazy and are OFTEN using shady-as-hell practices, such as using crappy third party senders who sent to 100% purchased lists, in addition to sending from newly-bought domains with zero reputation. It's a cesspool. And they make some of the most unethical low-rent ESPs wealthy in the process. The owners of some of those of those ESPs are spoiled rotten rich brats who think that rules don't apply to them. Likewise, every time I'm dealing with their spam, and I think about the CEOs of these shady ESPs they're using - I get this image in my mind of one or another of the shady drug dealers in the movie, Boogie Nights. THAT is who they really are! (I have inside info about them - this is a good summary of what these people are like!) I do know of a few ethical ESPs that cater to conservative politicians and who do send ethically/correctly - but they are few and far between. Ironically, that the RNC tried this complaint - will only make the leftist bias from BigTech - worse! Likewise, the Republican bill to unravel 47US230 - is a total disaster - and all co-sponsoring that are either idiots are didn't even hardly read it. 47US230 probably needs improvement because it's somewhat abused - but their proposed fix utterly fails to understand how much 47US230 protects antispam and antimalware "good guys" from being run out of business bu frivolous slapp lawsuits. Everyone will suffer greatly if 47US230 is altered or replaced in an unwise way. Rob McEwen, invaluement -- Original Message -- From "Anne Mitchell via mailop" To "Gellner, Oliver via mailop" Date 8/26/2023 2:29:46 PM Subject [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a big win for Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP. In the order (in which the RNC complaint was dismissed) the court basically not only smacked down the RNC, but made clear that the Communications Decency Act (i.e. Federal Law) was developed in part to: "encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services" ..and the court goes on to say that "Permitting suits to go forward against a service provider based on the over-filtering of mass marketing emails would discourage providers from offering spam filters or significantly decrease the number of emails segregated. It would also place courts in the business of micromanaging content providers filtering systems in contravention of Congresss directive that it be the provider or user that determines what is objectionable". There's a lot more, it's a great opinion (full text of the court order is included in our article): https://www.isipp.com/blog/rnc-v-google-republican-national-committee-gets-smacked-down-by-court-full-text-of-order-here/ Anne --- Anne P. Mitchell Attorney at Law Email Law & Policy Attorney CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
Re: [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin
BigTech is overflowing with extreme-leftist bias - especially with their social media fact-checkers - and (to a lesser extent) this bias overflows into their spam filtering and search results - HOWEVER - the RNC and so many right-wing politicians are among the WORST to try such a lawsuit because the RNC, and many of their affiliates, spam like crazy and are OFTEN using shady-as-hell practices, such as using crappy third party senders who sent to 100% purchased lists, in addition to sending from newly-bought domains with zero reputation. It's a cesspool. And they make some of the most unethical low-rent ESPs wealthy in the process. The owners of some of those of those ESPs are spoiled rotten rich brats who think that rules don't apply to them. Likewise, every time I'm dealing with their spam, and I think about the CEOs of these shady ESPs they're using - I get this image in my mind of one or another of the shady drug dealers in the movie, Boogie Nights. THAT is who they really are! (I have inside info about them - this is a good summary of what these people are like!) I do know of a few ethical ESPs that cater to conservative politicians and who do send ethically/correctly - but they are few and far between. Ironically, that the RNC tried this complaint - will only make the leftist bias from BigTech - worse! Likewise, the Republican bill to unravel 47US230 - is a total disaster - and all co-sponsoring that are either idiots are didn't even hardly read it. 47US230 probably needs improvement because it's somewhat abused - but their proposed fix utterly fails to understand how much 47US230 protects antispam and antimalware "good guys" from being run out of business bu frivolous slapp lawsuits. Everyone will suffer greatly if 47US230 is altered or replaced in an unwise way. Rob McEwen, invaluement -- Original Message -- From "Anne Mitchell via mailop" To "Gellner, Oliver via mailop" Date 8/26/2023 2:29:46 PM Subject [mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a big win for Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP. In the order (in which the RNC complaint was dismissed) the court basically not only smacked down the RNC, but made clear that the Communications Decency Act (i.e. Federal Law) was developed in part to: "encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services" ..and the court goes on to say that "Permitting suits to go forward against a service provider based on the over-filtering of mass marketing emails would discourage providers from offering spam filters or significantly decrease the number of emails segregated. It would also place courts in the business of micromanaging content providers filtering systems in contravention of Congresss directive that it be the provider or user that determines what is objectionable". There's a lot more, it's a great opinion (full text of the court order is included in our article): https://www.isipp.com/blog/rnc-v-google-republican-national-committee-gets-smacked-down-by-court-full-text-of-order-here/ Anne --- Anne P. Mitchell Attorney at Law Email Law & Policy Attorney CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
[mailop] RNC v. Google Dispositioin
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this here, because it was a big win for Gmail plus has language which is applicable to any ISP. In the order (in which the RNC complaint was dismissed) the court basically not only smacked down the RNC, but made clear that the Communications Decency Act (i.e. Federal Law) was developed in part to: "encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services" ..and the court goes on to say that "Permitting suits to go forward against a service provider based on the over-filtering of mass marketing emails would discourage providers from offering spam filters or significantly decrease the number of emails segregated. It would also place courts in the business of micromanaging content providers filtering systems in contravention of Congresss directive that it be the provider or user that determines what is objectionable". There's a lot more, it's a great opinion (full text of the court order is included in our article): https://www.isipp.com/blog/rnc-v-google-republican-national-committee-gets-smacked-down-by-court-full-text-of-order-here/ Anne --- Anne P. Mitchell Attorney at Law Email Law & Policy Attorney CEO Institute for Social Internet Public Policy (ISIPP) Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal email marketing law) Author: The Email Deliverability Handbook Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange Dean Emeritus, Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School Prof. Emeritus, Lincoln Law School Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Counsel Emeritus, eMail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS) ___ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
