RNC Sues Google Over Spam Email Filters (reuters.com) 213
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: The Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a lawsuit against Alphabet's Google on Friday for allegedly sending its emails to users' spam folders. The U.S. political committee accuses the tech giant of "discriminating" against it by "throttling its email messages because of the RNC's political affiliation and views," according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in California. "Google has relegated millions of RNC emails en masse to potential donors' and supporters' spam folders during pivotal points in election fundraising and community building," the RNC said in the lawsuit. Google rejected the claims.
Spam filters on email services typically weed out unsolicited "spam" messages and divert them to a separate folder. The RNC said that for most of the month, nearly all of its emails end up in users' inboxes but at the end of the month, which is an important time for fund-raising, nearly all of their emails end up in spam folders. "Critically, and suspiciously, this end of the month period is historically when the RNC's fundraising is most successful," the lawsuit said, adding that it does not matter whether the email is about donating, voting or community outreach. The committee said the "discrimination" had been going on for about 10 months despite its best efforts to work with Google. It said the alleged routing of its emails to spam folders had eaten up revenue and that more money would be lost in coming weeks as midterm elections loom. "As we have repeatedly said, we simply don't filter emails based on political affiliation. Gmail's spam filters reflect users' actions," Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement. "We provide training and guidelines to campaigns, we recently launched an FEC-approved pilot for political senders, and we continue to work to maximize email deliverability while minimizing unwanted spam," he said, referring to the Federal Election Commission.
Further reading: US Approves Google Plan To Let Political Emails Bypass Gmail Spam Filter
Spam filters on email services typically weed out unsolicited "spam" messages and divert them to a separate folder. The RNC said that for most of the month, nearly all of its emails end up in users' inboxes but at the end of the month, which is an important time for fund-raising, nearly all of their emails end up in spam folders. "Critically, and suspiciously, this end of the month period is historically when the RNC's fundraising is most successful," the lawsuit said, adding that it does not matter whether the email is about donating, voting or community outreach. The committee said the "discrimination" had been going on for about 10 months despite its best efforts to work with Google. It said the alleged routing of its emails to spam folders had eaten up revenue and that more money would be lost in coming weeks as midterm elections loom. "As we have repeatedly said, we simply don't filter emails based on political affiliation. Gmail's spam filters reflect users' actions," Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said in a statement. "We provide training and guidelines to campaigns, we recently launched an FEC-approved pilot for political senders, and we continue to work to maximize email deliverability while minimizing unwanted spam," he said, referring to the Federal Election Commission.
Further reading: US Approves Google Plan To Let Political Emails Bypass Gmail Spam Filter
PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:5, Insightful)
Users are probably the ones marking GOP emails as spam. One wonders if the GOP PR gamble will blow up in their face.
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really really hope they get utterly hammered, and that we get to a point where ALL political email ends up in the spam box where it belongs.
And the "We're getting censored!" refrain is getting really old, especially when the opposite generally happens.
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:4, Funny)
I too have this problem as a Nigerian Prince. Google is discriminating against me and my desire to give away my wealth to random strangers!
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:5, Funny)
I too have this problem as a Nigerian Prince.
Ah, you probably won't be needing any of my products then.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
There's been some blindness for some time there. They assume they're the most popular party, and the most popular people, and that everyone wants to invite them for a drink. But when it doesn't happen, well then, it can't because because they aren't liked but because someone is working against them.
I see this a lot, and well into the past as well. Back in the 80s even, there were always a few R candidates in California would whine like crazy when they lost an election, even if it was a primary against ot
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:5, Informative)
Users are probably the ones marking GOP emails as spam. One wonders if the GOP PR gamble will blow up in their face.
In another, more complete article [usatoday.com], that is exactly what Google is claiming. That people are manually identifying these emails as spam.
Google, in a statement, denied the charges. “As we have repeatedly said, we simply don’t filter emails based on political affiliation. Gmail’s spam filters reflect users’ actions," said spokesperson José Castañeda, adding that the company provides training and guidelines to campaigns and works to "maximize email deliverability while minimizing unwanted spam."
What's really happening is Republicans will once again whine the election is rigged, even though they themselves have passed laws to rig the elections in their favor.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only cheating if the other ones do it.
I could also have said "takes one to know one".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Blatant hypocrisy is OK when _we_ do it!!"
IMHO this is the tell of a party who cares *only* about power, and not about the country, or principles.
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:5, Informative)
By extension, they don't care about capitalism, open markets, competition or even truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... yeah.
Capitalism is only good as long as it fills my pockets. It sure isn't when suddenly that other pesky parts come into play. Open markets are great as long as I'm the top dog and can kick everyone around, but rest assured I cry foul and beg for bailouts when (not if) I misjudge something. Competition is good, at least as long as I'm the one who gets to spank the competitors around and buy them out if they get pesky, but it sure isn't when it actually becomes competition.
And truth is good, as long
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats have never done that. Gore conceded civilly and moved on to become a billionaire.
Re: (Score:2)
Peter Doocy is a right-wing troll and it was trump who said the 2016 election was rigged both before and after the election. I don't care if Hillary Clinton whined a little about why she lost. She conceded as soon as it was clear she had which was the very next day. trump is still claiming the 2020 election was stolen. His loyalists have been violent before and they will be violent again.
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:5, Interesting)
When Republicans lose elections they start to complain that the votes were not tallied correctly. Even though they've had success repressing the vote, they still lose. Rather than accept that maybe the candidates were flawed or that their rhetoric is too outlandish, they claim that there was criminal fraud in the voting process.
These are two different things and two different types of "rigging." It's unfortunate that the OP used the same word to describe both.
It's also unfortunate for our country as the Democrats do not always get policy correct. And it's beneficial to have multiple viable parties. Sadly I haven't voted for a Republican in nearly two decades because any that disavow extremism don't make it to the ballot.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, we need more than on viable party. In the past I voted both D and R, and on rare occasions an alternative. These days one party in particular is trying extremely hard to stop being viable, and even one of the leaders of that party has complained about the low quality of their candidates.
Now that party that's shedding its viability might still come out the winner in the midterms, but that's not because they have a good message but because this is how things go in midterms with a sagging economy.
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:4, Informative)
Which laws? How about proposed laws:
- limiting voting of minorities (mostly democrats).
- limiting mail in voting (done by democrats).
- limiting support for people standing in line voting, e.g. making it illegal to give out water to people who stand in line for a really really long time while being strategic on making sure not enough polling stations exist (in democrat neighborhoods)
- limiting the availability of drop-boxes (they are mostly used by democrats)
- increased requirements on voter ID for certain forms of ballots (because those without ID are overwhelmingly democrat)
- opposing any move to make voting day a holiday or a weekend, because the poor voters can't get off work (and they are majority democrats).
We know for a fact that mostly red states have passed laws making voting more difficult and mostly blue states have made voting easier. https://www.brennancenter.org/... [brennancenter.org]
Hey buddy I'm not even American, nor do I live in the USA. And I have heard about this. This shit has made international news. How do you not know this?
Re: (Score:2)
Historically I have seen that Republicans complain the most and loudest after losing.
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:5, Interesting)
I got signed up for some political announcements. It is the worst spam I get. They donâ(TM)t respect unsubscribe. If you say STOP, the texts just come in through another number.
Google is a private firm that needs users email to generate advertising. All email providers are very aggressive at filtering now. O political party get to force a private company to force the party product on the users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This a hundred times. I wish there was a text message spam filter instead of by number
My Pixel phone identifies spammy text messages as Spam.
Re: (Score:3)
It is like suing twitter because you are not allowed to call for the assignation of the Vice president of the United States.
Anyone hoping for an assignation with Mike Pence clearly has bigger problems.
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:5, Informative)
They've been running this playbook since the mid 80s and it's worked since then. I don't see any reason why they're going to stop
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:4, Insightful)
Users are probably the ones marking GOP emails as spam.
At least one user (me) certainly is doing this.
I am getting several political emails a day in my work inbox. They are pretty much all from Republicans, and most seem to be affiliated with some entity called "Patriots for Victory".
I don't know if the candidates themselves are hiring this group of bozos, but if they are they should probably ask for a refund. I've never been a member of either political party. I live in Washington state. I have never lived in Georgia, nor in Florida, nor in Utah. So why am I getting spammed regarding sending money to Herschell Walker, Ron DeSantis, or whatever the Utah guy's name is?
These emails are spam and deserve to be treated as such.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the lure of easy money. The money can cross state lines, even though your vote can't. They know it, so they are willing to spend a pittance to spam people to try to hit the jackpot. This probably normally pays off for them, absent the functioning spam filters.
Also, they are bozos.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically, Trump emails. I know several people (notably older adults) who have been spammed by various political parties over the years, and the Trump emails are the most-common.
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. I've received multiple GOP political spams to a Gmail address that I never give out (I have my own domains for personal email). They follow a common format, starting with this exact boilerplate:
PLEASE READ: This email is protected speech under US Constitution First Amendment. This message is considered political speech should not be blocked or impeded from its intended recipient. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO RECEIVE, please just opt out below, instead of marking this email as SPAM. Not opting out can hurt our delivery to other party members.
Since I never opted-in, it's spam. Also, since I don't live in the districts for Joe Pinion (running for US Senate) or Tom Patti (running for US Congress), I can't vote against them. The least I can do is flag their junk as spam, so maybe Google will hurt their delivery as much as possible.
Re:PR gamble ignores user behavior. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why only one time a month then? (Score:4, Insightful)
The GOP is alleging that end-of-the-month timing. It hasn't been proven and I'll take it with a large grain of salt absent any compelling evidence.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is hard to believe anything from a party that has committed to lie about 100% of the time like its leader.
Re:Why only one time a month then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
but at the end of the month, which is an important time for fund-raising,
By which they mean it's when commissions/bonuses are calculated based on how much money they pulled in, so they spam harder trying to make their numbers. Probably one fundraiser actually did notice this monthly pattern. They probably start new campaigns at the beginning of the month, and by the end of the month they are hitting people with the third or fourth email of the campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, then explain how it gets unmarked when Google is doing it? Makes about as much sense.
There's probably some automatic system in place that wipes users' spam flags once a month.
Re: (Score:2)
Then back to the other question, explain how this is an indicator of Google doing something about it. Wouldn't Google, if they really wanted to only filter out GOP spam, do that 24/7 instead of once a month?
Re:Why only one time a month then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a relevant take that explains what's really going on https://ewerickson.substack.co... [substack.com] :
Also, did you know that Google have a program that is specifically tailored to political email-campaigns - it was setup the last time conservatives complained about their spammy campaigns where flagged as spam. Guess how many GOP campaigns have availed themselves to that program? Zero.
The truth is, spam is spam - regardless who send it. This is just another case of conservatives and GOP candidates playing the victim for something they caused themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Sure, but if we're going to make up improbable stories, couldn't we do better? Imagine Google had peed in these users' inboxes, or inserted libelous remarks about DJT into the emails. A story like that wouldn't blow up in the RNC's face, either.
It *is* SPAM (Score:5, Informative)
The way Gmail filters this stuff is a metric involving how many copies of the message are being delivered versus what percentage of people are deleting it. Once you pass a threshold on both of those, they are assuming that by definition the message is spam. They are technically very correct in that assessment. System working as intended, carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
The way Gmail filters this stuff is a metric involving how many copies of the message are being delivered versus what percentage of people are deleting it. Once you pass a threshold on both of those, they are assuming that by definition the message is spam. They are technically very correct in that assessment. System working as intended, carry on.
They probably change the message for a new fund drive every month - hence why the messages initially get through, but then as more people mark them as spam as the month goes on, by the end of the month they all end up in the junk folder where they belong.
Re:Why the temporal nature? (Score:4, Informative)
And all of these claims users are marking them as spam - why would users not unsubscribe to emails they didn't want instead?
Having actually run a spam-filtering company for a couple of decades, I can tell you that for every user who unsubscribes using the proper mechanism, 20 will just mark as spam. That's reality.
Re:Why the temporal nature? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can tell you why I do that. Two reasons actually.
1) I actually do unsubcribe if I had actually subscribed in the first place. If I did not subscribe in the first place, it literally is spam, and clicking links inside the email will NOT teach my spam checker to get better.
2) If I didnt subcribe, all I am doing by clicking a link inside the email is teaching the sender that my email address is actually read by humans.
Under those circumstances, clicking unsubscribe on an unsolicited email is not only unwise, its irresponsible.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they send more mails at the end of the month.
That you can't think of something people do regularly once a month doesn't mean other people do it, especially since it's something many households do and that has a connection to their economy which is why someone would send more spam at the end of the month.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't track that, but consider:
1: The GOP is claiming that more items are marked as spam at the end of the month, but they have not proven this claim.
2: How would the GOP even measure this? A few "sentinel" GMail accounts to act as oracles don't prove anything.
3: Maybe their fundraising emails towards the end of the month look more shrill or more spammy.
4: Maybe something in the sending pattern triggers Google's filters?
Basically, we have no idea if it's even happening. And if it is happening, the
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that messages get through at specific times of the month and not others, with repeated regularity, sounds kind of odd, don't you think?
There are two ways that can happen, both dependent on the fact that the end of the month is prime fund raising time.
The first is that Google is manually flipping a switch to filter political fundraising email for an organization they disapprove of. This would be very bad.
The second is that the RNC is sending out more, or different, email blasts because it is prime money raising time, and the qualitative differences are triggering spam filters, or recipients (who may or may not be receiving emails from RNC t
Re:Why the temporal nature? (Score:5, Informative)
Again how would this in any way indicate that Google is applying the filtering? If Google was really trying to filter GOP spam, wouldn't that work 24/7 instead of once a month?
As far as the unsub goes, are you really that naive that you unsub from a spam list? Even the dumbest user by now knows that clicking an unsub link on a spam mail only makes you receive MORE spam because you now just confirmed that the mail address is active and that the mail actually gets read.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as the unsub goes, are you really that naive that you unsub from a spam list? Even the dumbest user by now knows that clicking an unsub link on a spam mail only makes you receive MORE spam because you now just confirmed that the mail address is active and that the mail actually gets read.
Exactly this. "Unsubscribe" is exactly the same as "send more spam", just spelled differently.
Re: (Score:2)
And all of these claims users are marking them as spam - why would users not unsubscribe to emails they didn't want instead?
I consistently unsubscribe; but the emails keep coming - so it seems apparent they aren't respecting the unsubscribe requests.
So now I unsubscribe AND flag them as spam.
Re: (Score:2)
Unsubscribing just lets them know that the email address is valid. As you said, it doesn't work anyway.
Just flag it as spam and move on.
Re:Why the temporal nature? (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, then explain why users are deleting stuff only at the end of the month, verses the start of the month. For month after month...
I'm not saying any of these are the case, but they're all plausible:
The content of the messages are different in ways that users react to differently?
Users are inundated by other unwanted messages near month's end because other advertising vultures are doing the same thing, and less tolerant of crap in the Inbox?
The RNC don't have a statistically significant sample of Inboxes, and are drawing incorrect conclusions about what is happening and why?
Then other guys run a bunch of honeypot addresses and deliberately mark the RNC messages as spam late in the month to cause this result?
The RNC runs a bunch of honeypot addresses and deliberately mark their own messages as spam late in the month so they can drum up sympathy for their cause as the oppressed?
The RNC as a whole is nontechnical anti-tech anti-science anti-fact and someone in the organization made a plausible pitch this is happening while it really isn't?
The fact that messages get through at specific times of the month and not others, with repeated regularity, sounds kind of odd, don't you think?
The allegation that messages...
Honestly, which is more plausible? The RNC don't understand electronic marketing and user habits, or Google created an algorithm so illegal its discovery would possibly lead to the company being broken up, to screw the RNC and they're so confident it'll stay secret despite anywhere up to half of their employees being Republican-leaning?
Don't get me wrong. Maybe Google's guilty. But there are far, far, far more plausible reasons for this story than that.
And all of these claims users are marking them as spam - why would users not unsubscribe to emails they didn't want instead? That's what I do with all political emails, which almost always have very clear unsubscribe links. Marking stuff is spam is for garbage emails that don't provide any way to un-subscribe.
Because - at least in my experience - unsubscribing from political trash is utterly pointless. They are absolutely convinced that they have every right to override any user preferences to the extent that they pass laws protecting their unwanted marketing as "special". Also, clicking the spam button is far less effort than locating the "clear" unsubscribe links.
To me, it doesn't matter which party was making these claims. Google should be assumed not to be doing it until and unless the accuser can demonstrate some convincing evidence. Not just saying "this is happening". Show your work. Which is what the court of law is about. But until the case is settled, sorry, this is just stories a group who will suffer zero consequence if they're wrong are telling.
Ponder that one again. If the accuser is found to be outright deliberately committing a bold-faced lie, the absolute worst that will happen in court is they'll get a fine, which their donors pay for. No politician will lose a penny for this. And meanwhile... positive publicity during an election run-up. Uh-huh. Couldn't've started this case after it happened for three months? Five? Seven? No, had to wait until right before the elections. Again, uh-huh.
Again, doesn't matter which party was making this claim. The logic remains identical. This is not a left/right-leaning conclusion.
Re:Why the temporal nature? (Score:5, Funny)
Great, then explain why users are deleting stuff only at the end of the month, verses the start of the month.
The answer is on Hunter Biden's laptop.
The making of an anti-Republican voter (Score:2)
Really? That's the best joke/doc can come up with on this juicy story? Oh well, you know I can't help on the funny side, but I have a general comment on the topic.
Better add the context that I'm all in favor of Ben Franklin's small-r republic, but what we have coming up is it vote between oligarchy and outright kleptocracy.
So time for the funny-not-funny story. When I was young, long ago, I tended to try to weigh the candidates at the top of the ticket. I still thought of myself as an independent, though it
Re: (Score:3)
Really? That's the best joke/doc can come up with on this juicy story? Oh well, you know I can't help on the funny side, but I have a general comment on the topic.
Ah, but it is a bit of a hydra - if you notice, the republican modus operandi is for items imbued with almost incredible majick.
Think how O'Blama's birth certificate was going to expose to the world that he wasn't a citizen.
How Hillary's missing emails were proof of something something and she needed to be incarcerated.
How this mysterious laptop holds all the answers.
It isn't that this is something new either. I watched a video some years back on how former president Clinton knew his bodyguards from
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? WTF? Did you buy your 5-digit UID from the real SuperKendall? All "unsubscribing" does is let the spammer know that it's a real address with a real person actively using it. And that brings you massively more spam.
Fuck that noise. I blacklist. I mark spam as spam. And I applaud google for keeping as much of it out of my inbox as they can, regardless of what pack of sniveling filth it comes from. If I were to find myself in Fargo ND with these spamming shithead scum, and there happened to
Re: (Score:2)
Great, then explain why users are deleting stuff only at the end of the month, verses the start of the month. For month after month...
a) You're quoting the article wrong. They're not deleting it at the end of the month. According to the article:
The RNC said that for most of the month, nearly all of its emails end up in users’ inboxes but at the end of the month, which is an important time for fund-raising, nearly all of their emails end up in spam folders.
b)The last time I had a hand in email administration, this is common behavior. If someone starts an email campaign at the beginning of the month, presumably and understandably and by their own admission because they want to have a month's leeway for people to read and donate at the end of the month, and the email passes all the usual checks (DKIM and SPF records and all that), if the users all star
lol, well, they know what they can do about it (Score:3, Insightful)
If they get control of government again, they can add political affiliation to the list of protected classes, but I don't think they will like the result.
Re:lol, well, they know what they can do about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, but you see they'll only add the right kind of political affiliation to the list of protected classes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already a protected class in some states, like California. I see no reason to believe a federal version won't be as selectively enforced.
Re: (Score:2)
The RNC isn't claiming that google is restricting their right to be Republicans. Anonymous Coward adding a sig to their post is a new one. I like it.
Simple test (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they filter Democrat spam emails too? Case closed!
What Democrat spam emails? I'm not getting any significant number of emails from Democratic candidates - I'm only getting these crap emails from Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I get my share of texts and Facebook ads from Democrats begging for money too. But it's fairly rare for me to get these from the trumpsters. So probably both parties have their text and social fundraising dialed in fairly tightly. But I've just had a look in my spam folder, and I guess it's crunch time for their spammers, 'cuz I have a ton these last couple of weeks. BUT... and this is entirely unscientific and anecdotal of course... based on a couple minute's of looking, I would guesstimate that for ev
Re: (Score:2)
Lol (Score:5, Informative)
The basis for the GOP’s allegations, which Google denies, is a March study published by researchers at North Carolina State University finding that Gmail sent 77 percent of right-wing candidate emails to spam in 2020, compared with 10 percent of left-wing candidate emails.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's defense is to demonstrate the objective difference between the two that makes one email blast spam, and the other not. Which should be pretty simple to do, if there is one.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's defense is to demonstrate the objective difference between the two that makes one email blast spam, and the other not. Which should be pretty simple to do, if there is one.
1. Google provided a method for politicians to get on a white list. Not one Republican has done this.
2. Republicans were sending out a lot of emails without using DKIM.
Case closed.
This is performance art. Surely Google has the absolute right to filter Republican emails more than Democrat emails, should it choose.
Re:Lol (Score:5, Interesting)
Did that study state why? If yes, what was the cause? It's probably users marking it spam.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No. Because in that case, it's purely the biases and behavior of the users, not Google, causing the spam (And this IS spam, by it's very definition, we're talking about here. If there is ANY deficiency on Google's part, it is that some spam is still getting through.) to be filtered.
Re: (Score:3)
This seems like a classic case of equality (everyone gets the same standards) vs equity (everyone gets the same outcome). Generally a preference for equity is associated with the left. Ironically, here's its the right demanding it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
The basis for the GOP’s allegations, which Google denies, is a March study published by researchers at North Carolina State University finding that Gmail sent 77 percent of right-wing candidate emails to spam in 2020, compared with 10 percent of left-wing candidate emails.
If if did, and the answer is on Hunter Biden's laptop and the plan in Hillary's missing emails, and printed on invisible ink on O'Blama's birth certificate, and on the bottom Mike Lindell's pillows - and the terrible truths the Arizona audit clearly showed. All will be clear when you piece the obvious truth together.
I've seen the PA television ads, and if that bullshit was sent by email, you'd see Doctor Oz's stuff being sent to the bozo been based on the content.
This is the equivalent of being screame
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps the left-wing candidates might have been emailing people who actually wanted to hear from them instead of using the shotgun approach?
labeled (Score:3)
If they are from a political party or PAC and clearly marked and verified as such then gmail should not send the to the spam bucket. Instead people should see the full horror of the crap that the parties send them and choose to add their own spam filters based on the easily identified sender.
Of course that "discriminates" against any organization that wants to hide where the crap is coming from
Nice burn (Score:2)
Gmail's spam filters reflect users' actions. Hahaha, very nice.
What seems to be the problem? (Score:2)
Political spam is still spam.
Will be dismissed (Score:4)
If it's not dismissed in summary judgement motion, I'd be surprised. "Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
Alphabet is not the government. G-Mail is not a government service. Therefore there is no first amendment right here, only the right of private property. There is nothing stopping the RNC from setting up their own email infrastructure and handing out their own, free mail boxes under their own domain.
Spam = Spam (Score:2)
Spam is still spam; the content and topics don't matter. I would bet 99% are user direct spam filters.
These twats are so stupid they really don't understand why I was a lifelong R but haven't voted that way in years.
Good riddance (Score:2)
"The RNC said that for most of the month, nearly all of its emails end up in users' inboxes but at the end of the month, which is an important time for fund-raising, nearly all of their emails end up in spam folders."
You are not an immediate relative or a close friend. Those are the only people who have a right to send me email. Email is personal. Anything other than those contacts is 110% guaranteed spam. I think what you are seeing with "most people send our stuff to the spam folder" is really a side
Maybe they should sue the recipients (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe they should sue the recipients for not wanting their spam.
The Party of small goverment (Score:5, Insightful)
Wants to use legislation to force gmail to not mark their emails as spam. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/... [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, it's alarming.
Political fundraising is spam to me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of Speech, baby. Interpreted through a new, more cynical and clockwork-orangy lens.
Re: (Score:2)
All laws include exemptions for political messages because they will never do that to themselves. I hope they force a loophole to filtering just so they can suffer the backlash when industry exploits that loophole and pisses too many people off.
Perhaps they'll learn before they start more ill-advised tech laws.
Of course it's spam (Score:2)
These garbage emails check all of the boxes. Begging for money, selling fraudulent product, misrepresentation, poor grammar, extremely annoying frequency, shallow marketing tricks, name dropping, clickbait subject lines...
There's also the little matter of the the people whos money you stole last time. The money you used for everything but what you said it was for....
Turns out you guys have got some really unpopular ideas, you keep getting caught on the wrong side of pretty much everything. Your emails are n
Just maybe do not sound like spam scammers? (Score:2)
Anybody notice how they've migrated towards con artists over the last decade or more?
I'm surprised their emails don't contain lines about buying gold or stocking up on survival gear! I'd add them mentioning end times, Armageddon, prophecy but I've seen them doing that already.
Perhaps the AI is already smarter than 1/3 of Americans?
One Channel (Score:2)
Constitutionally, it would be AWESOME if we applied some common sense to free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion and realize that in the private forum we have the absolute right to plug our ears and hum loudly.
About 5 years ago, when I still had digital cable (box) I went through and de-listed everything I had no interest in. All of the sports, 24-hour news, and super PAC channels.
It was a blissful silence and I was able to occasionally catch the second half of a movie. Now, I stream f
Waaa! I can't spread likes and hatred : ( (Score:2, Informative)
For the logic-impaired (Score:2)
It seems that most of the butthurt is coming from the virulently anti-Republican contingent here. Why would any of you (the anti-Republicans) have any meaningful first-hand experience with this sort of chicanery? Google has been caught repeatedly doing stuff like this, it continues to the present, and is easily proven. One of the more blatant examples of this is on Youtube with channels that focus on pro-Second-Amendment topics. They routinely report deep drops in subscribers at the same time regular vi
Spam rage vs Heuristic Censorship (Score:2)
Google relies on some very mysterious business partners in some very well shielded countries to filter out spam.
A little transparency would be a good thing... and whilst, it will probably reveal that the GOP filtering is totally appropriate and justified, I would like to see the justification.
The real thing that needs to be fixed (Score:2)
It sounds like Google's filtering is not working as well on "early month" Republican spam than late month spam. They should fix it so it detects and blocks more early-month spam.
If in fact Google's spam filtering is letting more Democrat spam through than Republican spam, they need to fix that as well, by increasing how much Democrat spam is blocked. Assuming things are targeted it sounds like left-leaning users have a legitimate complaint that they don't seem to get as good of a spam blocker as Republicans
RNC spams, complains about being labeled spam. (Score:2)
spam, spam, sausages & spam = fewer spam (Score:2)
for most of the month, nearly all of its emails end up in users' inboxes but at the end of the month, which is an important time for fund-raising, nearly all of their emails end up in spam folders
Well duh! That's when they're sending the most spam.
Likely than more RNC mail gets spammed (Score:2)
Given that the spam filter is driven by user actions, I can totally believe than more RNC mail gets spammed. My mother subscribed to a lot of Republican stuff, so I saw a lot of it when I cleaned up her affairs.
Their stuff mostly reads like something written by a televangelist. Read in a fake, quavery voice: "Donate now, or it's the end of civilization!" All appeal to emotion, and always, always begging for money. Like a televangelist looking to finance his second yacht. The stuff I've seen from the Demo
This is the old "work the ref" right-wing strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the old "work the ref" right-wing strategy. By whining aggressively when they don't get special treatment, they're trying to train everyone to go out of their way to appease them in order to not have to deal with the complaining. They've been doing it for decades to the news media, so they've trained the media just to repeat what right-wingers say without providing the context (e.g. that they're lying). And now they're trying to get their spam not to get spam filtered...
I've gotten so much GOP spam this year. (Score:3)
Re:That is normal for GMail (Score:5, Informative)
That is not my experience. I run my own mail server and have no deliverability issues to GMail users. I have SPF set up and I DKIM-sign my messages and I use DNSSEC on my domain name. These are, I suppose, hoops but they are not "basically impossible".
Re: (Score:2)
My organization has ~30,000 email customers. This means part of my professional life is tracking down deliverability problems (when they get escalated that far).
Google doesn't do anything we don't do- make sure your SPF is correct.
DKIM for anything official.
Setting this stuff will take some admin a couple hours of his life... once.
OP has no idea what they're talking about. Parent does.
Re:That is normal for GMail (Score:5, Informative)
If you simply send email to a gmail account using just the common Internet standards gmail will by default treat it as spam.
False. If you simply send email to a gmail account using internet standards common in 1999 gmail will by default treat it as spam.
If you use common internet standards from today such as implementation of DKIM, SPF, and DMARC then gmail will accept your mail just fine.
These hoops aren't "Google Defined" they are part of a global standard and apply to most email providers, and any semi-competent hosting provider will have these automatically set up for you. If you're setting up your own email server, then may I suggest a base level of competence and a book on the topic that wasn't written before the millennium bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Set your SPF correctly, and use DKIM and Google will let you right in.
I've directly had to solve Google deliverability problems for our own accounting email to customers.
I didn't have to suck anyone's dick, or pay anyone in vodka or cryptocurrency. Just setup your SPF and DKIM, and done.