Gmail Launches Pilot To Keep Campaign Emails Out of Spam (axios.com) 138
Google is launching a pilot program to keep emails from political campaigns from going to users' spam folders this week, the company told Axios. From the report: Google asked the Federal Election Commission in June if a program that would let campaigns emails bypass spam filters, instead giving users the option to move them to spam first, would be legal under campaign finance laws. Despite hundreds of negative comments submitted to the FEC arguing against it, the FEC approved the program in August. Eligible committees, abiding by security requirements and best practices as outlined by Google, can now register to participate.
Google has come under fire that its algorithms unfairly target conservative content across its services, and that its Gmail service filters more Republican fundraising and campaign emails to spam. This is partly based on a study from North Carolina State University, though its authors say it has been misconstrued. "We expect to begin the pilot with a small number of campaigns from both parties and will test whether these changes improve the user experience, and provide more certainty for senders during this election period," Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, told Axios. "We will continue to listen and respond to feedback as the pilot progresses." He added: "During the pilot, users will be in control through a more prominent unsubscribe button."
Google has come under fire that its algorithms unfairly target conservative content across its services, and that its Gmail service filters more Republican fundraising and campaign emails to spam. This is partly based on a study from North Carolina State University, though its authors say it has been misconstrued. "We expect to begin the pilot with a small number of campaigns from both parties and will test whether these changes improve the user experience, and provide more certainty for senders during this election period," Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, told Axios. "We will continue to listen and respond to feedback as the pilot progresses." He added: "During the pilot, users will be in control through a more prominent unsubscribe button."
this is an PAID EMAIL from TRUMP for 2024 (Score:2)
this is an PAID EMAIL from TRUMP for 2024
Don't forget to vote trump.
No I don't want any of this shit.
Re:this is an PAID EMAIL from TRUMP for 2024 (Score:4, Insightful)
this is an PAID EMAIL from TRUMP for 2024 Don't forget to vote trump.
No I don't want any of this shit.
Don't worry. From what I hear, Donald Trump would never PAY for such a thing.
Re: (Score:3)
But he's not above letting others pay for these things on his behalf. Send donations now so that he can continue asking for donations!
Re: (Score:3)
What will they do with the political emails I have specifically filtered directly to the trash?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: this is an PAID EMAIL from TRUMP for 2024 (Score:2)
Use Thunderbird as mail client. It has a logic that can learn what's spam or not that works ok.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, because it's a relatively unimportant issue and some of that issue's proposed "solutions" might even conflict with more important agendas. I'm sorry people are killing themselves with dangerous drugs, but it's their choice to make. People face plenty of problems which they didn't choose, where they are truly helpless, unconsenting victims.
I remain a single-issue voter, and that issue is civil liberties. Your issue and mine might even conflict
Re: (Score:3)
OTOH if your people solve the problem by legalizing everything, thereby undercutting black marketers and causing the drug supply to become safer (i.e. correctly labeled and measured), we could ally at that time.
The only way to make fentanyl safer is to make it not fentanyl. It isn't insanely dangerous because of impurities. The more pure it is, the more dangerous it is.
(But I agree that it's a very bad choice for a single issue campaign, because pretty much every plan to "solve" the problem will amount to more War On Some Drugs, and we already know that's far, far worse than the drugs themselves.)
Re: (Score:2)
My Province is trying to handle the poisoning problem a couple ways, safe injection sites, where the death toll over a decade is zero and legalizing heroin, which has been decriminalized to a degree.
Give people a (limited) supply of pharmaceutical grade heroin for realistic prices and a whole bunch of problems are solved, no more poisoning from street drugs and junkies can concentrate on stuff like working instead of where their next hit is coming from.
Re: (Score:2)
The right to abortion is a downstream right of bodily autonomy, granted by the constitution under the word "liberty". It's right there in the preamble, not even an amendment. You don't have to get deep into the document to find it.
You have a right, as a citizen, to do what you want with your body, so long as it doesn't violate the rights of another citizen. The unborn are not citizens. They're not even people, as they have no long term memory capability or ability of rational thought.
It's pretty clear. It's
Re:Voting strategy from Scott Adams (Score:5, Interesting)
The fentanyl issue is a pretty good one to go for.
I understand why single-issue voting can be effective, but if I made a list of the top 100 political issues I care about, fentanyl wouldn't make the list.
It's something that the government has the power to fix
So what is the obvious fix?
Re:Voting strategy from Scott Adams (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulate recreational drugs, instead of handing a monopoly on anything other than alcohol and tobacco to the criminal world.
Tackling poverty with things like wealth redistribution and proper socialised healthcare would help a lot too.
Re: (Score:2)
State governments can do stuff too.
And I'm not sure where you get the idea that socialised healthcare would mean outlawing private healthcare.
Maybe you really are rich enough to lose out under wealth redistribution. But if 80% of the population would greatly benefit, with only 1% still being quite wealthy but no longer mega-rich, then that 80% of the population being able to get the government to implement the idea by voting for it is kind of what democracy is for. As it stands, government runs a system whi
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that. I don't want to PAY for both tho....and if there is that socialized medicine, I'd be paying for that AND Private insurance on top of that if I wanted it.
I'm quite happy with what I currently have and don't want to pay more just to get/keep what I currently have.
And if there is socialized medicine, I won't be able to opt out of it...for taxation OR information issues. They'll have
Re:Voting strategy from Scott Adams (Score:5, Insightful)
The Feds need to just end the farce that is "The War on Drugs" and start rolling back all the civil rights abusing legislation that was passed to support it. They aren't any closer to ending drug abuse than when they started this nonsense in 1914.
Re: (Score:2)
I assume all the civil rights violating rules will be kept for "the war on terror" which is similar BS. No, I don't trust people with lots of money and power to act in humanity's best interests or mine. If they can read my personal messages then ALL of theirs should be public too. And all conversations should be recorded to catch bias or corruption.
Re:Voting strategy from Scott Adams (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Voting strategy from Scott Adams (Score:5, Insightful)
Slightly off topic, but Scott Adams has put forth the proposal [scottadamssays.com] that everyone should pivot to being a single-issue voter, and that single issue should be the fentanyl epidemic.
Wow that sounds kind of nice, because fentanyl is really bad and all, but...
It also sounds like one quick-ass way to fascism. Why don't all the voters just ignore fascism for a while and vote on this completely independent issue, which is already clearly managed by laws we have in place, it's just not being addressed well due to severe lack of funding?
Democracy will be a hell of a lot harder to win back than it is to keep. Focus instead on fighting fascism, and fight those fucking grifters who keep taking money out of our nation so it can't be used by the government to more effectively fight problems like the fentanyl epidemic. Except, Scott Adams certainly *won't* tell you to do that, because at the moment he's one of those rich grifting assholes and doesn't want to lose any of his "property" - he employs little jackass tricks like this instead, so that you will give up *your* property and continue to get miserably little in return.
Re: (Score:3)
Slightly off topic, but Scott Adams has put forth the proposal [scottadamssays.com] that everyone should pivot to being a single-issue voter, and that single issue should be the fentanyl epidemic.
Wow that sounds kind of nice, because fentanyl is really bad and all, but...
I largely agree with the democracy issue, but the fentanyl issue is largely a problem of the US's own making.
By cracking down hard on recreational drugs, you've created the market for the unprescribed use of opiates such as oxycodone and fentanyl, so called "hillbilly heroin". As these are not explicitly illegal drugs, rather prescription pain killers that can be used illegally it's much more difficult to police and patrol. Which is the source of the problem.
If you weren't locking up pot smokers in fe
Re:Voting strategy from Scott Adams (Score:5, Insightful)
Scott Adams kind of went off the deep end into the Trump pool.
Voting for single issues can work for some local elections like your town select board, but it's not going to work at the national level. If your options are "guy who doesn't have the best plan for some fringe issue" vs "guy who has a plan for fringe issue, but also doesn't believe in democracy or civil rights", then you're working against your own interests long term by voting for the second one because you may not even get the chance to vote for someone else.
Even worse, a politician could say they have a plan, then take no action on it, or just lie. We saw that again and again with Republicans and their health care plan which they were just about to unveil, then nothing. It was all a lie to get votes.
Re: (Score:2)
America is the only country in the world having a fentanyl epidemic. It seems like that would be a relatively easy problem to fix.
Re: (Score:3)
Slightly off topic, but Scott Adams has put forth the proposal [scottadamssays.com] that everyone should pivot to being a single-issue voter, and that single issue should be the fentanyl epidemic.
I propose that all the Fentanyl be administered to politicians.
The government has the power to fix the crisis? (Score:2)
Really? What are you suggesting?
Re: (Score:2)
The rule of thumb: when asked for your vote, say you're a single-issue voter who will vote for the candidate with the best plan for solving the fentanyl issue. Not platitudes, not "I will look into it", but an actual plan. If a candidate can not outline a plan with specific steps, explain that your vote will go another candidate.
In the long run, the single issue that would have a far greater effect on the country, is voting for the candidate who has a plan for enacting term limits. Issues come and go, but you barely need opposing thumbs to understand the problems that remain with entrenched systemic corruption.
The fentanyl issue is a pretty good one to go for. It's something that the government has the power to fix and it's a tremendous humanitarian problem in the US.
The War on Drugs has been raging for decades. Do you truly understand your government? Take a good hard look at the legal-but-deadly drugs they fully support as they demonizing harmless ones. That and a multi-decade drug
Re: (Score:2)
Just vote for the candidate who promises to make all bulk e-mail opt-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Just vote for the candidate who promises to make all bulk e-mail opt-in.
Just vote for the candidate who doesn't lie about campaign promises and pretty much everything else.
I'm certain almost every candidate fits that description, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If a candidate can not outline a plan with specific steps, explain that your vote will go another candidate.
Nice idea.. Suppose neither candidate has a plan? What do you do then? Vote third-party? Good way to waste your vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Slightly off topic, but Scott Adams has put forth the proposal [scottadamssays.com] that everyone should pivot to being a single-issue voter, and that single issue should be the fentanyl epidemic.
If you get your politics from the fucking cartoons, this is how stupid a thing you'll end up with.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to voters getting their politics from social media
These are the only options you can imagine?
You're just blowing shit out your ass, you're not even trying to think before you speak, or to make a reasoned point. Just a talking horse dumping a load.
Re: (Score:2)
What he wants to do there is distract people from using democracy to try to get some of that wealth stolen from workers and hoarded by the super-rich, redistributed to ordinary people. I'm guessing he's pretty rich himself.
A better single issue would be something like "nobody needs more than $100,000,000. So give the excess to the poorest people in the country." (The climate emergency would be another good single issue.)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...I'm thumbing through my copy of the US Constitution and I just don't see where the federal govt. has that power granted to them, by the limited, enumerated powers that the constitution grants the Feds.
Re: (Score:2)
"Team Red" and "Team Blue" have been creating and pushing such wedge issues for nearly as long as they've been a duopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You propose an impossible situation. There is a less than zero percent chance that Donald Trump himself could have a plan to tackle ANY issue, and even less of a chance that he could articulate a plan put together by "his people" were he willing to listen to them. That said, even if this fairytale land of make believe existed, if it's still the same Donald Trump that we had as president for four years that essentially thumbed his nose at democracy and wiped his ass with the flag? No. I would not vote fo
Re: (Score:2)
If you're intent in living in fantasyland, at least pick a good fantasy. How about have everyone vote for who is the best candidate from any party for all of his or her potential constituents of all parties and in cases like state or national offices who is most likely to work together with all other politicians for the greater good of all the state or of all the country. That means that sometimes their own constituents lose out for the greater good. It should also mean that sometimes their own constituents
It is SPAM (Score:5, Insightful)
But politicians want money and so they send out these ridiculous emails and texts. Several time a day. Begging for money. Google is MS 25 years ago. Very badly behaved and under investigation. So they need give the politicians what they want. Spam that users cannot ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
Spam that users cannot ignore.
RTFA. You can turn on filtering for political spam by clicking one checkbox.
I am feeling a distinct lack of outrage about this.
Re: (Score:2)
I am feeling a distinct lack of outrage about this.
Yeah, so am I, but opt-out spam is, in fact, spam.
The good news is, if they can reliably identify political spam well enough to bypass spam filters, they can reliably filter it out if we can opt out. If they actually live up to their promises. (And we know how well Google does that.)
Re: (Score:2)
Spam that users cannot ignore.
RTFA. You can turn on filtering for political spam by clicking one checkbox.
I am feeling a distinct lack of outrage about this.
Ya, but will that banner/button show up for people who use IMAP/POP with, say, Thunderbird? If so, then they're mucking with the content of mail being sent to people. If not, then people have to fuck around with Gmail in the browser. From TFA:
Users will see a banner on the first email from participants in the program, asking if they want to keep seeing the messages, unsubscribe or report as spam.
Re: It is SPAM (Score:2)
You can teach Thunderbird to mark it as spam.
Re: (Score:2)
You can teach Thunderbird to mark it as spam.
Sure, but since I didn't ask for those types of email, they're spam and the shouldn't get that far.
Since Google *clearly* has the ability to filter political email now, they should provide a server-side setting to allow users to specifically enable it, but they won't because everyone would enable it and senders wouldn't participate in whatever scam Google is cooking up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Such spam should be targeted at US "citizens". Very few of the rest of us should be targeted.
The question really is, "How can they tell?"
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed on it being SPAM. And if their filter stops working then their email product becomes replaceable. It's time to teach them some economics.
I never sign up for any of these emails. And my mother donates a small amount to DNC and somehow they mistook my email address for hers. Then they decided to SPAM me for people in far away states.
It IS spam! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is asinine. Political campaign emails are almost always "unsolicited bulk email" - the very definition of spam.
Just stop. Spam filters exist for a reason. Unwanted emails from political candidates is one of them.
And besides, who decides what is a "political campaign", and what is not? I don't need Google finding yet another way to be the arbiter of truth, thank you very much.
Re: (Score:2)
One man's Spam(tm) is another man's canned spiced ham-like substance.
Re: (Score:2)
Political campaign emails are almost always "unsolicited bulk email" - the very definition of spam.
The difference is that regular spam tries to sell you fake stuff, include trojan attachments. They play no useful role in society, they mostly are electronic fraud. They also try to be difficult to filter manually. Political emails, despite unsolicited, play a legitimate role in society in promoting exchange of ideas and participation. They are also easy to filter out using keywords. Classifying political emails together with "Order V1agra" spam would be an action against the foundations of democracy.
What w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Political emails, despite unsolicited, play a legitimate role in society in promoting exchange of ideas and participation.
That's got to be the more naive thing bit of full in this entire discussion. That is, literally, the exact opposite of the purpose, and effect, of political spam. It is intended to raise money from people who already agree with the candidate (or believe they do, at any rate), and reinforce those beliefs by making the recipient more resistant to any conflicting view.
The exact opposite of what political spam does.
Re:It IS spam! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me guess. You're a politician yourself.
Political emails may play a "legitimate" role but it should be down to an individual to decide if they want to receive it or not. Otherwise, it's just unsolicited which makes it, well, SPAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Political emails may play a "legitimate" role but it should be down to an individual to decide if they want to receive it or not.
Agreed, but how is an email provider going to guess which party emails you have subscribed to?
Let me guess. You're a politician yourself.
Engineer here. But I am not from USA, maybe you have a bigger spam problem than I have.
Re: (Score:3)
The email provider should have an opt-in setting on the account level.
> Yes, I want to subscribe to the new political campaing exclusion model.
> No, I don't want this crap. Filter everything just like you did before.
A political engineer then. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. If they're unsolicited, they're still spam, still garbage, still sent by garbage people, and still 100% illegitimate.
Re: (Score:2)
Political emails play no useful role in society, they are electronic fraud, like all politicians.Classifying political emails together with "Order V1agra" spam would be an action for the foundations of democracy.
What would be helpful is automatically populated Liars folder or tag so you can easily have a good laugh without mixing them with the legitimate spam.
There, much better.
Re: (Score:3)
The argument "all politicians bad" is 1) one justification that single-party proponents have used in countries with single-party rule and 2) a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it entices the bad people to grab their opportunity and good people to avoid politics. This makes me very worried for the state of democracy in USA. When a large portion of society shares this opinion, the last nail on the coffin is electing someone who thinks like that, abolishing parties and becoming dictator-for-life.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me very worried for the state of democracy in USA.
You shouldn't be worried about the state of democracy in the US.
It's already dead, and has been for decades.
The only question now is whether the dictatorship will be a theocracy or not.
Re: (Score:3)
In the USA, campaign emails are explicitly excepted from the legal definition of spam, as defined in the CAN-SPAM act. Yes, that is the actual name. Obviously it means that the congresscreeps that passed the piece of shit CAN-SPAM you.
Bias? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong Solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Eligible committees, abiding by security requirements and best practices as outlined by Google, can now register to participate."
Meaning they're not trying to read content to decide this (which could be subjective in some ways).
I mean it's possible they could try to only allow certain people, but I doubt it. Sure they might remove future access if a message breaks some limit, like suggesting violence. And I'm sure someone will claim they're being censored when they fail to setup the feature correctly (PE
Fuck off (Score:5, Insightful)
The only political emails I receive are from American politicians and "special interest groups".
I haven't yet succeeded in being unsubscribed from these emails - the unsubscribe link works, but I still get the emails.
I am not American, I am not eligible to vote in America, and I have no interest in the whining of American politicians about how much money they need to defeat their evil opponent, but I cant stop the emails coming - it quite literally is spam, and here we have Google saying that I cant rely on my spam filter any more.
So, fuck you Google for putting this in place. You are part of the problem. Time to move my last bits off of Gmail.
Re:Fuck off (Score:4, Insightful)
The "unsubscribe" links are there to verify that they reached a valid email. Thus they will put your name on a list to sell to others, even if they do unsubscribe you when they feel like it. My gut feeling is that it's safest to just ignore them all rather than try to unsubscribe. Spammers are just like advertisers, in that they have no moral qualms; they would tattoo ads on your grandmother if they could find her.
Re: (Score:2)
You would hope that official campaigns wouldnt do that sort of thing, or that it wouldnt be legal for them to do that sort of thing - I dont click unsubscribe on anything that looks remotely dodgy, but if its an official campaign email then theoretically it should be safe.
Re: (Score:3)
You would hope that official campaigns wouldnt do that sort of thing, or that it wouldnt be legal for them to do that sort of thing
Only if you were born yesterday.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI I never contributed to Trump's campaign, AND yet they e-mail me. I have clicked the "Unsubscribe" link on their mailings many times, and they continue to send me new e-mails. I have stopped bothering with the Unsubscribe links from their mailing lists which apparently are expanding every other month, and just hit Report Spam immediately now.
Re: (Score:2)
I get ten times the amount of spam from GOP, email and snail mail, than Democrats. Not counting local election where you're flooded with everything. Of the democratic email I think most of it is due to someone else with a similar email to mine because they keep using the wrong name and with ads and campaigns for a place 3 states away. But the rest of the political email and snail mail I think is because my mom signed me up to stuff, or else they're all deliberately lying when they say "here's the info yo
Re: (Score:2)
The American Red Cross continues to email me, even though I've attempted to remove myself from their list.
Algorithms? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And by "concerted effort" we're talking about, I didn't ask for this email, so I click "spam" because it is unsolicited bulk mail.
So ... (Score:2)
Feel Free... (Score:2)
Google, please feel free to hist the "prominent unsubscribe button" for me now. I can tell you for certain that I do not need to wait to see that spam in my inbox before wanting to toss it out...
While you're at it, could you also take care of those one-line text emails w/ embedded pics for all kinds of things from fake contests through penis enlargement pills... No matter how many times I tell you that crap is spam, you seem to only consider whether I thought the actual product was the spam, not the actual
Only if... (Score:2)
Only if I ALSO get the option to move them ALL to spam.
If google is intentionally allowing "unsolicited paid advertisements" (the literal definition of spam) into my inbox and I don't have the option to opt-out of that spam, then maybe there's a bigger problem here.
Campaign finance "law" might be part of the problem too. Just sayin.
Because the conservatives ARE spamming (Score:5, Insightful)
Gmail service filters more Republican fundraising and campaign emails to spam.
Many years ago I made the mistake of contributing to a republican campaign. In the past i've contributed to both republican and democrat campaigns.
I unsubscribed from their mailings. I get nothing from the democrat campaigns, But the Republicans are still spamming me despite "Unsubscribing" half a dozen times they continue to spam.
If I Report their fundraising attempts I continue to get as spam that's because IT IS SPAM, and emails like this are MOST ALWAYS UNWANTED. The democrat campaign groups are Not spamming me, Only the Republican ones are, Therefore... IT is 100% Fair that the republicans are being marked as spam more.
Re: (Score:2)
I unsubscribed from their mailings. I get nothing from the Democrat campaigns, But the Republicans are still spamming me despite "Unsubscribing" half a dozen times they continue to spam.
And, if people don't respect your Inbox, how likely are they to respect you?
Re: (Score:2)
And, if people don't respect your Inbox, how likely are they to respect you?
Well, I assume it's negligence on the candidates part. The HTML emails look like Internet Infomercial mails cobbled together on short notice by a 5th Grader trying to sell the latest "Make money scheme" or Magical pills that are scientifically proven to solve all health problems. - Clearly they entrust the operation of their campaigns to an organization who ends up just pick up the book from internet spammers while the Cand
Re: (Score:2)
The democrat campaign groups are Not spamming me
You are lucky. The way I have seen Democrat campaigns work is that they will honor an unsubscribe request but will sell your email to several other Democrat campaigns. Yet, I don't think they are breaking any laws, because there is no button "Unsubscribe and don't share my email either". So I am guaranteed to receive various campaign requests in perpetuity.
Re: (Score:2)
But the Republicans are still spamming me despite "Unsubscribing" half a dozen times they continue to spam.
you can say what you want of GDPR, but my experience is that it greatly decreased spam: with GDPR, or you could sue the hell out of them.
The problem of spam is it is free to implement, so even a very small success rate makes it cost-effective to implement. Now if you introduce fines into the equation, it makes SPAM not a viable option (at least for legitimate business).
I leave in Europe and since GDPR, i haven't seen an unsubscribe button (now mandatory) at the end of an email which has not been working.
It does not solve the vigara spam and such (as it is ), but those have been easily detected for like 20 years now.
This.
I was spammed mercilessly up until GDPR day... then most of it went away. The companies who I wanted sending me commercial email (mostly airlines, a few other businesses that I'd like to repeat business with as well) didn't bother as they were already GDPR compliant. One company (Green Motion [car rental]) spammed me several times a day up until the date of the GDPR. I'm sure I wasn't the only hoping they didn't stop so the GDPR smacked them down.
Fortunately here in the UK, political entities eit
Improve user experience / provide more certainty (Score:2)
"We expect to begin the pilot with a small number of campaigns from both parties and will test whether these changes improve the user experience, and provide more certainty for senders during this election period," ...
For "improve user experience" do they mean for the senders of this political spam or the recipients, 'cause if it's the latter I can't make a prediction right now and it's not good for the senders. Also, if I didn't ask for, or previously agree to, email from someone, then it's spam and I don't care about providing "more certainty for senders", unless it's certainty that I won't receive their spam.
Spam works - people are stupid (Score:2)
The reality is that a small proportion of spam emails achieve their target, so it makes sense for our lords and masters in the elite to go on doing it. There's no obvious answer to this problem,
EASY FIX (Score:3)
Make this hurt them: Forward every single political SPAM you get directly to Sundar Pichai.
Suggestion (Score:2)
Since Google *clearly* has the ability to filter political spam -- I mean, unsolicited political emails -- now, I suggest they provide a server-side setting to allow users to specifically enable this. Obviously, they won't because (basically) everyone would enable it and senders wouldn't register/participate and whatever scam Google is cooking up won't work like they want it to.
On the other hand, if this is about people not receiving political email that they consented / signed up to get, then that's an
Re: (Score:2)
How about we get rid of ALL SPAM instead? (Score:2)
How to recognize "legitimate" political ads? (Score:2)
Best practice is to not open any political email. If you want to know what positions a candidate claims they will take, then go to their campaign site.
Keep campaign spam out of emails (Score:2)
Don't use Gmail.
Opt Out Should at Least be an Option (Score:2)
Users will see a banner on the first email from participants in the program, asking if they want to keep seeing the messages, unsubscribe or report as spam.
This pilot program "unsubscribe" option must never go away. More importantly, the banner should give users the option to unsubscribe from all political ads, not just those coming from a particular political participant. Otherwise each party will just generate dozens of participants separately registered with Google and you'll have to opt out of each one, getting spammed in the process. I can't see any argument against a global unsubscribe option, unless you're a political campaigner. At worst, make peop
Politicians and campaigners can get in the sea. (Score:2)
I hate politicians with the fire of a thousand suns. I really do. I donty want fscking spam. I've spent half my life defending small business and community group IT systems on savagely restrained budgets from this curse.
So Google DELIBERATELY nerfing them to appease the mewling cries of the political class does nothing exccept remind us that we mere mortals do NOT have the power.
What Google SHOULD be doing is saying "Shut the fuck up. unsolicit
What about political spam to non-US accounts? (Score:2)
I live in Europe but my Gmail address is blindly given out by people who live in the USA as if it is their own. Most of the time I tag it as spam and move on.
My fear with Google's approach is that I will now get political spam that they've signed up for (which is of no relevance to me) and there is no way for me to mark it as spam.
SPAM (Score:2)
Slimy Politicians Asking for Money
Campaign emails ARE spam (Score:2)
I never opted in.
Re: (Score:2)
What I want is a way for spammers to PAY ME TO MESSAGE ME, then a filter to send those messages to the trash.
In contrast to normal E-Mail... (Score:2)
... from normal mailservers without HTML or other typical signs of spam. Those E-Mails tend to land in "Spam" by default.
Haha. (Score:2)
...And I'm launching a filter to ensure that every single one goes directly into my spam-that-will-automatically-be-deleted-in-2-days folder.
Re: (Score:2)
If you leave spam out of it, all other political advertising is obviously protected by the First Amendment.
The people who sell advertising time and space have the right to use their property to run political ads.
The people who contract with them have the right to use their services.
Political speech is basically the epitome of "free speech".
The problem with spam is it's an act of vandalism, using the property of others without consent.
But now Google at least consents to this.
Re: (Score:3)
But now Google at least consents to this.
As is so often the case with self-regulation, they're doing to to avoid being drug into court on a matter where they can't possibly win.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell is a "voter guide"?
I've never heard of that one before....
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in our locality a neutral party - I think it's League of Women Voters - makes up a current set of questions they think would be appropriate for each office on the ballot and send it out to all the candidates. Those that answer are published in a Voter's Guide in the newspaper. That's the idea, in case you weren't being disingenuous.
The questions sometimes aren't great and might not be what you'd ask the politicians, but every candidate has a chance to answer or not. Those who choose not to answer get
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry - hit the wrong button. I'd add that this is in contrast to a Voter's Guide that simply lists candidates that support or fail to support a particular single issue. Those aren't particularly useful as most offices don't have or aren't supposed to have an influence on most single issues. I don't particularly care if my school board member or local college trustee is pro-choice for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, I wasn't kidding....I'd never heard of this before.
Thanks for the info, that's actually a GREAT service and idea that group is doing for you locally. Wish it was s