Thanks for pointing this out. I can’t believe I didn’t actually read the adjacent words. It does however serve to underscore the commercial value represented by this post and the associated project. Online gaming is an area that has some unique constraints on marketing, especially in the US and because of this it’s valid to have an increased suspicion of spam. It may be a good idea to have a think about the appropriate level of commerciality in articles before someone finds a clever and entirely reasonable way to link transhumanism with ‘Buy Viagra Online’
I would claim that the problem with spam is not the commercial value but rather the fact that it is off-topic. If someone really does have a clever and reasonable way to link transhumanism with the purchase of viagra, I would be curious to read it and would likely upvote it.
There may be some difference between the promotion of for-profit and not-for-profit ventures, but it is difficult to see. Information about a for-profit cryogenics enterprise would be far more interesting to many of us than a plea to improve the financial standing of the ICRC. I have not noticed any non-profits currently resorting to spam—but if one does, I see no reason it should be treated any differently than a commercial spam.
There’s a confluence between the commercial nature of spam and the off-topicness. I remember the fury at the early Green Card spam, and it seemed disproportionate.
I’ve since concluded that the fury was based in an accurate intuition and/or theory that the rewards for cheap advertising are so high that all signal will be swamped unless precautions are taken.
The thing that pisses me off the most about spam isn’t so much the cost of preventing it (though I’m sure I underestimate the cost) as the useful communication which has failed to happen as a result of spam—and the same hatred goes to trolls.
If it weren’t for spam, we’d have email directories. If you lost an email address or it had changed, you wouldn’t be dependent on crumb trails and social networks. It would be like looking up a phone number in a phone book, only more convenient. Note that we don’t have facilities like that for cell phone numbers, either.
Of course, it’s not just a problem of making contact—it’s all the messages which didn’t go through because contact didn’t happen and the legitimate messages which got blocked by spam filters.
I agree with this analysis. The specific case of “a commercial request that is on-topic and interesting” is much more costly than spam, making this a self-limiting event unlikely to turn into a problem. Spam’s annoyance is possible only because of the low cost of production/distribution.
Thanks for pointing this out. I can’t believe I didn’t actually read the adjacent words. It does however serve to underscore the commercial value represented by this post and the associated project. Online gaming is an area that has some unique constraints on marketing, especially in the US and because of this it’s valid to have an increased suspicion of spam. It may be a good idea to have a think about the appropriate level of commerciality in articles before someone finds a clever and entirely reasonable way to link transhumanism with ‘Buy Viagra Online’
I would claim that the problem with spam is not the commercial value but rather the fact that it is off-topic. If someone really does have a clever and reasonable way to link transhumanism with the purchase of viagra, I would be curious to read it and would likely upvote it.
There may be some difference between the promotion of for-profit and not-for-profit ventures, but it is difficult to see. Information about a for-profit cryogenics enterprise would be far more interesting to many of us than a plea to improve the financial standing of the ICRC. I have not noticed any non-profits currently resorting to spam—but if one does, I see no reason it should be treated any differently than a commercial spam.
There’s a confluence between the commercial nature of spam and the off-topicness. I remember the fury at the early Green Card spam, and it seemed disproportionate.
I’ve since concluded that the fury was based in an accurate intuition and/or theory that the rewards for cheap advertising are so high that all signal will be swamped unless precautions are taken.
The thing that pisses me off the most about spam isn’t so much the cost of preventing it (though I’m sure I underestimate the cost) as the useful communication which has failed to happen as a result of spam—and the same hatred goes to trolls.
If it weren’t for spam, we’d have email directories. If you lost an email address or it had changed, you wouldn’t be dependent on crumb trails and social networks. It would be like looking up a phone number in a phone book, only more convenient. Note that we don’t have facilities like that for cell phone numbers, either.
Of course, it’s not just a problem of making contact—it’s all the messages which didn’t go through because contact didn’t happen and the legitimate messages which got blocked by spam filters.
I agree with this analysis. The specific case of “a commercial request that is on-topic and interesting” is much more costly than spam, making this a self-limiting event unlikely to turn into a problem. Spam’s annoyance is possible only because of the low cost of production/distribution.