Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Austin, TX
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| What....I actually agree with AOL?
You can't say it's a free speech issue, the idea in no way limits what a person can say. It just keeps me from having to hear it. If AOL wants to cut down on unwanted spam by charging spammers to get their sh*t through, I say go for it. For that matter raise the rates.
My only concern is how they will classify the messages. If I send pictures to 5 family members, am I a bulk mailer? What exactly constitutes mass-marketing, and how will you define it today that spammers won't find a work around for tomorrow? I fear it will end up being similar to copyright protection....it does nothing for solving the problem, only makes it more difficult for legitimate use.
--
AMD X2 4800+ @2700Mhz/ MSI K8N Neo 4 Platinum SLI/ 2x 1024Mb Corsair XMS PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 7800GTs SLI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
Lets Golf
Premium
join:2006-01-05
Davenport, FL
| Good Point,
But with the statement about each email would only cost a fraction of a cent, then my guess would be that it has to be a lot of emails for it to be considered bulk email. I am thinking somewhere in the 1000's of emails to be considered "bulk". This idea would definitely cut down on spam. I wish all email companies would implement this, as my yahoo and earthlink are full of spam all the time.
The only downside would be to companies who have legit mailing lists, now having to pay tax for sending legit emails. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to Camelot One
Actually, you CAN say it's a free speech issue. In fact, the Supreme court ruled very clearly in 1978, in BANK OF BOSTON v. BELLOTTI, that the RIGHT TO LISTEN and the RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION are fundamental to free speech. If you take those rights away, then martin luther king could have been put in a 'designated area' for 'public safety', and the public would never have heard his speech. It's the same reason the government has such a hard time 'caging protesters' into 'designated area's' when they protest government action. You cannot give the right of free speech without also giving the right to listen to said speech.
Of course, as the listener, I'm not required to listen to the message, but I have the RIGHT to listen to the message. If AOL is blocking mail, without my specifically requesting it, then AOL is taking away my right to listen. If I specifically ask AOL to take away the spam, then there is no foul, but AOL unilaterally deciding that I can't listen to what the e-mail has to say is unconstitutional.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
a
@attbi.com
| reply to Lets Golf
So what about free webmail? This is only good for pay accounts. This idea by AOL is good since it is only a fraction of a cent, but for a spammer that can add up, but not for a home user. Even if it is 1/2 cent per email that is still resonable because most people don't send more than 200 emails per month. Hell my sent mail box has 280 emails total and I have had my gmail account for a year. I can't help, but wonder though if AOL's interests are genuine and not similar to telco greed where they just want a cut of the spammer's money for using their pipes. |
|
a
@attbi.com
 from:
TK Junk Mail 
| reply to G_Poobah
How is AOL the government, it is a private company and can do whatever the hell it pleases. They are not even stopping your emails. |
|
Pathfinder
Dazed Confused
Premium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to G_Poobah
AOL is not blocking your mail. If the company sending pays the fee then you get it. No different then the junk mail.
Would you accuse the USPS of blocking your mail by charging postage?
--
support the Hunley |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| Absolutely I would accuse the USPS if they treated my mail differently depending on who sent it. Chase bank sends me a credit card bill, and they pay for the .30 cent stamp. My sister sends me a personal note, and she only paid for a .25 cent stamp. Exact same size letter, exact same starting point. Oh, look in my mailbox. I only FIND the chase credit card bill, because my sister didn't pay MORE to deliver exactly the same thing (a letter). In effect, AOL is denying me the right to listen to what my sister has to say in her letter, because she did not pay them extra. However, Chase, who paid them extra, gets to 'speak' to me.
Now, in my opinion, if you don't see that as a complete and total infringement on free speech then you really don't understand the concept of free speech at all. (hint: the first word in 'free speech' is ??, oh yes.. FREE). Not free as in 'no cost', but free as in 'no discrimination against the messenger'
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
Pathfinder
Dazed Confused
Premium
join:2000-03-26
Mount Vernon, NY | Oh boy. A free civics lesson. As useful as the Viagra spam I get everyday.
--
support the Hunley |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY | Ouch, I suspect you could use a bit more of both. |
|
Jehu
d1Sux
Premium
join:2002-09-13
MA | reply to G_Poobah
Hi, Every single email service proveder out there is treating email differently depending on who sent it and what is in it. This is not specific to AOL. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to G_Poobah
You're digging deep now.
This has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. And the original free speech "right" was never intended to be bastardized as it has been into a "I can say anything, anytime, any place I want to" right.
You sending mail regardless of whether it is postal, email, courier, or pigeon is not a God given right protected by the US Constitution. If you want to send something, you have the right to secure the means to do so within the laws of the land and rules of the means you choose. If those rules require you to pay $100 per page or per kbps then that is what you will pay. If you don't like it, then find another method to get your "free speech" out. |
|
