Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...]

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

On 5/24/10 8:12 AM, der Mouse wrote:
> > I quite understand why you'd prefer to claim that [1] I do not
> > understand the definition of spam (which none of us argued, and we
> > based our discussion on) or that [2] I am not experienced enough to
> > understand it.
>
> Well, you are certainly exhibiting a rather.."unusual"..understanding
> of it - of the "bulk" leg of the tripod in particular.  Whether this is
> due to inexperience or stubbornness or what is actually pretty much
> irrelevant (though maybe interesting from a sociological perspective).

Quite. I find it fascinating that you refuse to even differentiate 
between spammers who illegally use resources such as botnets (i.e. 
compromised computers) and send completely forged emails with illegal 
scams in them, from emails sent by users through a web service that is 
equivalent to them, in their work environment, and sent each time 
specifically to one person whose email they type in.

No matter how much you dislike what Facebook are doing, your refusal to 
differentiate between the two examples is something I can't comprehend.

Further, you nor Rich specified complaints (which were backed up or 
followed up on) other than a generic dislike on how Facebook's emails 
work, other than the fact that they exist. This to me seems as not a 
serious argument, and therefore I now feel free to disregard your line 
of thinking as adhering to 1980s designs, before online services started 
connecting to each other in such a capacity.

I am okay with this, as myself I also adhere to some older thinking. 
What I can't accept is your lack of arguments other than ad hominem, and 
more to the point, your use of ad hominem at all which is simply 
unacceptable in online discussions, in my opinion. And I think it is 
rather childish of you to aim these at me.

Web invitations when done by user request, and without "nagging" or 
skipping opt-in, are an acceptable industry norm. Gmail does it. Yahoo 
does it. CNN does it. Those of them who do not adhere to these norms are 
treated as spammers. I recognize that anti-spammers have a heigher 
standard for email communication privacy and usage, and we can agree to 
disagree.

FYI, I checked and Facebook indeed sends repeated reminders well after 
30 days (I noticed they still send monthly reminders on a year-old 
invitation I made, which I then retracted) -- this is unacceptable, and 
a reasonable, specific, complaint against them.

        Gadi.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.