3 ms·

> If you equate "rapist" with "spammer", you might be regarded as trivializing "rapist" accusations as being usually false and frivolous in the same way. I don

> If you equate "rapist" with "spammer", you might be regarded as trivializing "rapist" accusations as being usually false and frivolous in the same way. I don't think he was equating the two at a legal or moral level, just presenting an analogy with regards to: - The likelihood of false accusations being similar in both cases (higher than the norm) - The devastating social consequences of falsely accusing someone of either crime, even where no proof exists Having said that, there are circles where false accusations of "rape" are sometimes thrown around rather frivolously, and where the term is being stretched to include other lesser crimes, such as crimes of expression ("verbal rape") and sexual harassment. You may not be familiar with these circles, but they do exist. If you've ever heard someone use the term "he raped me with his eyes": this is the action that trivializes the actual crime of rape. Making the observation that this subculture exists in no way trivializes actual cases of rape. I think this may have been the intent of the analogy.

dalke 10y ago
Even when considered only as an analogy, and not the serious point about trivializing "rapist", it's a lousy analogy. Consider a panhandler asking you for money on the street, someone passing out fliers in a mall, a street hawker, or even someone asking for directions. These can all be unwanted physical interactions. Think also of the religious people who go door-to-door asking very politely if you've found everlasting life, or historically (thinking now of the Hare Krishnas and the movie 'Airplane') at an airport terminal. Or for that matter, someone working in a boiler room call centers. I submit that spamming is much closer to these unwanted public interactions than anything like rape. Furthermore, calling someone a spammer does not have "devastating social consequences", despite what Vachani said. For example, stand up at a conference and yell "the speaker is a spammer!" What devastating social consequences might the speaker face? Is it as devastating as calling someone a speeder, a pot smoker, a thief, a rapist, or a murderer?
- ghurtado 10y ago
  > I submit that spamming is much closer to these unwanted public interactions than anything like rape. None of those things are illegal, so you've already failed the most basic test for the analogy. Furthermore, you still seem to be missing the point that this is not an analogy between spamming and rape, but between falsely accusing someone of spamming and falsely accusing someone of rape. > Is it as devastating as calling someone a speeder, a pot smoker, a thief, a rapist, or a murderer? In your contrived hypothetical, any of that name-calling (because nobody could seriously call that an "accusation") would have the same consequences: none whatsoever for the target and being laughed out of the room for the "accuser". I'm sure you already realize that. Of course, this is not at all what anyone is talking about. We're talking about falsely accusing someone of spamming, in a credible manner, and from a position of authority, which is exactly what happened to the individual in the article. If you don't think this had any consequences for him, then may I suggest that you read the article. Surely you understand that there is a very big difference in consequences between yelling "spammer!" at the next person you see vs a multibillion dollar corporation suing you for being a spammer and sending their hordes of lawyers after you.
  - wwwdonohue 10y ago
    Many municipalities have laws against panhandling. NYC has one against "aggressive forms of panhandling." It just tends to not get prosecuted, kind of like rape.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Spamming is not illegal, if it follows the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. FB claimed that Power Ventures's actions fell under the CAN-SPAM Act, and was a violation of the act, and was a willful violation so FB could get 3x damages as restitution, plus attorney fees. There is nothing like that in rape law, where some rapes are legal and some are illegal. There are things like that in anti-peddling laws, which might allow only licensed peddlers in a region, or in telephone solicitation laws, which might restrict when calls can be made or prevent solicitors from calling people on a no-call list, or anti-bill posting laws which restrict posting a few public bulletin boards or kiosks, or anti-begging laws which prohibit aggressive panhandling. That's of course the legal distinction. Perhaps there is a cultural similarity in antipathy between the two that I don't recognize? You point about my hypothetical is valid. I was thinking more of conferences with an anti-sexual harassment policy which obligates the organizers to be more responsive to claims of rape than claims of murder, even if there is no other evidence. So, here's something more concrete. In http://www.swordandthescript.com/2014/06/linkedin-spam-reelseo/ http://www.swordandthescript.com/2014/06/linkedin-spam-reels... we see that Grant Crowell complained about "crass spam" by ReelSEO in advertising for their conference. He provided evidence of receiving on Linkedin, in one week, "the same message sent four different times, from three different people, including Greg Jarboe, co-founder of the marketing firm SEO-PR." ReelSEO (now known as Tubular Insights) responded to the complaint by by saying 'opt out'. This is not illegal spam under CAN-SPAM. However, and IMO, Crowell does correctly refer to it as spam. This is within the usual cultural definition of spamming. What are the "devastating social consequences" which resulted from that verified claim? I note that ReelSEO is still in business, under the new name "Tubular Insights". Should Crowell and others avoid using the term 'spammer' for anything other than verifiable CAN SPAM violations, because of these consequences? Now, imagine that someone made a claim of being raped, and had evidence to prove it. Do you really think that the reactions would be the same? (Nor can one "opt out" of rape, showing yet again it's a poor analogy.) As for "a multibillion dollar corporation suing you"; I look at how ACORN was shut down due to partially falsified and selectively edited videos when the ACORN members did nothing illegal or inappropriate. The devastation came from how FB's money and power could magnify any sort of FUD. Now, I can be wrong. Wikipedia tells me that ~1% of all spam really meets CAN SPAM's requirements, so there are a lot of spammers out there. Who else has faced the devastating social consequences of being called a spammer?

dalke 10y ago

Even when considered only as an analogy, and not the serious point about trivializing "rapist", it's a lousy analogy. Consider a panhandler asking you for money on the street, someone passing out fliers in a mall, a street hawker, or even someone asking for directions. These can all be unwanted physical interactions. Think also of the religious people who go door-to-door asking very politely if you've found everlasting life, or historically (thinking now of the Hare Krishnas and the movie 'Airplane') at an airport terminal. Or for that matter, someone working in a boiler room call centers. I submit that spamming is much closer to these unwanted public interactions than anything like rape. Furthermore, calling someone a spammer does not have "devastating social consequences", despite what Vachani said. For example, stand up at a conference and yell "the speaker is a spammer!" What devastating social consequences might the speaker face? Is it as devastating as calling someone a speeder, a pot smoker, a thief, a rapist, or a murderer?

ghurtado 10y ago
> I submit that spamming is much closer to these unwanted public interactions than anything like rape. None of those things are illegal, so you've already failed the most basic test for the analogy. Furthermore, you still seem to be missing the point that this is not an analogy between spamming and rape, but between falsely accusing someone of spamming and falsely accusing someone of rape. > Is it as devastating as calling someone a speeder, a pot smoker, a thief, a rapist, or a murderer? In your contrived hypothetical, any of that name-calling (because nobody could seriously call that an "accusation") would have the same consequences: none whatsoever for the target and being laughed out of the room for the "accuser". I'm sure you already realize that. Of course, this is not at all what anyone is talking about. We're talking about falsely accusing someone of spamming, in a credible manner, and from a position of authority, which is exactly what happened to the individual in the article. If you don't think this had any consequences for him, then may I suggest that you read the article. Surely you understand that there is a very big difference in consequences between yelling "spammer!" at the next person you see vs a multibillion dollar corporation suing you for being a spammer and sending their hordes of lawyers after you.
- wwwdonohue 10y ago
  Many municipalities have laws against panhandling. NYC has one against "aggressive forms of panhandling." It just tends to not get prosecuted, kind of like rape.
- dalke 10y ago
  Spamming is not illegal, if it follows the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. FB claimed that Power Ventures's actions fell under the CAN-SPAM Act, and was a violation of the act, and was a willful violation so FB could get 3x damages as restitution, plus attorney fees. There is nothing like that in rape law, where some rapes are legal and some are illegal. There are things like that in anti-peddling laws, which might allow only licensed peddlers in a region, or in telephone solicitation laws, which might restrict when calls can be made or prevent solicitors from calling people on a no-call list, or anti-bill posting laws which restrict posting a few public bulletin boards or kiosks, or anti-begging laws which prohibit aggressive panhandling. That's of course the legal distinction. Perhaps there is a cultural similarity in antipathy between the two that I don't recognize? You point about my hypothetical is valid. I was thinking more of conferences with an anti-sexual harassment policy which obligates the organizers to be more responsive to claims of rape than claims of murder, even if there is no other evidence. So, here's something more concrete. In http://www.swordandthescript.com/2014/06/linkedin-spam-reelseo/ http://www.swordandthescript.com/2014/06/linkedin-spam-reels... we see that Grant Crowell complained about "crass spam" by ReelSEO in advertising for their conference. He provided evidence of receiving on Linkedin, in one week, "the same message sent four different times, from three different people, including Greg Jarboe, co-founder of the marketing firm SEO-PR." ReelSEO (now known as Tubular Insights) responded to the complaint by by saying 'opt out'. This is not illegal spam under CAN-SPAM. However, and IMO, Crowell does correctly refer to it as spam. This is within the usual cultural definition of spamming. What are the "devastating social consequences" which resulted from that verified claim? I note that ReelSEO is still in business, under the new name "Tubular Insights". Should Crowell and others avoid using the term 'spammer' for anything other than verifiable CAN SPAM violations, because of these consequences? Now, imagine that someone made a claim of being raped, and had evidence to prove it. Do you really think that the reactions would be the same? (Nor can one "opt out" of rape, showing yet again it's a poor analogy.) As for "a multibillion dollar corporation suing you"; I look at how ACORN was shut down due to partially falsified and selectively edited videos when the ACORN members did nothing illegal or inappropriate. The devastation came from how FB's money and power could magnify any sort of FUD. Now, I can be wrong. Wikipedia tells me that ~1% of all spam really meets CAN SPAM's requirements, so there are a lot of spammers out there. Who else has faced the devastating social consequences of being called a spammer?