3 ms·

I find it funny the article implies this only happens across international borders, and would otherwise be policed and stopped if it only happened within the US

I find it funny the article implies this only happens across international borders, and would otherwise be policed and stopped if it only happened within the US. I receive unwanted junk mail daily and it isn't even addressed to me, but to 'Current Resident'. The real solution is to allow residents to whitelist or blacklist mail. Or better yet tie mail to people and organizations, not places, and allow people to route whatever mail wherever they want.

khedoros1 9y ago
Ads are different than Chinese "brushing" packages. Brushing is apparently a crime. Sending you ads isn't.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  There's a pretty sizable distinction between 'legal/illegal' and 'right/wrong'.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    Of course there is, but I don't consider unsolicited advertising inherently immoral, while I would consider fraudulently gaining a business advantage dishonest and immoral.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
evincarofautumn 9y ago
I don’t know if this’d work at all, but I’ve idly considered the possibility of starting a grassroots “return to sender” campaign for junk mail. As it is, the postal service is paid to deliver all of that spam—but maybe it would no longer be cost-effective if everyone just said “nope, send it back” whenever possible. As it is, I just recycle all of it, but it still probably represents a sizable environmental impact in terms of materials, printing, delivery, recycling, and landfills, which we could entirely do away with.
- oasisbob 9y ago
  When I was in college I would do this with all the credit card offers received, or anything else I found offensive, if it had a return envelope. All the paper they sent would go back in the return envelope, along with a handful of pennies, and maybe a guitar string or two taped across the top flap. I'm sure most of them cost several dollars in postage to get back.
mac01021 9y ago
They could also require that any transaction with USPS must use up at least 5 minutes of the sender's time, and have the cost of a transaction increase with the square of the number of items sent in that transaction. (or some scheme like that).

khedoros1 9y ago

Ads are different than Chinese "brushing" packages. Brushing is apparently a crime. Sending you ads isn't.

leggomylibro 9y ago
There's a pretty sizable distinction between 'legal/illegal' and 'right/wrong'.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  Of course there is, but I don't consider unsolicited advertising inherently immoral, while I would consider fraudulently gaining a business advantage dishonest and immoral.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

evincarofautumn 9y ago

I don’t know if this’d work at all, but I’ve idly considered the possibility of starting a grassroots “return to sender” campaign for junk mail. As it is, the postal service is paid to deliver all of that spam—but maybe it would no longer be cost-effective if everyone just said “nope, send it back” whenever possible. As it is, I just recycle all of it, but it still probably represents a sizable environmental impact in terms of materials, printing, delivery, recycling, and landfills, which we could entirely do away with.

oasisbob 9y ago
When I was in college I would do this with all the credit card offers received, or anything else I found offensive, if it had a return envelope. All the paper they sent would go back in the return envelope, along with a handful of pennies, and maybe a guitar string or two taped across the top flap. I'm sure most of them cost several dollars in postage to get back.

mac01021 9y ago

They could also require that any transaction with USPS must use up at least 5 minutes of the sender's time, and have the cost of a transaction increase with the square of the number of items sent in that transaction. (or some scheme like that).