4 ms·

I doesn't seem like a joke to me. It seems like a sincere way to filter out bad actors.

by kleer001 6y ago

mdorazio 6y ago
...by being a bad actor yourself? I'm with the parent poster, I don't get it.
- yumraj 6y ago
  Context matters. A bad actor towards spammers and a bad actor towards your legitimate customers are not the same thing. A bad actor towards spammers, is being a good actor towards their legitimate customers.
  - mdorazio 6y ago
    Thank you for taking the time to respond instead of just downvoting. However, this is an Ends Justifies the Means argument, which I have always disagreed with and also disagree with here.
mola 6y ago
OP description seemed like it was mainly a gimmick for him to get media attention at the expanse of other people.
- nate 6y ago
  I think the original site might make it more clear. But the forbes article might help: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathankontny/2018/02/27/trick-a-journalist%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe-next-innovation-in-email-marketing/#578f18b81d25 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathankontny/2018/02/27/trick-a... "Treating journalists like suckers" or "stalking them" isn't the same demographic as "folks who are disgruntled with journalists". And really, what "expense"? They weren't outed. They lost nothing but possible future use of an email tool we produced (we found no current users signing up for trickajournalist.com). And as for the intent of the site. It was a lot of things. But first and foremost it was to raise an awareness of how bad email has become. People are doing awful things with email. All the automation, cold email targeting, etc. I wanted to put some satire out so maybe some folks operating sites might take pause at what they're offering, and who they're offering it to. I wanted to raise a novel method of how to deal with things like this. I wanted to raise how easy it is to promote awful tools like this was even when ads are supposed to be human moderated on a lot of places.

I doesn't seem like a joke to me. It seems like a sincere way to filter out bad actors.

mdorazio 6y ago

...by being a bad actor yourself? I'm with the parent poster, I don't get it.

yumraj 6y ago
Context matters. A bad actor towards spammers and a bad actor towards your legitimate customers are not the same thing. A bad actor towards spammers, is being a good actor towards their legitimate customers.
- mdorazio 6y ago
  Thank you for taking the time to respond instead of just downvoting. However, this is an Ends Justifies the Means argument, which I have always disagreed with and also disagree with here.

mola 6y ago

OP description seemed like it was mainly a gimmick for him to get media attention at the expanse of other people.

nate 6y ago
I think the original site might make it more clear. But the forbes article might help: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathankontny/2018/02/27/trick-a-journalist%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Athe-next-innovation-in-email-marketing/#578f18b81d25 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathankontny/2018/02/27/trick-a... "Treating journalists like suckers" or "stalking them" isn't the same demographic as "folks who are disgruntled with journalists". And really, what "expense"? They weren't outed. They lost nothing but possible future use of an email tool we produced (we found no current users signing up for trickajournalist.com). And as for the intent of the site. It was a lot of things. But first and foremost it was to raise an awareness of how bad email has become. People are doing awful things with email. All the automation, cold email targeting, etc. I wanted to put some satire out so maybe some folks operating sites might take pause at what they're offering, and who they're offering it to. I wanted to raise a novel method of how to deal with things like this. I wanted to raise how easy it is to promote awful tools like this was even when ads are supposed to be human moderated on a lot of places.