20 ms·

Mailchimp outlines right to ban users for “inaccurate” content

127 points by complianceowl 6y ago

mtmail 6y ago
In their terms they already exclude a lot of content. Adding disinformation (I realize that's not an exact term and every story has two sides) isn't a far stretch to their current policies https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use
- netsharc 6y ago
  I wonder if someone who wants to peddle "Bill Gates installed 5G antennaes to spread Covid" idiocy can get away with it when they add at the top "Mailchimp does not allow disinformation. In light of that, please note that this newsletter is satire and not to be taken seriously.", with the wink being implied but not written...
  - kube-system 6y ago
    You can't really 'hack' a ToS on technicalities. Mailchimp's ToS, like most, are evaluated in their "sole discretion". Businesses in the US can generally choose who they want to do business with for any reason other than membership in a protected class.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    You don't have a firm grasp on censorship and total control over social discourse. Forbidden means precisely that. Back in my old country, before I foolishly immigrated to the land of "the free" (drum drum), political commentary was first turned into satire and then that was embedded in children's stories, and you had that interesting phenomena of adults passing around children's stories. Good times. All authoritarian system are fundamentally psychological in nature. Brute force is theraputical. The ultimate objective is acceptance of authoritative narrative. The content matter is entirely irrelevant. Recall in 1984, Winston is being asked "how many fingers?" and "what does 2+2 equal?". Outside of fiction, recall the Church of Rome asserting it's authority by modifying commandments. Rationality, authenticity, applicability, or heaven help us, veracity, are not even variables in the equation of Authoritarian Control Over Information and Social Discourse.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Ah, the Tucker Carlson / Alex Jones "no reasonable person would take this show seriously" legal defense?
    - esja 6y ago
      + Rachel Maddow
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
        Has she used that as a legal defense?
        mizzack 6y ago
        > Maddow lawyer Theodore J. “Ted” Boutrous Jr. argued that the liberal host was clearly offering up her “own unique expression” of her views to capture what she saw as the “ridiculous” nature of the undisputed facts. > “Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false,’” he said. https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2019/12/02/rachel-maddow-faces-slapdown-by-uc-linguistics-professor-in-defamation-suit/ https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2019/12/02/rachel-maddo... Judge ruled in her favor: > “The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts,” the judge decided. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/23/judge-tosses-defamation-suit-filed-against-msnbcs-/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/23/judge-tosse...
    - amadeuspagel 6y ago
      I'm not aware Tucker Carlson ever made that defense.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Maybe only if it is "actually satirical in tone" as opposed to the "being sincere and pretending it is a joke" style. And maybe because moderation at scale often misses legitimage nuance because it is unthinking by definition. Suggest using the microchips to make Microsoft muscle in on psychopharmaceutical market and VR if they actually did have the chips and it is jabbing at the logic of the conspiracy theory. Actually taking the absurd premise and using with more logic is clearly taking the piss like showing up to a crystal healing group and suggesting rolling paraplegics down stairs into piles of gemstones or throwing bleeding out soldiers onto them - you will likely be thrown out as a troll.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Mailers need to make sure nobody uses their service for spam and even then it is a gray area. Most put their customers through some extra scrutiny. That said, I don't think it is a good idea. What prompted this change? I would guess PR since that is their business.
  - joobus 6y ago
    They wanted to ban SGTReport and Press for Truth, so they came up with a new reason.
  - jbob2000 6y ago
    Mailers can’t risk getting blocked. Misinformation often looks like spam and needs to spread quickly in order to work. The people behind this type of media don’t care if they get blocked after the messages go out, they’ve already done their damage and can move on to the next service.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    I don't know the level of scrutiny at mailchimp but I do know a few business that use mailchimp that are sending lots of emails in industries on the second list. They all pay for it and mailchimp either doesn't care or isn't looking too closely.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > What they've added is a rule to shut out QAnon. This is true, but it overlooks the fact that it can be used to shut out a lot more than QAnon. > Which is the responsible thing to do. That is a matter of opinion, not fact. What QAnon "is", is a matter of opinion, and each individual opinion is based on what the individual knows about QAnon. Based on my experiences, most people's perception of QAnon is derived from reading stories about QAnon in the media, and most every story I've ever read in the media seems far more like propaganda [1] than reporting well researched evidence. This might not be so bad if people realized that this is the case, but from what I read on forums, most people seem to believe that these stories are ~purely factual (I imagine this is what they believe because it seems that way, because each new story is cognitively evaluated within the context of current knowledge, which is of course based on the prior consumption of such stories). [1] Example: QAnon "is" [X], "QAnoners" "believe(!)" [X, Y, Z, etc], etc. These are estimates, at best, due to the fundamental of the organization/phenomenon (actually, such statements are always estimates, it's just particularly difficult with things like QAnon, conspiracy theorists, supporters of a political party, etc - and also, there is psychological motive (often not even consciously realized) for framing reality in a certain way). What QAnon/QAnoners is/are, precisely/comprehensively, is not known. The human mind often seems to not willingly accept the notion of unknowness, particular on certain classes of topics [2], which makes this sort of propaganda particularly potent. [2] Replace QAnon in the above with "Jews" or "Black people", and observe whether your mind processes the examples differently. I find thought experiments like this to be quite an effective tool for checking whether one is biased when reading the news - I would think that if politicians and the media really cared about "fake news" as much as they breathlessly proclaim, we would have seen some organized public initiative for actually teaching the critical thinking skills we're constantly told are needed. But what we actually see is the notion of critical thinking being used as a psychological talking point in the overall, unseen meme war. But then, has this not always been more or less the case throughout history?
    - room500 6y ago
- eternalban 6y ago
  What happened to our god given right to consume whatever we please? The universal subjective human experience is that of interacting with other human beings, not all of whom are assumed to be "truth tellers". Discerning and dealing with falsehood or half-truths is the daily bread of a functioning mind. Since when are we no longer to be trusted with discerning truth from lies? Do you know what Velayateh Faqih, the theocratic doctrine of Ruhollah Khomeini and Iran's "Islamic Republic", means? It means 'guardianship of the learned'. According to Mr. Khomeini, your average adult Iranian is technically a "minor" that requires the "guardianship" of an "adult". Are you a child or are you a citizen of a nation which had enshrined Free Speech as a fundamental instrument of its constitution and essence?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Your freedom of speech does not require me or Mailchimp to carry, propagate, or amplify your speech, whether for free or for pay.
    - eternalban 6y ago
      This is all fine until that is what the "Postal Service" starts saying .. But you are right. Mailchimp and all these corporations which have clearly shown they have no regard for the civil liberties that are fundamental to the American Social Contract need to find robust competitors, post haste.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        The USPS is an agency of the federal government and is subject to constitutional law. Likewise, if we want to talk about social norms -- private publishers have long enjoyed editorial authority in the US. Only in very few specific instances have we forced private publishers to publish against their will.
        esja 6y ago
        Perhaps the government should start building digital infrastructure. As they did with roads, telecoms, etc.
kevmoo1 6y ago
https://reclaimthenet.org/ https://reclaimthenet.org/ – seems like another site for Far-right and conspiracy theory folks why are annoyed that they can't use technology to lie to folks.
- ntw1103 6y ago
  While the Article4 are definitly highly opinionated, I don't see this as presenting any conspiracy theories. The website does a poor job of posting any sources or links to their sources beyond some screenshots. Of the articles I clicked through, I've seen the same less opinionated information reported elsewhere,and was able to verify the information being reported.
  - taxicab 6y ago
    They are not saying that the site is propagating conspiracy theories. They are saying that the site is pandering to conspiracy theorists who would be upset about a company like Mailchimp deciding to not propagate their emails.
- Dirlewanger 6y ago
  So because their platform is being worried about Big Tech abusing their monopoly power to arbitrarily silence entities, they're now "right-wing"?? What the fuck happened to this place?
  - shard972 6y ago
    The same thing that happened to west.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's not really a "this place" thing. There's been a legitimate political realignment on this topic. I think most Americans would identify the site's slogans > Defend free speech and individual liberty online. Push back against big tech and media gatekeepers. as right-wing in the modern context. (I don't think "far right" and "conspiracy theory" are fair labels, though.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
untoxicness 6y ago
This feels different from censorship on Twitter and Facebook to me. I guess the business model of Mailchimp is more transparent and I can appreciate that a company may choose who to do business with.
- pavel_lishin 6y ago
  Emotionally I feel like I'm fully on mailchimp's side here, but I don't think I understand the difference you're seeing in Twitter/Facebook's censorship, vs. this - unless there's specific instances I'm not remembering?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  Twitter and Facebook are in monopolistic positions. Mailchimp isn't. There are many things that normal companies are allowed to do but monopolies aren't. Twitter/Facebook may or may not be legal monopolies and this type of behaviour may or may not be one of those protected activities, but both pieces can be made from a moral position if not a legal one. The monopolistic aspect is why this feels more acceptable for Mailchimp than for Twitter/Facebook.
  - swader999 6y ago
    I volunteer for a youth sports club and we use mail chimp. I'll be donating some of my time to switch to an alternative this weekend.
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  But why should they? What good is served by allowing mailchimp to even just make it slightly harder for people they disagree with to express themselves?
  - sokoloff 6y ago
ookblah 6y ago
is it just me or that entire site is like a dog whistle for conservative leanings. i mean all the words like being against "cancel culture", etc. talking about how the new york post wouldn't be able to release the biden story.. like okay... i can forgive a few of them, but when the whole article and site reads like that i can't take it seriously.
- rriepe 6y ago
  What New York Post story?
- seph-reed 6y ago
  imo, the "dog whistle" concept is very damaging to a persons perception of reality. The implication is that there does not exist a gradient between (or even orthogonality to) left and right. If something is just a little bit short of left, it's considered a "dog whistle", implicative that it's all the way to the right now. I know a lot of people who have voted blue their entire lives that are against cancel culture btw.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    The problem with "cancel culture" is that it's so ill-defined, it's intended to match with whatever people have in their heads that they don't like. Opposing cancel culture is even less well defined. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to boycott things they don't like?
    - seph-reed 6y ago
      > Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to boycott things they don't like? No, people should be allowed to do as they please (assuming they aren't abusing the earth or other living beings), and boycotts are a useful tool for change. But it's becoming the first tool people reach for, and that's not healthy. Kind of how force is sometimes necessary, but should be avoided as much as possible. Someone who jumps to force immediately is a scary person to empower. Also, there is a noteworthy difference between boycotting something you don't like and boycotting whichever power is capable of cancelling the thing you don't like. It's definitely necessary at times, but it's not a great means to an end. My mother read me this book as a child (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book) and the fact that overt force will be met with greater overt force until someone hits a limit (and nobody really wins) has stuck and has been very consistently reinforced in my life. I see cancel culture as pretty obvious show of force and no matter how much people might inflate its victories and minimize its short-comings, I see it netting out to roughly zero. It really just enables worse behavior on both sides.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
Despite usually being on the side of free speech, I have much less of a problem with this. There's a significant difference between preventing individuals from expressing their opinion, right or wrong, and preventing an organization with enough money to pay for third party e-mailing services from sending out content in bulk.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  It's basically an extension of the "it's not censorship as its a private company doing it" standpoint to include "...particularly as they have other choices".
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    I'm sorry but I'm not in favor of that argument. I'm not saying you're saying this but other people who have expressed that often, in my opinion, have a hidden implication that "other choices" really means no reputable choice would take their material, so they have to pick a disreputable choice, at which point people point to them and say "See, they have to go to a disreputable choice; they must be disreputable too." Going back to my original post, note that I didn't say I'm entirely okay with it. My argument is more along the lines is that a grassroots expression of opinion by individuals to other individuals who voluntarily want to receive it is okay but content being pushed by a source with money behind it can reasonably be treated with more suspicion because it raises questions about who exactly the money comes from and whether or not they have ulterior motives.
    - ncallaway 6y ago
      > have a hidden implication that "other choices" really means no reputable choice would take their material, I don't know if it's...super hidden. Isn't that the entire point of the marketplace of ideas? You're free to espouse anything, free from government intervention. But if all reputable members of society decide not to associate with an idea...it's losing in the marketplace. Free speech isn't the right to have everyone listen to every idea. It's the freedom to enter the idea into the marketplace of ideas. But the marketplace of ideas is as cutthroat a business as any other marketplace. I _can_ understand the complaint from an anti-monopoly point of view: arguing that Facebook and Twitter have too strong a hold on that marketplace, and their influence over it should be reduced. But that strikes me more as an anti-monopoly stance that should be directed at particular actors.
pcdoodle 6y ago
I hear an echo in here...
hammock 6y ago
Amazed that most of the comments seem to believe this is not as bad as Facebook or Twitter blocking disinfo. In my mind it could be worse. Emails are private communication. It's not a public forum. Censorship in the private arena is an order of magnitude more intrusive. It's not just free speech at this point, it's peaceful assembly. The "monopoly vs many choices" argument notwithstanding. If you could choose between five or more cell providers, yet T-Mobile started dropping your calls (to your mom, or your business contacts, or whoever) every time you mentioned a watchword like "Trump,"* how would that make you feel? *Note Twitter (edit: Instagram) is literally censoring the hashtag #trump now: https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1321999369680334848?s=19 https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1321999369680334848?s=19
- seph-reed 6y ago
  Two different things. On the note of twitter, they should have just banned Trump and told him "it's a free country" years ago. The fact they are censoring #trump while not banning him comes off as extremely weak. It's exactly the kind of move that makes liberals seem hairless and under-handed. MailChimp on the other hand is primarily a ad/spam tool. They do have transactional email abilities, but any email that isn't transactional is (IMO) ad/spam. The whole point of ad/spam is to manipulate people... it's not a conversation. Limiting what type of mass manipulation they allow is very different from not letting people talk about whatever they want.
  - hammock 6y ago
    You have a cynical take on MailChimp emails. Many emails sent through their service are DOUBLE OPT-IN, meaning the recipient raised their hand twice saying they want to receive the info. And now MailChimp is saying, no, we are stepping in, you don't get to see that.
    - seph-reed 6y ago
      Very interesting ethical debate. What is the balance between: - A persons right to opt-in to (as an extreme) ego-centric mass manipulation in which they sell their very being for the sake of feeling smarter/better than other people. - A corporations right to not enable anything they see as manipulating a narrative in ways they dislike. Obvs both are extremes, but it implies that somewhere in-between is a sweet spot.
amadeuspagel 6y ago
There's a great npm package that lets you send emails without an SMTP server: https://www.npmjs.com/package/sendmail https://www.npmjs.com/package/sendmail
- gruez 6y ago
  This is the equivalent of running your own SMTP server. That means you have to deal with all the associated deliverability problems.
- Analemma_ 6y ago
  If you actually try using this to send mass emails like mailing lists, you will immediately be blacklisted by the spam filters of every major email provider.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Sending mail and having that mail arrive in a human’s inbox are pretty far from 1:1 at this point due to incessant spammers. The value of mailchimp and other ESPs is not that the email transaction is technically difficult, but rather that managing delivery rates is hard.
- dmurray 6y ago
  There's also a great Unix command called "mail". But as everyone else pointed out, that's not really the technical problem here.
- arethuza 6y ago
  Isn't that just an SMTP client? You still need an SMTP server somewhere to connect to.
virgil_disgr4ce 6y ago
Although I suspect people around here hate the word "privilege," I've always thought that the ability to complain about "censoring" deliberate misinformation campaigns that affect the lives of millions of people is pretty high up there on the privilege ladder. I've seen countless tweets and comments from hackers and neckbeards smugly whining from an ivory (emphasis on ivory) tower about "cancel culture," which I guess is just what they call it when previously marginalized groups take power away from the powerful. It's so easy to be ideologically pure when you and your family are not directly impacted by political results.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Priveledge is hated here because it isn't an argument but an often immutable ad-homenum to shield against arguments that are disliked. To give an example of why it isn't held highly "Pfft only those priveledged enough to not have to worry about starvation can care about democracy". It also a hypercritically in calling them emphasis on "ivory" tower and "neckbeards" - implying both ugliness and not getting out much and then deridding them for being priveledged socially when they are already below the baseline and then dismissing concerns about a /social standing/ issue for double irony. "What do those ugly nerds know about being an outcast?"
colpabar 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24930317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24930317
ryanSrich 6y ago
> "...does not allow the distribution of content that is, in our sole discretion, materially false, inaccurate, or misleading, in a way that could deceive or confuse others about important events, topics, or circumstances." Does this make Mailchimp a publisher now? Since they are effectively editing what can and cannot be shared via their service? Wouldn't that place them under much stronger legal scrutiny? Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I understand a business can refuse to do business with anyone they please. That's already the case though. Why a change like this to the TOS? Either way, I'm all for businesses being able to pick and choose their customers. I would never use Mailchimp based on a change like this, but they are free to change their service however they'd like.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  No, you do not understand Section 230 of the CDA. It simply states that all interactive computer services are not liable for content their users create. It says nothing about editing, moderating or curation. It just waives liability for all interactive computer services.
  - grandpoobah 6y ago
    Isn't the point of section 230 to give internet companies the ability to moderate without fear of assuming liability for content which they did not moderate? (Almost the opposite of what Section 230 is often presumed to be about)
esja 6y ago
Everyone knows this policy can’t be neutrally applied, and won’t be. The ideological beliefs of the censor will influence what is censored and what is ignored. Are there any good alternatives to Mailchimp which aren’t headquartered in the USA? The US software industry seems to be gradually abandoning whatever libertarian roots it once had, in favour of a weird kind of paternalism.
shortformblog 6y ago
It’s a private business, not the federal government. It should have the right to regulate its services to protect both its users and the quality of its network. The fact that sites like Reclaim the Net willfully misunderstand this to drum up anger hurts the cause of digital freedom, rather than helping it.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > The fact that sites like Reclaim the Net willfully misunderstand this to drum up anger hurts the cause of digital freedom, rather than helping it. Not only that, but the proposed solution of repealing Section 230 of the CDA would make hosting free speech impossible for anyone other than trillion dollar corporations that can throw billions at making sure users never use their services to upload illegal content.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Where does Reclaim the Net claim Mailchimp is the federal government, or does not have a right to make these decisions? Nowhere: that appears to be a strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to be angry when companies start restricting their services to political allies, or arbitrarily blocking communication for people who disagree on who to vote for. Freedom of speech is a value encoded in the constitution because it is important, and because societies have learned over and over what happens when it's lost. It's the first thing dictatorships get rid of for a reason.
  - shortformblog 6y ago
    If you start screaming at the top of your lungs inside of a Walmart, they will kick you out because you are on private property. But you can still scream outside.
    - eropple 6y ago
      After one watches enough of the "censorship!" crowd wring their hands, it starts to become obvious that the agitation is not for the freedom and the liberty to speak, but for the freedom and the liberty to require your attention. I think back to this article a lot: https://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/ https://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/
arminiusreturns 6y ago
It's sad to see how servile about censorship so many hn readers are. Yes, we all know the baseline retorts about private companies, but there is a general climate that is extremely worrying for those of us who are paying attention.
- ouid 6y ago
  A monopoly corporation is just a branch of your government that you don't have representation in.
  - jayrot 6y ago
    Not sure if you came up with this or heard it elsewhere, but that statement really resonates with me.
  - driverdan 6y ago
    Mailchimp is not a monopoly.
  - taxicab 6y ago
    I don't think mailchimp is a monopoly
    - ouid 6y ago
      Well I consider myself very fortunate then, to not have made that claim.
  - swixi 6y ago
    Can you elaborate on how a "monopoly corporation" is like a branch of government? I don't understand your analogy, or what is special about a monopoly versus any other corporation with significant power, cultural or otherwise.
- shortformblog 6y ago
  Nothing is stopping you from creating your own libre alternative to these solutions, just as if you want to walk into a place without a shirt or shoes you can, as long as you own it.
OneGuy123 6y ago
Since 95% of ads delivered by mailchimp are overstating and overhyping their product doesn't that mean that they are sending "innacurate" info & that mailchimp just put themselves out of business :)
prudhvis 6y ago
Unfortunately these things only lead to two different internet(s), one that is uncensored, free and the other approved and big brother. Why aren't we striving for improving the critical thinking of average people, instead of banning thought that is "inaccurate".
- drummer 6y ago
  Because then most people would recognize the current anti-social system of enslavement (Statism) for what it is. Governments don't want their slaves thinking too much.
drummer 6y ago
When all the social media platforms started censoring people years ago, most sites started to urge users to subscribe to mailinglists. Looks like now they have come for your mailinglists too. What's next?
- justinzollars 6y ago
  Good question! I was thinking about this in the shower. I think the next step is email delivery. Google could easily flag and delete "disinformation" from email boxes. Scary times we are living in.
dsr_ 6y ago
I'd rather they ban customers for three cases of subscribing email addresses without verification, but how many customers would they have left? The majority of mailchimp-sent mail is spam.
justinzollars 6y ago
I'm no longer proud of Silicon Valley. I don't want any part of developing tools for censors (thought police). And if you advocate for this, it will explode in your face when they come for your ideas. Not cool Another way to look at it. When you were a child did you ever imagine you would become an advocate for censorship?
g8oz 6y ago
FYI a self-hosted copy of Mailtrain is a fine replacement for MailChimp.
- franga2000 6y ago
  Good luck getting through spam filters! Anyone who has set up their own email server in the last 5 years can tell you that if you want consistent delivery, you either need to go with a big commercial provider or spend countless hours to get to at most 80% of what you'd get through them.
voldacar 6y ago
I hope they share their secret epistemology machine with us, it would be of such great benefit to the human race!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jjones2 6y ago
Liberals are so scared of the truth always that their first instinct is to censor information. That is what scares me.
lopmotr 6y ago
This is only a mail sending service which doesn't have the lock-in or monopoly of Facebook or Twitter. If you get banned, you can just go to MailJetGun or something else. So I think it's fine for them to impose whatever stupid rules they like. The free market actually exists here.
cheese_van 6y ago
Most adults have the ability to discriminate between dumb stuff and smart stuff, or fake and real, don't you think? Taking away the public's opportunity to discriminate is in essence, removing our power to exercise that discrimination. Who in our society is rewarded by undiscriminating consumers, or an undiscriminating electorate?
gt565k 6y ago
People love to bitch and moan about free speech, but at the end of the day, companies get scolded by politicians for allowing information warfare to occur, and at the same time for disallowing information warfare when it doesn't suit a specific party in power. When the government fails to protect its population from information warfare, because it engages in it, it's time the businesses stepped up. This is the new digital battlefield. Wars will be fought by trying to destabilize and influence people's opinions through information consuming mediums. Social media is a cancer, because it allows external parties, through ads, to fight for and steal your attention and time, and in the process influence your decisions and perspective of specific topics and issues to suit their agenda.
docPangloss 6y ago
My guess is France-based SendInBlue will begin acquiring even more MailChimp defectors; Amazon SES as well.[1][2] [1] https://www.sendinblue.com/mailchimp/ https://www.sendinblue.com/mailchimp/ [2] https://aws.amazon.com/ses/pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/ses/pricing/
shitgoose 6y ago
If people do not like Twitter or FB policies, they are free to quit. I have quit Twitter and FB for exactly this reason - I do not like their policies of censoring the posts. This is that simple. If you see a turd on the ground - you don't have to step into it and then complain about the smell. Many censored entities do not have even Telegram account, where there is zero censorship where people could follow them. This means they do not care so much about reaching out to readers. They would rather complain but cling to Twitter.
hubbabubbarex 6y ago
Mail chimp.. Censurating like Google.. Avoid this company
cwhiz 6y ago
Section 230 needs to be amended to, at minimum, forbid editorializing. Mailchimp should not be allowed to forbid content they don’t like. As soon as you editorialize you become a publisher. You’re now liable for what you’ve published. If you disagree, then go stand with the bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gay couples.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

127 points by complianceowl 6y ago

In their terms they already exclude a lot of content. Adding disinformation (I realize that's not an exact term and every story has two sides) isn't a far stretch to their current policies https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use

netsharc 6y ago
I wonder if someone who wants to peddle "Bill Gates installed 5G antennaes to spread Covid" idiocy can get away with it when they add at the top "Mailchimp does not allow disinformation. In light of that, please note that this newsletter is satire and not to be taken seriously.", with the wink being implied but not written...
- kube-system 6y ago
  You can't really 'hack' a ToS on technicalities. Mailchimp's ToS, like most, are evaluated in their "sole discretion". Businesses in the US can generally choose who they want to do business with for any reason other than membership in a protected class.
- eternalban 6y ago
  You don't have a firm grasp on censorship and total control over social discourse. Forbidden means precisely that. Back in my old country, before I foolishly immigrated to the land of "the free" (drum drum), political commentary was first turned into satire and then that was embedded in children's stories, and you had that interesting phenomena of adults passing around children's stories. Good times. All authoritarian system are fundamentally psychological in nature. Brute force is theraputical. The ultimate objective is acceptance of authoritative narrative. The content matter is entirely irrelevant. Recall in 1984, Winston is being asked "how many fingers?" and "what does 2+2 equal?". Outside of fiction, recall the Church of Rome asserting it's authority by modifying commandments. Rationality, authenticity, applicability, or heaven help us, veracity, are not even variables in the equation of Authoritarian Control Over Information and Social Discourse.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Ah, the Tucker Carlson / Alex Jones "no reasonable person would take this show seriously" legal defense?
  - esja 6y ago
    + Rachel Maddow
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
      Has she used that as a legal defense?
      - mizzack 6y ago
        > Maddow lawyer Theodore J. “Ted” Boutrous Jr. argued that the liberal host was clearly offering up her “own unique expression” of her views to capture what she saw as the “ridiculous” nature of the undisputed facts. > “Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole, incapable of being proved true or false,’” he said. https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2019/12/02/rachel-maddow-faces-slapdown-by-uc-linguistics-professor-in-defamation-suit/ https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2019/12/02/rachel-maddo... Judge ruled in her favor: > “The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts,” the judge decided. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/23/judge-tosses-defamation-suit-filed-against-msnbcs-/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/23/judge-tosse...
  - amadeuspagel 6y ago
    I'm not aware Tucker Carlson ever made that defense.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Maybe only if it is "actually satirical in tone" as opposed to the "being sincere and pretending it is a joke" style. And maybe because moderation at scale often misses legitimage nuance because it is unthinking by definition. Suggest using the microchips to make Microsoft muscle in on psychopharmaceutical market and VR if they actually did have the chips and it is jabbing at the logic of the conspiracy theory. Actually taking the absurd premise and using with more logic is clearly taking the piss like showing up to a crystal healing group and suggesting rolling paraplegics down stairs into piles of gemstones or throwing bleeding out soldiers onto them - you will likely be thrown out as a troll.
raxxorrax 6y ago
Mailers need to make sure nobody uses their service for spam and even then it is a gray area. Most put their customers through some extra scrutiny. That said, I don't think it is a good idea. What prompted this change? I would guess PR since that is their business.
- joobus 6y ago
  They wanted to ban SGTReport and Press for Truth, so they came up with a new reason.
- jbob2000 6y ago
  Mailers can’t risk getting blocked. Misinformation often looks like spam and needs to spread quickly in order to work. The people behind this type of media don’t care if they get blocked after the messages go out, they’ve already done their damage and can move on to the next service.
- luckylion 6y ago
  I don't know the level of scrutiny at mailchimp but I do know a few business that use mailchimp that are sending lots of emails in industries on the second list. They all pay for it and mailchimp either doesn't care or isn't looking too closely.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
- mistermann 6y ago
  > What they've added is a rule to shut out QAnon. This is true, but it overlooks the fact that it can be used to shut out a lot more than QAnon. > Which is the responsible thing to do. That is a matter of opinion, not fact. What QAnon "is", is a matter of opinion, and each individual opinion is based on what the individual knows about QAnon. Based on my experiences, most people's perception of QAnon is derived from reading stories about QAnon in the media, and most every story I've ever read in the media seems far more like propaganda [1] than reporting well researched evidence. This might not be so bad if people realized that this is the case, but from what I read on forums, most people seem to believe that these stories are ~purely factual (I imagine this is what they believe because it seems that way, because each new story is cognitively evaluated within the context of current knowledge, which is of course based on the prior consumption of such stories). [1] Example: QAnon "is" [X], "QAnoners" "believe(!)" [X, Y, Z, etc], etc. These are estimates, at best, due to the fundamental of the organization/phenomenon (actually, such statements are always estimates, it's just particularly difficult with things like QAnon, conspiracy theorists, supporters of a political party, etc - and also, there is psychological motive (often not even consciously realized) for framing reality in a certain way). What QAnon/QAnoners is/are, precisely/comprehensively, is not known. The human mind often seems to not willingly accept the notion of unknowness, particular on certain classes of topics [2], which makes this sort of propaganda particularly potent. [2] Replace QAnon in the above with "Jews" or "Black people", and observe whether your mind processes the examples differently. I find thought experiments like this to be quite an effective tool for checking whether one is biased when reading the news - I would think that if politicians and the media really cared about "fake news" as much as they breathlessly proclaim, we would have seen some organized public initiative for actually teaching the critical thinking skills we're constantly told are needed. But what we actually see is the notion of critical thinking being used as a psychological talking point in the overall, unseen meme war. But then, has this not always been more or less the case throughout history?
  - room500 6y ago
eternalban 6y ago
What happened to our god given right to consume whatever we please? The universal subjective human experience is that of interacting with other human beings, not all of whom are assumed to be "truth tellers". Discerning and dealing with falsehood or half-truths is the daily bread of a functioning mind. Since when are we no longer to be trusted with discerning truth from lies? Do you know what Velayateh Faqih, the theocratic doctrine of Ruhollah Khomeini and Iran's "Islamic Republic", means? It means 'guardianship of the learned'. According to Mr. Khomeini, your average adult Iranian is technically a "minor" that requires the "guardianship" of an "adult". Are you a child or are you a citizen of a nation which had enshrined Free Speech as a fundamental instrument of its constitution and essence?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Your freedom of speech does not require me or Mailchimp to carry, propagate, or amplify your speech, whether for free or for pay.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    This is all fine until that is what the "Postal Service" starts saying .. But you are right. Mailchimp and all these corporations which have clearly shown they have no regard for the civil liberties that are fundamental to the American Social Contract need to find robust competitors, post haste.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      The USPS is an agency of the federal government and is subject to constitutional law. Likewise, if we want to talk about social norms -- private publishers have long enjoyed editorial authority in the US. Only in very few specific instances have we forced private publishers to publish against their will.
      - esja 6y ago
        Perhaps the government should start building digital infrastructure. As they did with roads, telecoms, etc.

kevmoo1 6y ago

https://reclaimthenet.org/ https://reclaimthenet.org/ – seems like another site for Far-right and conspiracy theory folks why are annoyed that they can't use technology to lie to folks.

ntw1103 6y ago
While the Article4 are definitly highly opinionated, I don't see this as presenting any conspiracy theories. The website does a poor job of posting any sources or links to their sources beyond some screenshots. Of the articles I clicked through, I've seen the same less opinionated information reported elsewhere,and was able to verify the information being reported.
- taxicab 6y ago
  They are not saying that the site is propagating conspiracy theories. They are saying that the site is pandering to conspiracy theorists who would be upset about a company like Mailchimp deciding to not propagate their emails.
Dirlewanger 6y ago
So because their platform is being worried about Big Tech abusing their monopoly power to arbitrarily silence entities, they're now "right-wing"?? What the fuck happened to this place?
- shard972 6y ago
  The same thing that happened to west.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's not really a "this place" thing. There's been a legitimate political realignment on this topic. I think most Americans would identify the site's slogans > Defend free speech and individual liberty online. Push back against big tech and media gatekeepers. as right-wing in the modern context. (I don't think "far right" and "conspiracy theory" are fair labels, though.)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

untoxicness 6y ago

This feels different from censorship on Twitter and Facebook to me. I guess the business model of Mailchimp is more transparent and I can appreciate that a company may choose who to do business with.

pavel_lishin 6y ago
Emotionally I feel like I'm fully on mailchimp's side here, but I don't think I understand the difference you're seeing in Twitter/Facebook's censorship, vs. this - unless there's specific instances I'm not remembering?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bryanlarsen 6y ago
Twitter and Facebook are in monopolistic positions. Mailchimp isn't. There are many things that normal companies are allowed to do but monopolies aren't. Twitter/Facebook may or may not be legal monopolies and this type of behaviour may or may not be one of those protected activities, but both pieces can be made from a moral position if not a legal one. The monopolistic aspect is why this feels more acceptable for Mailchimp than for Twitter/Facebook.
- swader999 6y ago
  I volunteer for a youth sports club and we use mail chimp. I'll be donating some of my time to switch to an alternative this weekend.
amadeuspagel 6y ago
But why should they? What good is served by allowing mailchimp to even just make it slightly harder for people they disagree with to express themselves?
- sokoloff 6y ago

ookblah 6y ago

is it just me or that entire site is like a dog whistle for conservative leanings. i mean all the words like being against "cancel culture", etc. talking about how the new york post wouldn't be able to release the biden story.. like okay... i can forgive a few of them, but when the whole article and site reads like that i can't take it seriously.

rriepe 6y ago
What New York Post story?
seph-reed 6y ago
imo, the "dog whistle" concept is very damaging to a persons perception of reality. The implication is that there does not exist a gradient between (or even orthogonality to) left and right. If something is just a little bit short of left, it's considered a "dog whistle", implicative that it's all the way to the right now. I know a lot of people who have voted blue their entire lives that are against cancel culture btw.
- pjc50 6y ago
  The problem with "cancel culture" is that it's so ill-defined, it's intended to match with whatever people have in their heads that they don't like. Opposing cancel culture is even less well defined. Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to boycott things they don't like?
  - seph-reed 6y ago
    > Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to boycott things they don't like? No, people should be allowed to do as they please (assuming they aren't abusing the earth or other living beings), and boycotts are a useful tool for change. But it's becoming the first tool people reach for, and that's not healthy. Kind of how force is sometimes necessary, but should be avoided as much as possible. Someone who jumps to force immediately is a scary person to empower. Also, there is a noteworthy difference between boycotting something you don't like and boycotting whichever power is capable of cancelling the thing you don't like. It's definitely necessary at times, but it's not a great means to an end. My mother read me this book as a child (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butter_Battle_Book) and the fact that overt force will be met with greater overt force until someone hits a limit (and nobody really wins) has stuck and has been very consistently reinforced in my life. I see cancel culture as pretty obvious show of force and no matter how much people might inflate its victories and minimize its short-comings, I see it netting out to roughly zero. It really just enables worse behavior on both sides.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

Despite usually being on the side of free speech, I have much less of a problem with this. There's a significant difference between preventing individuals from expressing their opinion, right or wrong, and preventing an organization with enough money to pay for third party e-mailing services from sending out content in bulk.

thinkingemote 6y ago
It's basically an extension of the "it's not censorship as its a private company doing it" standpoint to include "...particularly as they have other choices".
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  I'm sorry but I'm not in favor of that argument. I'm not saying you're saying this but other people who have expressed that often, in my opinion, have a hidden implication that "other choices" really means no reputable choice would take their material, so they have to pick a disreputable choice, at which point people point to them and say "See, they have to go to a disreputable choice; they must be disreputable too." Going back to my original post, note that I didn't say I'm entirely okay with it. My argument is more along the lines is that a grassroots expression of opinion by individuals to other individuals who voluntarily want to receive it is okay but content being pushed by a source with money behind it can reasonably be treated with more suspicion because it raises questions about who exactly the money comes from and whether or not they have ulterior motives.
  - ncallaway 6y ago
    > have a hidden implication that "other choices" really means no reputable choice would take their material, I don't know if it's...super hidden. Isn't that the entire point of the marketplace of ideas? You're free to espouse anything, free from government intervention. But if all reputable members of society decide not to associate with an idea...it's losing in the marketplace. Free speech isn't the right to have everyone listen to every idea. It's the freedom to enter the idea into the marketplace of ideas. But the marketplace of ideas is as cutthroat a business as any other marketplace. I _can_ understand the complaint from an anti-monopoly point of view: arguing that Facebook and Twitter have too strong a hold on that marketplace, and their influence over it should be reduced. But that strikes me more as an anti-monopoly stance that should be directed at particular actors.

pcdoodle 6y ago

I hear an echo in here...

hammock 6y ago

Amazed that most of the comments seem to believe this is not as bad as Facebook or Twitter blocking disinfo. In my mind it could be worse. Emails are private communication. It's not a public forum. Censorship in the private arena is an order of magnitude more intrusive. It's not just free speech at this point, it's peaceful assembly. The "monopoly vs many choices" argument notwithstanding. If you could choose between five or more cell providers, yet T-Mobile started dropping your calls (to your mom, or your business contacts, or whoever) every time you mentioned a watchword like "Trump,"* how would that make you feel? *Note Twitter (edit: Instagram) is literally censoring the hashtag #trump now: https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1321999369680334848?s=19 https://twitter.com/fleccas/status/1321999369680334848?s=19

seph-reed 6y ago
Two different things. On the note of twitter, they should have just banned Trump and told him "it's a free country" years ago. The fact they are censoring #trump while not banning him comes off as extremely weak. It's exactly the kind of move that makes liberals seem hairless and under-handed. MailChimp on the other hand is primarily a ad/spam tool. They do have transactional email abilities, but any email that isn't transactional is (IMO) ad/spam. The whole point of ad/spam is to manipulate people... it's not a conversation. Limiting what type of mass manipulation they allow is very different from not letting people talk about whatever they want.
- hammock 6y ago
  You have a cynical take on MailChimp emails. Many emails sent through their service are DOUBLE OPT-IN, meaning the recipient raised their hand twice saying they want to receive the info. And now MailChimp is saying, no, we are stepping in, you don't get to see that.
  - seph-reed 6y ago
    Very interesting ethical debate. What is the balance between: - A persons right to opt-in to (as an extreme) ego-centric mass manipulation in which they sell their very being for the sake of feeling smarter/better than other people. - A corporations right to not enable anything they see as manipulating a narrative in ways they dislike. Obvs both are extremes, but it implies that somewhere in-between is a sweet spot.

amadeuspagel 6y ago

There's a great npm package that lets you send emails without an SMTP server: https://www.npmjs.com/package/sendmail https://www.npmjs.com/package/sendmail

gruez 6y ago
This is the equivalent of running your own SMTP server. That means you have to deal with all the associated deliverability problems.
Analemma_ 6y ago
If you actually try using this to send mass emails like mailing lists, you will immediately be blacklisted by the spam filters of every major email provider.
sokoloff 6y ago
Sending mail and having that mail arrive in a human’s inbox are pretty far from 1:1 at this point due to incessant spammers. The value of mailchimp and other ESPs is not that the email transaction is technically difficult, but rather that managing delivery rates is hard.
dmurray 6y ago
There's also a great Unix command called "mail". But as everyone else pointed out, that's not really the technical problem here.
arethuza 6y ago
Isn't that just an SMTP client? You still need an SMTP server somewhere to connect to.

virgil_disgr4ce 6y ago

Although I suspect people around here hate the word "privilege," I've always thought that the ability to complain about "censoring" deliberate misinformation campaigns that affect the lives of millions of people is pretty high up there on the privilege ladder. I've seen countless tweets and comments from hackers and neckbeards smugly whining from an ivory (emphasis on ivory) tower about "cancel culture," which I guess is just what they call it when previously marginalized groups take power away from the powerful. It's so easy to be ideologically pure when you and your family are not directly impacted by political results.

Nasrudith 6y ago
Priveledge is hated here because it isn't an argument but an often immutable ad-homenum to shield against arguments that are disliked. To give an example of why it isn't held highly "Pfft only those priveledged enough to not have to worry about starvation can care about democracy". It also a hypercritically in calling them emphasis on "ivory" tower and "neckbeards" - implying both ugliness and not getting out much and then deridding them for being priveledged socially when they are already below the baseline and then dismissing concerns about a /social standing/ issue for double irony. "What do those ugly nerds know about being an outcast?"

colpabar 6y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24930317 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24930317

ryanSrich 6y ago

> "...does not allow the distribution of content that is, in our sole discretion, materially false, inaccurate, or misleading, in a way that could deceive or confuse others about important events, topics, or circumstances." Does this make Mailchimp a publisher now? Since they are effectively editing what can and cannot be shared via their service? Wouldn't that place them under much stronger legal scrutiny? Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I understand a business can refuse to do business with anyone they please. That's already the case though. Why a change like this to the TOS? Either way, I'm all for businesses being able to pick and choose their customers. I would never use Mailchimp based on a change like this, but they are free to change their service however they'd like.

heavyset_go 6y ago
No, you do not understand Section 230 of the CDA. It simply states that all interactive computer services are not liable for content their users create. It says nothing about editing, moderating or curation. It just waives liability for all interactive computer services.
- grandpoobah 6y ago
  Isn't the point of section 230 to give internet companies the ability to moderate without fear of assuming liability for content which they did not moderate? (Almost the opposite of what Section 230 is often presumed to be about)

esja 6y ago

Everyone knows this policy can’t be neutrally applied, and won’t be. The ideological beliefs of the censor will influence what is censored and what is ignored. Are there any good alternatives to Mailchimp which aren’t headquartered in the USA? The US software industry seems to be gradually abandoning whatever libertarian roots it once had, in favour of a weird kind of paternalism.

shortformblog 6y ago

It’s a private business, not the federal government. It should have the right to regulate its services to protect both its users and the quality of its network. The fact that sites like Reclaim the Net willfully misunderstand this to drum up anger hurts the cause of digital freedom, rather than helping it.

heavyset_go 6y ago
> The fact that sites like Reclaim the Net willfully misunderstand this to drum up anger hurts the cause of digital freedom, rather than helping it. Not only that, but the proposed solution of repealing Section 230 of the CDA would make hosting free speech impossible for anyone other than trillion dollar corporations that can throw billions at making sure users never use their services to upload illegal content.
thu2111 6y ago
Where does Reclaim the Net claim Mailchimp is the federal government, or does not have a right to make these decisions? Nowhere: that appears to be a strawman. It is perfectly legitimate to be angry when companies start restricting their services to political allies, or arbitrarily blocking communication for people who disagree on who to vote for. Freedom of speech is a value encoded in the constitution because it is important, and because societies have learned over and over what happens when it's lost. It's the first thing dictatorships get rid of for a reason.
- shortformblog 6y ago
  If you start screaming at the top of your lungs inside of a Walmart, they will kick you out because you are on private property. But you can still scream outside.
  - eropple 6y ago
    After one watches enough of the "censorship!" crowd wring their hands, it starts to become obvious that the agitation is not for the freedom and the liberty to speak, but for the freedom and the liberty to require your attention. I think back to this article a lot: https://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/ https://www.salon.com/2012/07/01/southern_values_revived/

arminiusreturns 6y ago

It's sad to see how servile about censorship so many hn readers are. Yes, we all know the baseline retorts about private companies, but there is a general climate that is extremely worrying for those of us who are paying attention.

ouid 6y ago
A monopoly corporation is just a branch of your government that you don't have representation in.
- jayrot 6y ago
  Not sure if you came up with this or heard it elsewhere, but that statement really resonates with me.
- driverdan 6y ago
  Mailchimp is not a monopoly.
- taxicab 6y ago
  I don't think mailchimp is a monopoly
  - ouid 6y ago
    Well I consider myself very fortunate then, to not have made that claim.
- swixi 6y ago
  Can you elaborate on how a "monopoly corporation" is like a branch of government? I don't understand your analogy, or what is special about a monopoly versus any other corporation with significant power, cultural or otherwise.
shortformblog 6y ago
Nothing is stopping you from creating your own libre alternative to these solutions, just as if you want to walk into a place without a shirt or shoes you can, as long as you own it.

OneGuy123 6y ago

Since 95% of ads delivered by mailchimp are overstating and overhyping their product doesn't that mean that they are sending "innacurate" info & that mailchimp just put themselves out of business :)

prudhvis 6y ago

Unfortunately these things only lead to two different internet(s), one that is uncensored, free and the other approved and big brother. Why aren't we striving for improving the critical thinking of average people, instead of banning thought that is "inaccurate".

drummer 6y ago
Because then most people would recognize the current anti-social system of enslavement (Statism) for what it is. Governments don't want their slaves thinking too much.

drummer 6y ago

When all the social media platforms started censoring people years ago, most sites started to urge users to subscribe to mailinglists. Looks like now they have come for your mailinglists too. What's next?

justinzollars 6y ago
Good question! I was thinking about this in the shower. I think the next step is email delivery. Google could easily flag and delete "disinformation" from email boxes. Scary times we are living in.

dsr_ 6y ago

I'd rather they ban customers for three cases of subscribing email addresses without verification, but how many customers would they have left? The majority of mailchimp-sent mail is spam.

justinzollars 6y ago

I'm no longer proud of Silicon Valley. I don't want any part of developing tools for censors (thought police). And if you advocate for this, it will explode in your face when they come for your ideas. Not cool Another way to look at it. When you were a child did you ever imagine you would become an advocate for censorship?

g8oz 6y ago

FYI a self-hosted copy of Mailtrain is a fine replacement for MailChimp.

franga2000 6y ago
Good luck getting through spam filters! Anyone who has set up their own email server in the last 5 years can tell you that if you want consistent delivery, you either need to go with a big commercial provider or spend countless hours to get to at most 80% of what you'd get through them.

voldacar 6y ago

I hope they share their secret epistemology machine with us, it would be of such great benefit to the human race!

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jjones2 6y ago

Liberals are so scared of the truth always that their first instinct is to censor information. That is what scares me.

lopmotr 6y ago

This is only a mail sending service which doesn't have the lock-in or monopoly of Facebook or Twitter. If you get banned, you can just go to MailJetGun or something else. So I think it's fine for them to impose whatever stupid rules they like. The free market actually exists here.

cheese_van 6y ago

Most adults have the ability to discriminate between dumb stuff and smart stuff, or fake and real, don't you think? Taking away the public's opportunity to discriminate is in essence, removing our power to exercise that discrimination. Who in our society is rewarded by undiscriminating consumers, or an undiscriminating electorate?

gt565k 6y ago

People love to bitch and moan about free speech, but at the end of the day, companies get scolded by politicians for allowing information warfare to occur, and at the same time for disallowing information warfare when it doesn't suit a specific party in power. When the government fails to protect its population from information warfare, because it engages in it, it's time the businesses stepped up. This is the new digital battlefield. Wars will be fought by trying to destabilize and influence people's opinions through information consuming mediums. Social media is a cancer, because it allows external parties, through ads, to fight for and steal your attention and time, and in the process influence your decisions and perspective of specific topics and issues to suit their agenda.

docPangloss 6y ago

My guess is France-based SendInBlue will begin acquiring even more MailChimp defectors; Amazon SES as well.[1][2] [1] https://www.sendinblue.com/mailchimp/ https://www.sendinblue.com/mailchimp/ [2] https://aws.amazon.com/ses/pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/ses/pricing/

shitgoose 6y ago

If people do not like Twitter or FB policies, they are free to quit. I have quit Twitter and FB for exactly this reason - I do not like their policies of censoring the posts. This is that simple. If you see a turd on the ground - you don't have to step into it and then complain about the smell. Many censored entities do not have even Telegram account, where there is zero censorship where people could follow them. This means they do not care so much about reaching out to readers. They would rather complain but cling to Twitter.

hubbabubbarex 6y ago

Mail chimp.. Censurating like Google.. Avoid this company

cwhiz 6y ago

Section 230 needs to be amended to, at minimum, forbid editorializing. Mailchimp should not be allowed to forbid content they don’t like. As soon as you editorialize you become a publisher. You’re now liable for what you’ve published. If you disagree, then go stand with the bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gay couples.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]