7 ms·

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 stret

by 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.

by mtmail 6y ago

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.