3 ms·

Does it? It mentions advertising a bit, and I think I could get to what the authors take would be, but it didn’t mention spam as far as I can tell

• leephillips 4y ago
  The word “spam” occurs multiple times. And he discusses the problem of unsolicited messaging in various contexts, without always using the word. Honestly, I think I’m going to have to avoid HN, at least the comment sections. They’re more and more filled with low-effort spittle, hysterical vitriol, or just plain nonsense.
  • space_fountain 4y ago
    Hum, so I did read the entire article, probably should have searched the text for spam though. It still doesn’t feel like heavy engagement to me though. Probably why it slipped my mind: 1-2 Mention 1 excludes spam saying it needs to be consensual 3-8 is mad about not being able to reliably stop things going to spam (I’ve never actually personally had a problem with this but idk) 9. Is saying spam filters should be opt in per sender (which seems pretty unworkable) 10. Is just a tag for the article Still not seeing a major thread acknowledging that spam is a problem
  • aredox 4y ago
    Sorry that you take it like that. I tried to delete my initial comment because I felt it was too curt and I didn't have time then to expand. Yes, spam is quoted several times in the initial article, but it is not "acknowledged" as the hard problem it is, and dismissed as an excuse - which it isn't. I did read the links and it doesn't help, even Doctorow 's argument (which is exactly about how difficult spam fighting is and how it devolves into centralisation and privilege).