3 ms·
I assumed from tone that the article was surprised/happy it was happening, but I’m gonna be honest I only skimmed enough to read what the three proposals were.
by MBCook 4y ago
I assumed from tone that the article was surprised/happy it was happening, but I’m gonna be honest I only skimmed enough to read what the three proposals were.
These are fantastic changes. I can’t wait. If public support is needed seems like that wouldn’t be hard to drum up.
- swatcoder 4y agoNo, the author is a lawyer specializing in defending companies accused of spamming. His public position, probably mostly genuine, is that there are good guys and bad guys and he helps protect the good guys from getting hit with tools meant for the bad guys. Here, he laments that the good guys might get screwed by upcoming regulation and need to speak up and make sure there are carve outs for them.
- MBCook 4y agoI’ve had the fun of working with the “but we are the good ones“ kind of spammers before. Sigh. Thanks.
- xbar 4y agoHe works for an "industry" that entirely in the schlepping, hording, repackaging and re-schlepping private information for profit. Disincentivizing this niche of marketing and driving companies to invest and build their own effective leads generators in-house is better for literally everyone but lawyers in the "leads generation industry."
- olliej 4y agoSo from his point of view there is a meaningful difference between two groups of spammers, when both of them are just spammers.
- JohnFen 4y ago> His public position, probably mostly genuine, is that there are good guys and bad guys Yes, and I think he's genuine about that. That's how he sleeps at night. But the reality is that there are bad guys and worse guys.