3 ms·
That seems like an excessively uncharitable interpretation.
by Tijdreiziger 3y ago
That seems like an excessively uncharitable interpretation.
- gumby 3y agoWhat would be a more charitable interpretation? I'm open to pursuasion. But I cannot imagine a case where it is legit to send an automatic message to someone who did not explicitly give permission to receive it.
- Tijdreiziger 3y agoCharitable interpretation 1: non-tech org with systems that integrate poorly, which they work around by shuffling around data dumps/Excel sheets periodically. This means that customers (who may have initially consented but unsubscribed later) could end up being dumped into whatever mailing list software repeatedly. Charitable interpretation 2: list of consenting subscribers from a one-time campaign, but due to human error, someone ends up importing the same list again 3 months down the line.
- gumby 3y agoSounds like organizations that shouldn't have my personal data in the first place, since they don't have suitable processes to look after it.
- Tijdreiziger 3y agoThat’s a higher hurdle; you just asked for a more charitable interpretation than ‘shady bought list of non-consenting recipients’, which I gave you.
- gumby 3y agoNot really. Yours is just "bunch of people without the skill or concern to responsibly perform the task they promised. Not only do I enjoy bein gthe victim of such people I wouldn't want to be their customer either, if that's their level of care.
- Tijdreiziger 3y agoIf you don’t want to be their customer, that’s your own free choice, but it still doesn’t mean that they’re getting their email lists from illegitimate sources.