5 ms·

Man I wish no private corp was allowed to contact you without an opt-in. Would really make email useful again....

sph 3y ago
Yesterday I created an account on John Lewis' website, and I was please to see that during sign-up, they had an unchecked "Tick here if you want our newsletter." Then, later I placed an order, and during credit card checks I noticed a "Tick here if you do NOT want our newsletter", which was of course unchecked and that's how the fuckers got me. Fuck this dark pattern, and fuck the Product Manager that requested it. There literally should be a law that says you cannot ask a user to check a box NOT to give away their data.
- Gigachad 3y ago
  I just mark all marketing emails as spam now. Since I never want them, I can't have opted in to it so it's spam. Seems very effective at having my email provider forward all future emails from them to spam and hopefully tarnishes their sender trust rating a little.
  - tonyedgecombe 3y ago
    The trouble is you may end up with transactional emails in your spam folder.
    - Avamander 3y ago
      Makes their service worse for everyone, everyone wins if they get used less.
    - Silhouette 3y ago
      Indeed. If someone is going to argue credibly for treating everything from commercial sources as spam then they also need to explain how businesses can provide any information they are actively required to provide to their customers either by law or by whatever method the customer is using to pay them. In general the merchants have no say in this and the penalties for failing to provide the information can be far more severe than anything they're going to suffer for losing a few people who don't understand what spam is and abuse the mark-as-spam button when reading their mail.
      - Nextgrid 3y ago
        It is their choice to pollute the channel they use to communicate with customers with spam. They don’t have to send spam, and if they offer the option they shouldn’t make opting out difficult or dark-patterned. Same thing with crying wolf and all that.
        Silhouette 3y ago
        The problem is that there are people who will classify any unsolicited mail from any business they've dealt with as spam. And by "classify" I mean hitting whatever button they have in their email client that says so - which for online email services is likely to affect future processing of mail from related sources for themselves and potentially for others as well. It doesn't matter to those people whether there was a quick and easy way to unsubscribe or change preferences. It doesn't matter to those people that they actively requested that kind of mail a few months ago and have forgotten. It doesn't matter to those people that they might end up blocking important messages they do want later. It doesn't even matter to those people that they're flagging information that is required by law to be provided to them. There is no nuance here. Got mail. Hit "spam". Done. Some of these people even think that marking the transactional "thanks for your payment" mail as spam will somehow end their subscription to your service or get them out of a long-term contract early! Then they'll issue a chargeback that is also totally inappropriate and in violation of contract and claim that they gave notice to cancel by "unsubscribing" from the emails by marking them as spam. Dealing with customer support for those people is not fun. In a perfect world it would go both ways and we could have a system that notified us of such behaviour immediately so we could choose not to do business with those people in the future. It is as sure an indicator of a customer who is not worth the trouble as I have ever found after people attempting actually criminal behaviour. Spam is a difficult problem. Obviously a lot of senders really are abusing the recipients in ways that are not welcome and should ideally be stopped. But there are plenty of recipients abusing the senders of legitimate messages too.
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        > The problem is that there are people who will classify any unsolicited mail from any business they've dealt with as spam. I'd agree if this was the edge-case, but the truth is that most businesses tend to lean towards sending more email than they need to, so overzealous use of the spam button is an expected reaction in response. > which for online email services is likely to affect future processing of mail from related sources for themselves and potentially for others as well. That's the system working as designed - if in aggregate most people signal that they don't want to receive a certain piece of mail or all mail from a certain sender, chances are I will agree with their decision. > But there are plenty of recipients abusing the senders of legitimate messages too. I'll be happy to change my mind once email becomes strictly opt-in and senders would err on the side of caution and the default is no email at all and you must explicitly opt into every distinct category of email, with the opt-in being located in the same annoying and hard-to-reach places as the opt-outs currently are. That's not (yet?) the case, suggesting the spam button isn't being pressed enough. You're trying to guilt people about liberal use of the mark-as-spam button but you seem to have no issues with senders liberally using the "send spam" button.
    - Gigachad 3y ago
      I haven’t had that happen yet, but usually those happen when I already expect them so I can just manually check spam.
    - JeffSnazz 3y ago
      That's not really a trouble at all if you're used to dealing with mail
  - andy81 3y ago
    In a moment of frustration several years ago I marked my mobile sim provider as spam for the same reason. They later deleted my account, and had apparently only notified me via SMS using the same marketing account (and no other channels).
    - Avamander 3y ago
      Sounds like good riddance.
    - alexanderchr 3y ago
      I got a late payment fee from Klarna for a similar reason. They kept spamming my phone with push notifications, so I revoked their permission to send them. Some time later they weren't able to charge my card and only communicated this by push notication (they had my phone numer, email and postal address). The invoice was something like a week away from being sent for collections when I opened the app by accident and saw it. I go out of my way not to do business with them since then.
- midasuni 3y ago
  Check here to receive outlet newsletter. Pre checked. Or one that’s only checked when you fill in your email, but is at the top of the form so you don’t even see it. Any legal solution will be bypassed before it’s even in place, or of course ignored
- jonatron 3y ago
  All the GDPR guidance says it should be opt-in (not pre-checked) eg: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/a-guide-to-lawful-basis/lawful-basis-for-processing/consent/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...
  - sph 3y ago
    Given how commonplace that dark pattern is, I don't think our government agencies do a great job at enforcing GDPR.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      Same thing with data processing consent popups/cookie banners. The vast majority of them aren’t compliant (the GDPR bans tricking/annoying people into granting consent), but are able to proliferate because it’s not enforced anywhere near enough.
  - JeffSnazz 3y ago
    Doesn't really matter when emails are sold on an open market outside the EU/UK.
  - kawsper 3y ago
    In Denmark there's a loophole to the regulation. The opt-out rule requires that what is wanted to be marketed to a customer is corresponding products or services to what they have bought. There are four basic conditions to be able to make use of the opportunity to market products without consent to existing customers. All four conditions must be fulfilled, cf. the Marketing Act § 10, subsection 2: 1) During a previous purchase, the customer has himself provided his email to the vendor, 2) The customer must be informed that the email may be used for advertising in the future, 3) The customer must have the opportunity to opt out of email marketing/advertising on it time when the email was disclosed to the vendor, and 4) The customer must have the opportunity to opt out of receiving email marketing at all times subsequent inquiries from the vendor. "Corresponding products" are defined as: - It must be products that the vendor itself sells. - There must be a connection between the first purchase and the subsequent purchases marketed products, but the products do not have to be identical. - Corresponding "product groups" are covered by the option.
- stavros 3y ago
  > There literally should be a law that says you cannot ask a user to check a box NOT to give away their data. There is!
  - sph 3y ago
    Alright, I meant there should be consequences for doing so.
    - stavros 3y ago
      There are, there have been a few GDPR fines. There should be more, though.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- iamacyborg 3y ago
  The ICO calls this a soft opt-in and it’s perfectly legal.
  - JeffSnazz 3y ago
    Legal, but wrong. There is no such thing as a ambiguous consent, and it's a fucking catastrophe that we've legislated ambiguous consent into our statute.
    - iamacyborg 3y ago
      It’s not consent, it’s legitimate interest.
      - JeffSnazz 3y ago
        Yea, if only the laws reflected what people actually want. "legitimate" is only as good as the laws that back it.
HatchedLake721 3y ago
It’s already the case with GDPR. (B2B spam is different) If you get a random sales/marketing email, you have the right to find out where they got your details from and where did they get your consent to email you.
- JeffSnazz 3y ago
  > It’s already the case with GDPR. This doesn't matter much when emails are sold and sent from outside the EU/UK. This would probably need to be a protocol-level adjustment to ensure consent before contact.
  - HatchedLake721 3y ago
    Doesn't matter where it's sent from, GDPR still applies. A legal business targeting people in the EU must still comply with GDPR, hence still have to tell you where they got your data and consent from. Personally since GDPR got introduced it reduced number of cold calls and emails I receive. No longer can companies randomly add my email address to their Mailchimp accounts. And no longer companies can easily sell my data from one to another. Is it perfect? No. Can it be better? Yes. Did it bring benefits? Yes

sph 3y ago

Yesterday I created an account on John Lewis' website, and I was please to see that during sign-up, they had an unchecked "Tick here if you want our newsletter." Then, later I placed an order, and during credit card checks I noticed a "Tick here if you do NOT want our newsletter", which was of course unchecked and that's how the fuckers got me. Fuck this dark pattern, and fuck the Product Manager that requested it. There literally should be a law that says you cannot ask a user to check a box NOT to give away their data.

Gigachad 3y ago
I just mark all marketing emails as spam now. Since I never want them, I can't have opted in to it so it's spam. Seems very effective at having my email provider forward all future emails from them to spam and hopefully tarnishes their sender trust rating a little.
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago
  The trouble is you may end up with transactional emails in your spam folder.
  - Avamander 3y ago
    Makes their service worse for everyone, everyone wins if they get used less.
  - Silhouette 3y ago
    Indeed. If someone is going to argue credibly for treating everything from commercial sources as spam then they also need to explain how businesses can provide any information they are actively required to provide to their customers either by law or by whatever method the customer is using to pay them. In general the merchants have no say in this and the penalties for failing to provide the information can be far more severe than anything they're going to suffer for losing a few people who don't understand what spam is and abuse the mark-as-spam button when reading their mail.
    - Nextgrid 3y ago
      It is their choice to pollute the channel they use to communicate with customers with spam. They don’t have to send spam, and if they offer the option they shouldn’t make opting out difficult or dark-patterned. Same thing with crying wolf and all that.
      - Silhouette 3y ago
        The problem is that there are people who will classify any unsolicited mail from any business they've dealt with as spam. And by "classify" I mean hitting whatever button they have in their email client that says so - which for online email services is likely to affect future processing of mail from related sources for themselves and potentially for others as well. It doesn't matter to those people whether there was a quick and easy way to unsubscribe or change preferences. It doesn't matter to those people that they actively requested that kind of mail a few months ago and have forgotten. It doesn't matter to those people that they might end up blocking important messages they do want later. It doesn't even matter to those people that they're flagging information that is required by law to be provided to them. There is no nuance here. Got mail. Hit "spam". Done. Some of these people even think that marking the transactional "thanks for your payment" mail as spam will somehow end their subscription to your service or get them out of a long-term contract early! Then they'll issue a chargeback that is also totally inappropriate and in violation of contract and claim that they gave notice to cancel by "unsubscribing" from the emails by marking them as spam. Dealing with customer support for those people is not fun. In a perfect world it would go both ways and we could have a system that notified us of such behaviour immediately so we could choose not to do business with those people in the future. It is as sure an indicator of a customer who is not worth the trouble as I have ever found after people attempting actually criminal behaviour. Spam is a difficult problem. Obviously a lot of senders really are abusing the recipients in ways that are not welcome and should ideally be stopped. But there are plenty of recipients abusing the senders of legitimate messages too.
        Nextgrid 3y ago
        > The problem is that there are people who will classify any unsolicited mail from any business they've dealt with as spam. I'd agree if this was the edge-case, but the truth is that most businesses tend to lean towards sending more email than they need to, so overzealous use of the spam button is an expected reaction in response. > which for online email services is likely to affect future processing of mail from related sources for themselves and potentially for others as well. That's the system working as designed - if in aggregate most people signal that they don't want to receive a certain piece of mail or all mail from a certain sender, chances are I will agree with their decision. > But there are plenty of recipients abusing the senders of legitimate messages too. I'll be happy to change my mind once email becomes strictly opt-in and senders would err on the side of caution and the default is no email at all and you must explicitly opt into every distinct category of email, with the opt-in being located in the same annoying and hard-to-reach places as the opt-outs currently are. That's not (yet?) the case, suggesting the spam button isn't being pressed enough. You're trying to guilt people about liberal use of the mark-as-spam button but you seem to have no issues with senders liberally using the "send spam" button.
  - Gigachad 3y ago
    I haven’t had that happen yet, but usually those happen when I already expect them so I can just manually check spam.
  - JeffSnazz 3y ago
    That's not really a trouble at all if you're used to dealing with mail
- andy81 3y ago
  In a moment of frustration several years ago I marked my mobile sim provider as spam for the same reason. They later deleted my account, and had apparently only notified me via SMS using the same marketing account (and no other channels).
  - Avamander 3y ago
    Sounds like good riddance.
  - alexanderchr 3y ago
    I got a late payment fee from Klarna for a similar reason. They kept spamming my phone with push notifications, so I revoked their permission to send them. Some time later they weren't able to charge my card and only communicated this by push notication (they had my phone numer, email and postal address). The invoice was something like a week away from being sent for collections when I opened the app by accident and saw it. I go out of my way not to do business with them since then.
midasuni 3y ago
Check here to receive outlet newsletter. Pre checked. Or one that’s only checked when you fill in your email, but is at the top of the form so you don’t even see it. Any legal solution will be bypassed before it’s even in place, or of course ignored
jonatron 3y ago
All the GDPR guidance says it should be opt-in (not pre-checked) eg: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/lawful-basis/a-guide-to-lawful-basis/lawful-basis-for-processing/consent/ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-re...
- sph 3y ago
  Given how commonplace that dark pattern is, I don't think our government agencies do a great job at enforcing GDPR.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    Same thing with data processing consent popups/cookie banners. The vast majority of them aren’t compliant (the GDPR bans tricking/annoying people into granting consent), but are able to proliferate because it’s not enforced anywhere near enough.
- JeffSnazz 3y ago
  Doesn't really matter when emails are sold on an open market outside the EU/UK.
- kawsper 3y ago
  In Denmark there's a loophole to the regulation. The opt-out rule requires that what is wanted to be marketed to a customer is corresponding products or services to what they have bought. There are four basic conditions to be able to make use of the opportunity to market products without consent to existing customers. All four conditions must be fulfilled, cf. the Marketing Act § 10, subsection 2: 1) During a previous purchase, the customer has himself provided his email to the vendor, 2) The customer must be informed that the email may be used for advertising in the future, 3) The customer must have the opportunity to opt out of email marketing/advertising on it time when the email was disclosed to the vendor, and 4) The customer must have the opportunity to opt out of receiving email marketing at all times subsequent inquiries from the vendor. "Corresponding products" are defined as: - It must be products that the vendor itself sells. - There must be a connection between the first purchase and the subsequent purchases marketed products, but the products do not have to be identical. - Corresponding "product groups" are covered by the option.
stavros 3y ago
> There literally should be a law that says you cannot ask a user to check a box NOT to give away their data. There is!
- sph 3y ago
  Alright, I meant there should be consequences for doing so.
  - stavros 3y ago
    There are, there have been a few GDPR fines. There should be more, though.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
iamacyborg 3y ago
The ICO calls this a soft opt-in and it’s perfectly legal.
- JeffSnazz 3y ago
  Legal, but wrong. There is no such thing as a ambiguous consent, and it's a fucking catastrophe that we've legislated ambiguous consent into our statute.
  - iamacyborg 3y ago
    It’s not consent, it’s legitimate interest.
    - JeffSnazz 3y ago
      Yea, if only the laws reflected what people actually want. "legitimate" is only as good as the laws that back it.

HatchedLake721 3y ago

It’s already the case with GDPR. (B2B spam is different) If you get a random sales/marketing email, you have the right to find out where they got your details from and where did they get your consent to email you.

JeffSnazz 3y ago
> It’s already the case with GDPR. This doesn't matter much when emails are sold and sent from outside the EU/UK. This would probably need to be a protocol-level adjustment to ensure consent before contact.
- HatchedLake721 3y ago
  Doesn't matter where it's sent from, GDPR still applies. A legal business targeting people in the EU must still comply with GDPR, hence still have to tell you where they got your data and consent from. Personally since GDPR got introduced it reduced number of cold calls and emails I receive. No longer can companies randomly add my email address to their Mailchimp accounts. And no longer companies can easily sell my data from one to another. Is it perfect? No. Can it be better? Yes. Did it bring benefits? Yes