3 ms·

> I often think about how unreasonably great the regulations around “Unsubscribe” links in emails are. The sheer number of comments that think the state of "un

> I often think about how unreasonably great the regulations around “Unsubscribe” links in emails are. The sheer number of comments that think the state of "unsubscribe" is good is... saddening. I should not have to click a link to "unsubscribe" from something that I did not subscribe to. There's no recourse for me against these thieves.

Bjartr 2y ago
The state of Unsubscribe is good. Imagine how much worse things would be if legit businesses had no reason to make it easy to unsubscribe in such a consistent way like we do today. That other problems also exist doesn't mean this solution for this thing isn't good.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Sure, but imagine how much better it would be if any business (legit or not) could not send marketing emails to us at all without our prior, affirmative, non-coerced consent. The state of Unsubscribe is better than what it was before the laws around it went into effect, but it doesn't go far enough.
  - consteval 2y ago
    This, to me, is a technical problem. The issue is the design of email means that it's vulnerable to spam. If someone knows your email, you WILL get spam. There's technical workarounds, too. Like unique emails for each and every service.
- bjoli 2y ago
  I Had an issue with sixt (car rental). To unsubscribe I had to send a copy of my friggin passport to an address in Germany. I instead used GDPR to request a removal of all my data. That worked.
- ironmagma 2y ago
  It's okay. Sometimes when you click the Unsubscribe link you have to enter your email (log in), and sometimes you have to fill out a form, which may or may not be serviceable. There is room for dark patterns here, and dark patterns are used. We're hardly out of the woods with Unsubscribe.
vel0city 2y ago
So what, people should only be able to email you if you've previously emailed them? How am I supposed to know who I'm allowed to email?
- inetknght 2y ago
  > So what, people should only be able to email you if you've previously emailed them? No, people should be able to email me as they would normally. I should be able to block senders, or entire domains. To use a direct example: if I decide that substack is shit because they subscribe people without consent (which is exactly true), then I should be able to block all things from substack and not just a single email address from the domain. If the spammer is operating within the continental US (or any other country with a reasonable court system), then the spammer should be legally and monetarily liable for the time and money wasted. Everything from the second it takes my server to receive the message, to the second it takes to transmit to my email client, to the multiple seconds it takes me to read the headline and/or body, and the time it takes to press the block button -- the energy costs, the hardware cost, the bandwidth cost, my own time's cost, and the cost of lost confidence in the safety of the internet (just as a thief in your home makes you lose confidence in the safety of your neighborhood) -- all of it should be legally and monetarily liable. So when that shit substack email puts on a SendGrid or Mailchimp facade, or goes through some Cloudflare or CloudFront or whatever CDN, those "businesses" also get blocked and sued into oblivion because fuck any "business" that doesn't want to own the relationship with their customer, and fuck any "business" whose customer is not the person they're emailing. So... you want to send me an email? Cool! I hope you will agree that it's legitimate *and wanted*. Because if it's not then I should be able to take you, or your business, to court for wasting my time (and time is money) -- and win on that ground alone. tl;dr: Why do I have such a stark view on this, many might ask? Well let me put it simply: "legitimate" spam is indistinguishable from targeted phishing. So that "unsubscribe" link that people so proudly claim is a great solution? Clicking it does not improve the spam situation and does increase vulnerability to malicious actors. I'm not going to click on that because it doesn't go anywhere that I recognize and can verify. That "unsubscribe" link is worse than a real solution because it's only theatre.
  - 2y ago
amy-petrik-214 2y ago
>The sheer number of comments that think the state of "unsubscribe" is good is... saddening. I should not have to click a link to "unsubscribe" from something that I did not subscribe to. There's no recourse for me against these thieves. Exactly! Total scumbags. The way I would frame the feeling for people who don't get it - Imagine coming home from a walk. Your car is gone. Someone left a note on your front door. "Hi, thanks so much for letting me borrow your car! Call me at this number when you want it back!". The manipulative car thief in this example would deny stealing - pointing out they would return the car whenever asked. So you call them and ask for it back, but a bit of your soul dies - to ask for it back is to play along with the ruse that this is what you consented to in the first place. Or at least "would definitely have consented to if available which you weren't". And the loss of control over consent leaves a persistent sense of violation, after all, someone just stole from you and then has the gall to pretend you consented, to your face (or front door). Perhaps the car borrower-without-permission should have owed up to being a car thief. Perhaps the subscribe-without-permission thieves should own up to being just spammers. The insult of it all is not so much from the random spam, but this manipulative pretend game where we have some spam shitelist LARPing as a reputed newsletter of great public interest - the gall of the spammer to make-believe that you subscribed. It would all be easily solved if there were civil penalties for it. I'd gladly go after anyone and everyone who pulled this shit as a public service.

Bjartr 2y ago

The state of Unsubscribe is good. Imagine how much worse things would be if legit businesses had no reason to make it easy to unsubscribe in such a consistent way like we do today. That other problems also exist doesn't mean this solution for this thing isn't good.

kelnos 2y ago
Sure, but imagine how much better it would be if any business (legit or not) could not send marketing emails to us at all without our prior, affirmative, non-coerced consent. The state of Unsubscribe is better than what it was before the laws around it went into effect, but it doesn't go far enough.
- consteval 2y ago
  This, to me, is a technical problem. The issue is the design of email means that it's vulnerable to spam. If someone knows your email, you WILL get spam. There's technical workarounds, too. Like unique emails for each and every service.
bjoli 2y ago
I Had an issue with sixt (car rental). To unsubscribe I had to send a copy of my friggin passport to an address in Germany. I instead used GDPR to request a removal of all my data. That worked.
ironmagma 2y ago
It's okay. Sometimes when you click the Unsubscribe link you have to enter your email (log in), and sometimes you have to fill out a form, which may or may not be serviceable. There is room for dark patterns here, and dark patterns are used. We're hardly out of the woods with Unsubscribe.

vel0city 2y ago

So what, people should only be able to email you if you've previously emailed them? How am I supposed to know who I'm allowed to email?

inetknght 2y ago
> So what, people should only be able to email you if you've previously emailed them? No, people should be able to email me as they would normally. I should be able to block senders, or entire domains. To use a direct example: if I decide that substack is shit because they subscribe people without consent (which is exactly true), then I should be able to block all things from substack and not just a single email address from the domain. If the spammer is operating within the continental US (or any other country with a reasonable court system), then the spammer should be legally and monetarily liable for the time and money wasted. Everything from the second it takes my server to receive the message, to the second it takes to transmit to my email client, to the multiple seconds it takes me to read the headline and/or body, and the time it takes to press the block button -- the energy costs, the hardware cost, the bandwidth cost, my own time's cost, and the cost of lost confidence in the safety of the internet (just as a thief in your home makes you lose confidence in the safety of your neighborhood) -- all of it should be legally and monetarily liable. So when that shit substack email puts on a SendGrid or Mailchimp facade, or goes through some Cloudflare or CloudFront or whatever CDN, those "businesses" also get blocked and sued into oblivion because fuck any "business" that doesn't want to own the relationship with their customer, and fuck any "business" whose customer is not the person they're emailing. So... you want to send me an email? Cool! I hope you will agree that it's legitimate *and wanted*. Because if it's not then I should be able to take you, or your business, to court for wasting my time (and time is money) -- and win on that ground alone. tl;dr: Why do I have such a stark view on this, many might ask? Well let me put it simply: "legitimate" spam is indistinguishable from targeted phishing. So that "unsubscribe" link that people so proudly claim is a great solution? Clicking it does not improve the spam situation and does increase vulnerability to malicious actors. I'm not going to click on that because it doesn't go anywhere that I recognize and can verify. That "unsubscribe" link is worse than a real solution because it's only theatre.
- 2y ago

amy-petrik-214 2y ago

>The sheer number of comments that think the state of "unsubscribe" is good is... saddening. I should not have to click a link to "unsubscribe" from something that I did not subscribe to. There's no recourse for me against these thieves. Exactly! Total scumbags. The way I would frame the feeling for people who don't get it - Imagine coming home from a walk. Your car is gone. Someone left a note on your front door. "Hi, thanks so much for letting me borrow your car! Call me at this number when you want it back!". The manipulative car thief in this example would deny stealing - pointing out they would return the car whenever asked. So you call them and ask for it back, but a bit of your soul dies - to ask for it back is to play along with the ruse that this is what you consented to in the first place. Or at least "would definitely have consented to if available which you weren't". And the loss of control over consent leaves a persistent sense of violation, after all, someone just stole from you and then has the gall to pretend you consented, to your face (or front door). Perhaps the car borrower-without-permission should have owed up to being a car thief. Perhaps the subscribe-without-permission thieves should own up to being just spammers. The insult of it all is not so much from the random spam, but this manipulative pretend game where we have some spam shitelist LARPing as a reputed newsletter of great public interest - the gall of the spammer to make-believe that you subscribed. It would all be easily solved if there were civil penalties for it. I'd gladly go after anyone and everyone who pulled this shit as a public service.