3 ms·

That's a rather baseless assumption about my income. Does it really seem so unlikely to you that a reasonable person might not use the exact same criteria as yo

That's a rather baseless assumption about my income. Does it really seem so unlikely to you that a reasonable person might not use the exact same criteria as yourself? Why are you so confident in the generalization of your own perspective to the population at large? Define "low quality" and "not liked". Each person will classify a given message differently. At least in the general case it's hardly realistic to expect a sender to classify a message from the perspective of a specific recipient prior to sending it. On the other hand, it is reasonable to expect addresses to be acquired via legitimate means (ie collected only with the consent of the recipient) and to cease attempts at contact when requested. That's essentially the boundary between reasonable conduct and harassment.

s1mplicissimus 1y ago
I did not assume, I drew a conclusion from working on email marketing software and experiencing first hand the worldview that seems necessary to stay in this line of work while avoiding cognitive dissonance. > At least in the general case it's hardly realistic to expect a sender to classify a message from the perspective of a specific recipient prior to sending it I guess from the perspective of someone doing mass mailings that is true. A pointer to what I assume is your bias on the topic. But from the perspective of the recipient, who actually has to invest the cognitive effort of reading that message, I think it's only natural to expect a certain amount of average value out of that effort. And lets be honest, that mass mailing doesn't usually deliver that. It's just another trigger designed to manipulate people into buying shit they didn't even really want. Let's rather have the default newsletter checkbox to be "off" and legal repercussions for repeated offenders, then I'll be on board for the term "reasonable conduct" too.

s1mplicissimus 1y ago

I did not assume, I drew a conclusion from working on email marketing software and experiencing first hand the worldview that seems necessary to stay in this line of work while avoiding cognitive dissonance. > At least in the general case it's hardly realistic to expect a sender to classify a message from the perspective of a specific recipient prior to sending it I guess from the perspective of someone doing mass mailings that is true. A pointer to what I assume is your bias on the topic. But from the perspective of the recipient, who actually has to invest the cognitive effort of reading that message, I think it's only natural to expect a certain amount of average value out of that effort. And lets be honest, that mass mailing doesn't usually deliver that. It's just another trigger designed to manipulate people into buying shit they didn't even really want. Let's rather have the default newsletter checkbox to be "off" and legal repercussions for repeated offenders, then I'll be on board for the term "reasonable conduct" too.