Re: But Facebook are not spammers [was: And Facebook sells user data, too ...]

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

Leaving technical arguments aside, as both sides made their point, my 
argument is this: Whether we agree that Facebook answers the definition 
or spam, or not, we do agree that some of their practices are bad.

Such as:
1. Emailing forever, rather than stopping after a couple of attempts.
2. Emailing people from address books (user need to pick which ones, but 
still).

What we disagree on is if they can be called spammers due to how they 
operate. I doubt we will agree on that.

The issue here from my perspective is pragmatism. Email is a service and 
it is used in many different fashions, in ever evolving ways. Calling 
everything which seems a bit different than what we've seen before 
"spam" is counter-productive.

1. It lessens the message of anti-spam by over-zealousness.

Norms change, and service types change. If the people who deliver the 
service can't keep up with the times, they should move aside. This is 
not to say that abusive behavior should be accepted -- don't think for a 
minute that is the case -- only that not everything new which works 
differently needs to be defined as abusive.

2. Idealistic rabidness is pointless.

I am all for hanging spammers by the gonads, but aren't we going a bit 
far? I want to hang spammers, not large email users.

If I get married tomorrow and email 300 of my friends with a wedding 
invitation, am I a spammer according to your definition? If so, the 
definition is too narrow.

Anti spammers, which I consider myself one (even if I fight at a higher 
(or lower) level, depending on POV) often complain about the EFF. The 
EFF is idealistic in nature, and believes Free Speech is paramount to a 
level where blocking spam in ways such as Black Lists is, according to 
them, offending free speech and should not be done.

I respect their position and appreciate them being around, but they are 
nothing if not dorkish on this point. Without black lists, there would 
be no email. Plus, every other system in existance limits "Freedoms" for 
its own survivability - examples range from human society to computer 
file systems. Systems create order out of chaos, it wasn't a right 
before -- it was an ability.

Much the same as the EFF's silly position on spam, I view calling 
Facebook spammers (whatever else they may indeed be, such as serious 
offenders of privacy) to be misguided, counter-productive to the larger 
fight, and obsolete in definition.

        Gadi.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.