FTC Claims Gmail Filtering Republican Emails Threatens 'American Freedoms' (arstechnica.com) 116
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson accused Google of using "partisan" spam filtering in Gmail that sends Republican fundraising emails to the spam folder while delivering Democratic emails to inboxes. From a report: Ferguson sent a letter yesterday to Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, accusing the company of "potential FTC Act violations related to partisan administration of Gmail." Ferguson's letter revives longstanding Republican complaints that were previously rejected by a federal judge and the Federal Election Commission.
"My understanding from recent reporting is that Gmail's spam filters routinely block messages from reaching consumers when those messages come from Republican senders but fail to block similar messages sent by Democrats," Ferguson wrote. The FTC chair cited a recent New York Post report on the alleged practice.
The letter told Pichai that if "Gmail's filters keep Americans from receiving speech they expect, or donating as they see fit, the filters may harm American consumers and may violate the FTC Act's prohibition of unfair or deceptive trade practices." Ferguson added that any "act or practice inconsistent with" Google's obligations under the FTC Act "could lead to an FTC investigation and potential enforcement action."
"My understanding from recent reporting is that Gmail's spam filters routinely block messages from reaching consumers when those messages come from Republican senders but fail to block similar messages sent by Democrats," Ferguson wrote. The FTC chair cited a recent New York Post report on the alleged practice.
The letter told Pichai that if "Gmail's filters keep Americans from receiving speech they expect, or donating as they see fit, the filters may harm American consumers and may violate the FTC Act's prohibition of unfair or deceptive trade practices." Ferguson added that any "act or practice inconsistent with" Google's obligations under the FTC Act "could lead to an FTC investigation and potential enforcement action."
Receive our emails (Score:5, Insightful)
Receive our emails, even if people mark them as spam. Otherwise, get sued.
How about not getting any? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
Re: (Score:3)
yeah well, everything sounds simple to people who don't quite understand the nature of the actual problem, but here's a hint:
The next day after your "simple solution": "FTC sues Google claiming that it is identifying their non-political party emails as political party emails"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the real solution is to remove all filters. But then nobody could use GMail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"but muh both sides" as they are forced into the camps
And text messages (Score:2)
Re:How about not getting any? (Score:4, Insightful)
> just block ALL emails from political parties
This is a game of cat and mouse. Political parties are not going to clearly identify themselves. I suspect Google's spam bots are blocking emails where the sender is being shameless in asking for money.
1. Send us money now or your kids' future is in jeopardy.
2. Gays are coming for all of us, send money now to save the country.
3. Buy shitcoins that are backed by president's family.
Re:How about not getting any? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> The Democrats send plenty of spam...
Scale matters. When it comes to being shameless spammers, I suspect one party wins handily.
Re: (Score:2)
Effectively, this is what happens now. Who *doesn't* mark every political email as spam? Maybe 5% of people who actually donate to the parties? I'd guess almost everybody else marks every political message, regardless of source, as spam.
Re: (Score:2)
It raises the question (to me at least) of: are the messages being marked as spam due to:
a) the normal process of filtering rules (including LLMs), user interaction and feedback, keywords, blacklists, etc.
b) some additional editorial decision (e.g. they have chosen to block, or add extra weight, to certain messages).
If its A then it's hard to see the problem. The rules apply to all senders and messages equally, and the solution is to write better messages.
If its B then there is a problem. Google are acting
Re: (Score:2)
The only way B is a problem, is if the editorial decisions are somehow aimed at one specific political viewpoint or party. As long as those editorial decisions involve factors like "asking for money" or "from a political organization" those kinds of editorial decisions would be OK because they are not showing favoritism.
Re: (Score:2)
America is failing because no one seems to accomplish anything anymore because they're wasting their time attacking each other thanks to a constant bombardment of negativity where even the president of the country wants half the people to hate the other half.
Re:Receive our menstrual cups (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Receive our menstrual cups (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Receive our menstrual cups (Score:5, Insightful)
Waaaahhhh orange man bad
yes, pedophiles are bad, this we agree on!
Re:Receive our menstrual cups (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
"waah liberals think that having a larger vocabulary is indicative of a stronger intellect and they wont let me win"
win what exactly? the right to find out that tariffs really are a type of tax?
besides, who are these 'liberals' you keep whining about... do you have some kind of liberal derangement syndrome or something...?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed Trump won, he even won by a landslide. It goes to show that if that Gmail filtering worked against Republicans, which is not the case according to the judges, it wasn't exactly instrumental.
Anyways, it it makes Gmail treat both parties equally by flagging all political emails, I guess that it could be a win for all of us (I can dream...).
Server Configuration (Score:5, Informative)
Wasn't this all hashed out before, and it was determined that the email servers sending the Republican emails was misconfigured so the emails legimately looked like spam?
Re: Server Configuration (Score:5, Interesting)
There was also the problem that the begging letters from republicans generally looked more spammy. That and more people reported them as spam, which fed back to the filters.
Re: Server Configuration (Score:5, Informative)
And the e-mails probably linked to untrustworthy news sites. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
From where I sit, every single piece of political email, regardless of proper server configuration, still looks like spam to me, and I will mark it as such every time.
Re: Server Configuration (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently this was a new test, essentially A B testing. The only difference in the two sets of email were that one set had links to ActBlue and the other set had links to WinRed. The complaint is that the WinRed linking emails were marked as spam but the ActBlue linking emails were not.
Free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor does it mean you are obligated to receive spam emails
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile.... (Score:5, Insightful)
la Presidenta is rampaging among the media companies trying to shut down any organization that causes his dainty little panties to bunch up. When did Republicans turn into such whiny little children?
Re:Meanwhile.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Making America Grate Again (spelling intentional)
Makes sense - they are a rather cheesy lot...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Meanwhile.... (Score:5, Insightful)
When did Republicans turn into such whiny little children?
They've always been like that - they just had handlers and consultants to make sure their behaviour was hidden from the press and the electors. But nobody can tell this administration what to do or how to behave in public.
Re:Meanwhile.... (Score:4, Informative)
In australia our main conservative party is the "liberal party" (Yes its confusing, and theres a long history behind why this is). When I was at university, there was a thing called the "young liberals movement". Its essentially the cadet wing of the adult party. Theres also a young labor party too. I got a bit of an insight into how these parties work watching these kids, and boy did it not look promising.They'd turn up to university in bowties and suits, this being the 1990s when standard student dress was ripped flannelette, a nose ring and green hair, and march around campus screaming at people calling them "f**gots" and "commies" and students are like "Dude, get out my face I have a class to go to". They'd get rough with people too, though it *rarely* worked out well for them. I saw a bunch of them turn up to a talk by a woman who was a sexual assault survivor and one of them started shouting out "You deserved it b*tch" etc, and wouldnt shut up till the largest middle aged lesbian I've ever seen rocked over and hit him so hard he flew off his feet. He deserved it too, he was menacing young women, and screaming at people, if giant lesbian lady hadn't throttled him, campus security likely would have. This was, maybe 1996.
These junior psychos end up as the politicians of tomorrow, which at this point is today. I worked at the student union, and encountered one absolute freak of a man, albino, dressed like he was from the 1800s, very agressive, would turn up to events and try and disrupt them. Etc. Well, in the years since, he started working as a senate staffer, then became a state senator, aaaand then it came out he was a serial pedo. In his few years in power he rapidly got a reputation as an absolute bastard. He was hardly the sole exception either. The most famous ex young-liberal was "half term" tony abbot, the man who was briefly prime-minister for about a year before his own party got sick of his extremist nonsense and rolled him out and replaced him with the entirely respectable centrist Malcolm Turnbull. But the damage to the party was already done and Turnbull himself got rolled and replaced with the obnoxious Scott Morrison, aka "Scotty from marketing" who largely had similar policies as Abbott, but was less prone to insane ranting.
The thing is, the rot starts from the roots. How the party gains its membership. The LNP started off as being basically the rich guys party, but then started to move towards recruiting via campus psychos. And it started turning into an extremist party.
The LNP are likely to be out of power for a while now. The demographics are not in their favor. Eventually that'll happen to the republicans too. Its current insanity is in part because the party knows that demographically its projected to lose Texas at some point in the next decade, and once it loses texas, the game is over, the presidency cant be won without it just as the dems cant win the presidency without california. So its in a rampage trying to use what MIGHT be its last presidency in a generation to buttress itself against those demographic changes. That would be a lot harder in australia, our system is a lot harder to fudge by gerymandering, voter caging and other nonsense tactics. But in the US, you guys have *serious* structural problems with your electoral system you need to sort out, or its gonna stay a two party system that attracts radicals and psychos. Cos Abbot was bad, but he was no Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually that'll happen to the republicans too. Its current insanity is in part because the party knows that demographically its projected to lose Texas at some point in the next decade
I've been hearing about Texas being just around the corner from becoming a Democratic party state for about a decade now meanwhile it doesn't seem any closer to when I first heard about it. Plus even if Democratic voters become a majority in Texas they'll have to overcome the aggressive gerrymandering in that state to make their voter majority materialize as a governing majority. As someone who pretty much votes Democrat in every national election I'm not holding my breath on this.
Re: (Score:2)
With Richard Nixon.
Can they prove... (Score:4, Informative)
...that otherwise-identical content is being treated differently just based on the sender?
I suspect not...
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Did you read the article? They tested an identical email with the link target going to ActBlue versus WinRed.
Re:Can they prove... (Score:4, Informative)
Who tested it? The test came from Targeted Victory a conservative consulting group and the NYP article links to this "demonstration video" of them sending bare links and one got flagged whihc while worthy of further investigation says really nothing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
This is a matter for the courts or some type of public investigation before the FTC starts enacting widespread rule changes.
Re:Can they prove... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Can they prove... (Score:2)
That is not based on the sender.
Also, do you have any citation showing that link is not associated with more spam?
Re: (Score:1)
That is not based on the sender.
True, but as the OP was asking about being treated differently on a single criterion, perhaps they hadn't noticed that something very similar had already been tried.
Also, do you have any citation showing that link is not associated with more spam?
No, and I agree Occam says that's the best explanation.
Re: (Score:3)
Couldn't that just demonstrate that the WinRed website (whatever that is, I've no idea) is as spammy as the emails? (email filters check the reputation of the link destinations too)
If the theory is that Republicans send spammy messages, then it doesn't really prove anything.
Re:Can they prove... (Score:4, Informative)
Strange question, since when did trump and co need to prove anything? From what I understand anything the dear leader says is to be treated as fact, regardless of how provable false it is.
Yup. For example, he wants to fire a Federal Reserve Board Governor for cause because he says she (or someone) allegedly filled out a mortgage form incorrectly years before she became a Fed Governor, without any proof of wrongdoing, intentional or otherwise, without any charges, without an investigation or conviction *and* he says the Courts can't review his interpretation of "cause".
More so, the law says they can't be removed, except for specific reason, none of which seem applicable, but if he doesn't like that Congress could change the law, especially as Republicans control the House, Senate and White House ... but, no... he wants to do this by fiat.
Re: (Score:1)
Turns out Trumps first term economy was momentum from Obama and held up by ZIRP so now he's sweaty for those low rates to bail him out.
Higher Prices Are Coming for Household Staples [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Turns out Trumps first term economy was momentum from Obama and held up by ZIRP so now he's sweaty for those low rates to bail him out.
Higher Prices Are Coming for Household Staples [wsj.com]
Buckle up. The Bond market and foreign investors will love him controlling the Fed by whim. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of us are hoping for a proper Truss moment for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of us are hoping for a proper Truss moment for Trump.
Unfortunately, some people have to actually experience the consequences of their choices to understand and appreciate them. More unfortunately is that, especially in this case, the rest of us are stuck on the ride with them.
Re: (Score:3)
...that otherwise-identical content is being treated differently just based on the sender?
I suspect not...
Proof is beside the point. The Republicans are now in power in all branches of government with few checks and balances. When acting arbitrarily, neither proof nor due process is needed, especially when the Supreme Court will rubber stamp Republican actions.
Furthermore, these actions that seemingly baffle reason are mainly intended to rile up the base. Not only is proof not needed, but the resolution is also not needed. The accusation and the howling from the base is already success.
reserve the right to filter my email (Score:5, Informative)
I am not obligated to accept email from anyone. I reserve my right to filter my email as I see fit. Good news is that I don't use Gmail. I run my own email server and I can do whatever I want with it, like block all political spam.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, GMail's spam filtering is far superior to any other spam filter out there, whether personal or enterprise. Nobody else comes close. If GMail is forced to stop being as effective, it will make the email world a worse place.
That's great that you maintain your own filters. But I'm guessing you have to *constantly* tweak those filters, and that you still get quite a few false positives and false negatives every day. Not so with GMail. It gets the spam identification wrong less than 1% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is I run my own email server but I outsource spam filtering to a service, it works really well. That service isn't google related and I don't think the servers are in the US. I agree that doing your own spam filtering can be a real PITA. I'm still in control of the filtering and there is lots of email I never see.
Part of my point is that no one is obligated to accept any email. It is not like the Postal Service where the mail carrier has exclusive access to your box and you must follow postal regulati
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, the government *could* go after your spam service provider if they perceive it to be unfairly targeting the party in power, and if the provider were big enough to target. With this government, it's all about optics, making statements. It's not about doing *actual* good.
Republicans have been caught multiple times (Score:1, Troll)
If Democrats did the same thing they would also get their emails banned but here is the thing Democrats only doing that. So their emails get delivered.
As always fascism requires an in-group that the law protects but does not bind and an outgroup that the law binds but does not protect.
It's time to pick sides America and you know which one is the right one.
This is becasue GOP sends more unsolicited mail (Score:5, Informative)
In response to this article, the folks at Koli-Lõks ran the numbers on their spam traps [linkedin.com] (aka email honeypots, these are mailboxes that do not receive legitimate or solicited mail). The resulting graph clearly indicates that Republicans send 20-60 times more unsolicited email than Democrats (as measured by winred.com vs actblue.com. That multiplier is eyeballed from the graph).
If you behave like a spammer and/or send mail that looks like spam, your content will be blocked as spam.
(Disclaimer: I'm in anti-spam. Nothing I've ever worked on has targeted anything political; we consider that a policy issue rather than security. If somebody reports political party mail to us (as either threat or benign, from any political party), we will not use it for training our systems in any direction. If general spam detection triggers on political mail and a recipient doesn't like that, they should allowlist the sender to bypass filtering. I am not representing my employer in this or my other posts.)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they mean Koli-Lõks OÜ the USAID funded propaganda outfit
Koli-Lõks OÜ is a limited company registered in Estonia [koliloks.eu]
Re:This is becasue GOP sends more unsolicited mail (Score:5, Informative)
Emails that fail Bayes for spaminess.
Emails sent to spam traps.
Emails sent to non-US citizens (which, BTW, is against US campaign law if they're soliciting funds, so we forward all those to the FEC.
Emails sent to compromised email addresses (e.g. Company X gets their customer list hacked, spams start arriving shortly thereafter).
Emails sent from known spam-friendly ISPs.
Emails sent from eyeball network ranges (e.g. most likely a botnet).
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's going to get called a duck. Spam is no different.
Re: This is becasue GOP sends more unsolicited mai (Score:2)
Emails sent to non-US citizens (which, BTW, is against US campaign law if they're soliciting funds, so we forward all those to the FEC.
Really? I get those from time to time. I assume nothing ever actually gets done about them of course.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been over this (Score:5, Interesting)
https://www.theverge.com/2024/... [theverge.com]
Gmail gave them instructions for not getting flagged which they ignored.
It's simple (Score:1)
Don't email hate messages and other content that get caught in spam filters. Why is it always the conservative nut bags who think they are getting censored, when all they do is spread a message of hate? Of course that shit is going to be blocked, god damn fucking consertard snowflakes.
Everything is a threat to freedom/emergency (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Bullshit. Spam is spam is spam. (Score:5, Insightful)
Spam is spam, and bulk mail is always spam. Political bulk mail is poisonous spam.
Re: (Score:2)
If I sign up for promotional emails, that's not spam. I might do that, say, to get discount offers from a company I do business with.
If I didn't sign up for promotional emails, it's spam. It doesn't matter if it's from a political party or organization, or a business.
backwards-upside-down world (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if this was true (which is dubious at best considering the constant conservative whining about cancel culture) This would be a clear cut example of a PRIVATE company exercising it's rights to deliver to it's own users based it's own internal classification of what counts as junk mail.
The standard conservative answer to this sort of disagreement used to be "Change providers", "Work elsewhere", "Spin up your own version" and "Buy a different brand". The standard liberal answer was always "Write your congressman" "Sponsor legislation", and "There aught to be a law"
It's like we're living in upside-down-backwards world. The conservative administration in power is buying stakes in private business, and clearly attempting to control commerce from the top down with tariffs, regulation, lawsuits and threats. They're insisting big government do something about every little thing they don't like, and choosing winners and losers based on political ideology, while the left is now crying for less government, fewer laws, and generally less executive power.
It really is a crazy time to be alive. It's gotta be confusing as hell for young people who're just beginning to pay attention to politics what with the fun new GOP armed troop janitorial units in DC and ICE jumpout black bag squads in blue cities and whatnot.. Especially considering the complete 180 so many of those in public office have performed on so many issues over the past year and half or so. I've been paying attention for a while and it's still damn hard to keep it all straight.
Private companies are still able to conduct business the way they want.. right? We as consumers are still allowed to choose what and what not to use/consume, right? The government is still the referee between the consumer and big business right? We're still against monopolies, right?
Because it is spam (Score:4, Interesting)
Bet you it is because of stupid money requests (Score:3)
I can guarantee that Google is not trying to stop Republican emails, that would be something only an idiot convicted of a felony would do, but instead has totally reasonable standards the Republicans fail to live up to.
I bet the emails from Democrats have words that attack Trump, and perhaps a request for an unspecified donation.
While the emails from 'Republicans" say things like "You must reply TODAY to get your free Maga Hat after paying $53 for shipping".
Simple solution. (Score:2)
Wait, what about the 1st amendment (Score:3)
If Google came out and said 'yes, we block all Republican email because we are in protest against them' wouldn't that be protected political speech since corporations are people? Please, please, GOP throw a fit and make corporations not people.
If you force them thru the spam filter (Score:2)
Then my automatic rules will still just put it right back in the spam folder.
I'm not gonna read it.
Auto forward (Score:3)
If this happens, I'm going to auto forward every GOP email to every single GOP candidate invox I can find. I will choke them with their own bullshit.
Obvious solution (Score:2)
I'll bet you money (Score:2)
Andrew Ferguson is probably sitting in the Epstein files.
Republicans (Score:2)
Political email (Score:2)
I certainly hope my email filters ALL political garbage.. I don't want any political parties sending me emails.
Democrats too (Score:2)
When I worked at the DNC, our practices for composing the email list left a lot to be desired. They were notionally opt-in, we didn't intentionally buy spam lists, but if "someone" dropped your email address into a form on our web page, we didn't ask twice. And I know for sure that a couple of my own email addresses that should not have found their way onto the list did so, seemingly by collection from downstream politicians' lists who had been even more careless about their list collection. I doubt that ha
How does it know? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The filters likely don't care about party affiliation, but the typical content of right-wing messaging is indistinguishable from all sorts of messaging people demand be blocked.
If they'd stop trying to sell evil and con you out of every last penny, their messages would be delivered. They believe it is more effective for their purposes to attempt to force Google to give them special treatment and bypass the filters.
It's extremely unfair (Score:2)
So you are saying that GMail provides Republicans with better spam filtering than it does Democrats? I agree that is REALLY not fair. They need to improve Democrat spam filtering.
Are they not being evil for once? (Score:2)
The Republicans stopped playing by the rules (rule of law included) a long time ago, why should google have to follow them?
MAGA-led FTC tries to revive a dead horse (Score:2)
The FTC’s latest broadside against Google over Gmail spam filtering isn’t really about settled law so much as politics. Courts have already ruled that Gmail isn’t a common carrier, Section 230 protects Google’s filtering choices, and the FEC shot down the idea that spam filtering counts as an “in-kind contribution.” What the FTC chair is doing now is reframing an ancient GOP talking point as a consumer protection issue under the FTC Act — a 1914 trust-busting law me
They should include examples. (Score:2)
I don't get much/any Republican email spam, but the shit I get from Democrats looks like it was written by an eighth grader who has gotten access to an espresso machine, and that is being generous. It's embarrassing. It's easy to foam at the mouth about "They're suppressing our emails!", but I think it's likely that if they documented the emails being "suppressed", most people would agree that the algorithm isn't making a mistake. The kinds of marketing incentives political operatives live under are basi
Re:No first amendment protections. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that Republicans have a right to spam the shit out of people. Obviously there are not first amendment protections for a private comapny to handle spam the way it wants to. The issue is that gmail ONLY filters republican political spam. And while I don't think there is much legal standing for the FTC, this is quite frankly, hypocritical bullshit. Anyone who can't see the blatant hypocrisy is either ignorant, an idiot or is duplicitous.
Genuine question, because I'm a little confused by your phrasing...are you saying that Google should not have the legal right to process the data on their servers on the domain they own the way they wish? Or are you saying that Google does have the legal right, but that they should not for some reason?
The reason I ask is because Republicans (which this Andrew Ferguson is) have claimed for many years, to the point of conducting Congressional investigations, that there is something "wrong" with non-governmental companies "censoring" Republicans. For example, there were several hearings on how Twitter, prior to Musk purchasing it, did content moderation during the 2020 election cycle.
Oddly enough, however, after Musk purchased Twitter and blatantly, publicly, and obviously manipulated Twitter algorithms which push Republican agenda users and tampered down Democratic agenda users, those same Republicans were incredibly silent. In fact, I do not believe a Republican led Congressional committee has even once demanded Elon Musk appear before them to answer questions about how he is censoring Twitter.
So I am curious where you stand, because I do not think anyone who follows along very closely believes Mr. Ferguson is genuinely concerned about freedom of speech, but is most likely far more interested in making sure HIS party's speech is heard/seen. Since I could not figure out where you stood on this matter, I was curious if you agree with Mr. Ferguson's publicly stated position, his nakedly obvious partisan position, or on the side of the idea the company has the right to control the speech on their own platforms and it is just a matter of whether the company should do so or not.
I want to stress again, this is a genuine question. I know politics tends to generate snark and sarcasm, but this is neither. Just genuinely interested in what you meant in your post.
Re: (Score:3)
are you saying that Google should not have the legal right to process the data on their servers on the domain they own the way they wish?
No. I am saying google has the right to do what they wish with their property.
I specifically said they're a private company and thus no one cam claim First Amendment protections (because they're not the government).
Oddly enough, however, after Musk purchased Twitter and blatantly, publicly, and obviously manipulated Twitter algorithms which push Republican agenda users and tampered down Democratic agenda users, those same Republicans were incredibly silent.
Is it not Musks' property? Thus he gets to do with it as he wishes?
Or are you bringing it because you think someone else doing something wrong justifies another entity also doing wrong?
So I am curious where you stand..
My position is that a private company has every right to filter as they wish on their platform, within the
Re: (Score:2)
My position is that a private company has every right to filter as they wish on their platform, within the limit of the law, of which this issue does not qualify as a first amendment issue because Google is not the government.
However, they're all duplicitous assholes. And anyone who supports filtering like this, regardless of which side of the political spectrum gains ascendancy, is either ignorant, an idiot or disingenuous.
Honestly, yeah. I think this nails it. Assuming the accusations are accurate, intentionally targeting one political party over the other for spam filtering would be totally unacceptable.
Re: No first amendment protections. (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a fucking moron would assume the accusations are accurate, so there is no reason to go down that route.
Re: (Score:3)
Assuming the accusations are accurate, intentionally targeting one political party over the other for spam filtering would be totally unacceptable.
Nothing wrong with Google choosing to blocking fascist spam. If you think other parties' email is worse, you're free to block them yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
No. I am saying google has the right to do what they wish with their property. I specifically said they're a private company and thus no one cam claim First Amendment protections (because they're not the government).
Okay, thank you for the clarification. The way your initial post was written, I was not quite certain of where you stood. It appears as if you and I are mostly in agreement on this.
Is it not Musks' property? Thus he gets to do with it as he wishes? Or are you bringing it because you think someone else doing something wrong justifies another entity also doing wrong?
Absolutely it is, just like it was the property of the previous ownership. The only reason I brought it up was to provide context for why I was asking for clarification.
My position is that a private company has every right to filter as they wish on their platform, within the limit of the law, of which this issue does not qualify as a first amendment issue because Google is not the government.
Agreed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good question, and one that comes up in many forms in all sorts of discussions. My opinion:
Yes, Google are free to process data going through their servers in any way they wish. However, if that data is then published to the wider world and they are exercising arbitrary editorial control over the content (to be fair, it isn't clear that's what's happening here), then they are (or at least, should be) open to the same liability issues as any other publisher.
The controversy comes in because they (or Tw
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good question, and one that comes up in many forms in all sorts of discussions. My opinion:
Yes, Google are free to process data going through their servers in any way they wish. However, if that data is then published to the wider world and they are exercising arbitrary editorial control over the content (to be fair, it isn't clear that's what's happening here), then they are (or at least, should be) open to the same liability issues as any other publisher.
The controversy comes in because they (or Twitter or whoever) get to exercise editorial control over the context (choosing what people see) but avoid the liability issues that any publisher would face for the content they publish. It's a bit two-faced.
While I understand, I believe, the general concept of your position, I think the point that you are not including is that there already is someone who is responsible for the liability. What I mean is that if I post libel against you on Twitter or send it through email to a third party, I am liable for my libel. I am not acting as an employee of Twitter or Google (for our hypothetical, at least) and, as such, Google/Twitter are merely the public space in which I have uttered my libelous comment. It is, in es
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. If you post a message directly to a third party (through email or Twitter or whatever) that is libelous, then you personally are liable for that - you chose to send the message, so it's your responsibility, both legally and morally. No problem with that at all.
For email, this isn't complicated, but with something like Twitter or Facebook or whatever it gets more complicated. Through the use of their algorithms (which they created and are fully in contol of both the operation and the output
Re: (Score:3)
They send more spam and thus more people click "this is spam" and the urls/lanaguage/etc that they use become indicative of spam (as judged by users).
That seems much more likely than google manually filtering republican spam.
I know managers at work sometimes ask to be added to automated mailing lists for technical things (disks are >X% full type stuff) and refuse to believe they won't want it when told what it will be. And then click "spam" on gmail and now the email address being used for them gets dive
Re:No first amendment protections. (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue is that gmail ONLY filters republican political spam. And while I don't think there is much legal standing for the FTC, this is quite frankly, hypocritical bullshit.
-Users overwhelmingly reported the republican political spam as spam; therefore the filters blocked it as known SPAM.
-Users did not report the democrat political spam as spam.
-The republican spam emails were not coming from properly configured servers (improper SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and PTR).
-The republican spam emails were sent from newly registered domains, hosted on 3rd party VPS with no history/reputation as "known good sender".
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) investigated this. Google offered to whitelist registered political groups (with the FEC maintaining the official list). The republican groups refused to register with the FEC as political senders.
The republican groups sued in federal court. All of the above were entered into the court record as FACTS. The republicans lost.
Re: (Score:3)
"The issue is that gmail ONLY filters republican political spam"
No it doesn't, I have it filter out ALL political spam.
"Anyone who can't see the blatant hypocrisy is either ignorant, an idiot or is duplicitous."
No, you're just fucking stupid.