FC: Calif. governor candidate, DNC chairman turn to political spam
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:57:30 -0800
> Well, what the fsck am I to do? The alternative is to put up a moat that
> makes it impossible or discourages legitimate communications.
Impossible will never happen. Get over it. Doesn't matter WHAT issue you
have -- it doesn't ever ENTIRELY go away. I personally go for the
non-governmentally invasive approach of self-assigned filters. Sure, it
doesn't catch everything, but my spam quota goes down considerably. Rather
than 20 blargs an hour, I get 2.
Government intervention tends to be much MUCH more inclusive than what most
people expect. When gubbies start hitting the censorship happy button, we
get things like China and France. I don't want either. I'll put up with
the annoyance of spam (and mygod it is annoying) over the government Big
brother any goddamn day.
> I want a culture where spamming, identity theft, invasion of privacy, and
> similar pathologies are considered to just as
But they're not. They likely won't be. To begin with, invasion of privacy
is something the government prides itself on. They're not going to put it
into people's heads that its worse than they already think it is. Spam is
not even comoparable to rape/genocide. Its honestly disturbed to even
ponder it ever reaching that category. Spam is much more akin to a nusiance,
like graffiti, or infomercials. They don't leave trauma in a person (at
least not in MOST people, you might be an exception ;-)), and generally are
little more than just royal pains in the arse.
BUt I think advertising in general falls in this category, and that isn't
going away anytime soon
Identity theft is the only one i'd possibly agree with you on.
While its vile, its not illegal, and part of me is happy for that. What the
hell else could I watch at 3 in the morning? Gene Scott rules. And he's
> Until we can find lawmakers who aren't the whores of the Direct Marketing
Again, this won't happen. Nice idea, pleasant fantasy, but not a snowballs'
chance in hell. The DMA puts out HOW Much money to campaigns again?
(Here's a hint, Over 1999-2000, they gave $146,900, and that was just to
>we'll have to use whatever tools we can find.
Well, we could just kill them ? *Grin*
> It's like the problem with the notion of a hate crime, it's not the best
> way to deal with racism/sexism/heterosexism, but as long as we have mouth
> breathing idiots in our midst, we need some sort of crow bar to use
> against the Aryan-Nations crowd.
I'd argue that hate crimes have the same effect as diminishing the strength
of the current law, similar in the way that using stalking law to combat