Google To Stop Exempting Campaign Email From Automated Spam Detection (washingtonpost.com) 94
Google plans to discontinue a pilot program that allows political campaigns to evade its email spam filters, the latest round in the technology giant's tussle with the GOP over online fundraising. The Washington Post reports: The company will let the program sunset at the end of January instead of prolonging it, Google's lawyers said in a filing on Monday. The filing, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, asked the court to dismiss a complaint lodged by the Republican National Committee accusing Google of "throttling its email messages because of the RNC's political affiliation and views." "The RNC is wrong," Google argued in its motion. "Gmail's spam filtering policies apply equally to emails from all senders, whether they are politically affiliated or not." [...]
While rejecting the GOP's attacks, Google nonetheless bowed to them. The company asked the Federal Election Commission to greenlight the pilot program, available to all campaigns and political committees registered with the federal regulator. The company anticipated at the time that a trial run would last through January 2023. Thousands of public comments implored the FEC to advise against the program, which consumer advocates and other individuals said would overwhelm Gmail users with spam. Anne P. Mitchell, a lawyer and founder of an email certification service called Get to the Inbox, wrote that Google was "opening up the floodgates to their users' inboxes ... to assuage partisan disgruntlement."
The FEC gave its approval in August, with one Democrat joining the commission's three Republicans to clear the way for the initiative. Ultimately, more than 100 committees of both parties signed up for the program, said Google spokesman Jose Castaneda. The RNC was not one of them, as Google emphasized in its motion to dismiss in the federal case in California. "Ironically, the RNC could have participated in a pilot program leading up to the 2022 midterm elections that would have allowed its emails to avoid otherwise-applicable forms of spam detection," the filing stated. "Many other politically-affiliated entities chose to participate in that program, which was approved by the FEC. The RNC chose not to do so. Instead, it now seeks to blame Google based on a theory of political bias that is both illogical and contrary to the facts alleged in its own Complaint." [...] "Indeed, effective spam filtering is a key feature of Gmail, and one of the main reasons why Gmail is so popular," the filing stated.
While rejecting the GOP's attacks, Google nonetheless bowed to them. The company asked the Federal Election Commission to greenlight the pilot program, available to all campaigns and political committees registered with the federal regulator. The company anticipated at the time that a trial run would last through January 2023. Thousands of public comments implored the FEC to advise against the program, which consumer advocates and other individuals said would overwhelm Gmail users with spam. Anne P. Mitchell, a lawyer and founder of an email certification service called Get to the Inbox, wrote that Google was "opening up the floodgates to their users' inboxes ... to assuage partisan disgruntlement."
The FEC gave its approval in August, with one Democrat joining the commission's three Republicans to clear the way for the initiative. Ultimately, more than 100 committees of both parties signed up for the program, said Google spokesman Jose Castaneda. The RNC was not one of them, as Google emphasized in its motion to dismiss in the federal case in California. "Ironically, the RNC could have participated in a pilot program leading up to the 2022 midterm elections that would have allowed its emails to avoid otherwise-applicable forms of spam detection," the filing stated. "Many other politically-affiliated entities chose to participate in that program, which was approved by the FEC. The RNC chose not to do so. Instead, it now seeks to blame Google based on a theory of political bias that is both illogical and contrary to the facts alleged in its own Complaint." [...] "Indeed, effective spam filtering is a key feature of Gmail, and one of the main reasons why Gmail is so popular," the filing stated.
Of course they didn't sign up (Score:5, Insightful)
Ultimately, more than 100 committees of both parties signed up for the program, said Google spokesman Jose Castaneda. The RNC was not one of them, ...
They would have had one less thing to complain about. Grievance is their bread and butter now.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Grievance is their bread and butter now.
When was manufactured grievance not conservatives' bread and butter? They invented cancel culture [medium.com]! Anyone heard of Salem?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Of course they didn't sign up (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty historically ignorant to claim that the Salem witch hunts were the first example of cancel culture. The Inquisition predates that, as do pogroms [wikipedia.org]. There are endless similar examples going back through history across the globe.
The major distinction of cancel culture is that it's a rather totalitarian backlash against what was the dominant culture. That's why so many people find it unsettling, and it's also why comparisons to Salem witch trials fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing nobody claimed that.
You literally linked to a story headlined "How White Religious Conservatives Invented Cancel Culture" that listed the Salem witch trials as its earliest example. And you cited it as your only example.
If you don't want people to call you out for echoing dumb claims, try not doing that. Don't try to invoke weasel words, either, because that's a weasel move.
Re: (Score:2)
You literally linked to a story headlined "How White Religious Conservatives Invented Cancel Culture" that listed the Salem witch trials as its earliest example. And you cited it as your only example.
It's a useful, US-specific example. Nobody owes you an exhaustive list of times when conservatives cancelled people.
Re: Of course they didn't sign up (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of association is the most important freedom protected in the constitution. Corporations are people. If I do not agree with the stance of a corporation I will not associate with them. I can then use my second greatest protected freedom (speech) to tell others why I choose to not do so. If we all agree then capitalism takes over and the company is no longer part of society.
This is democracy in action and I love it.
Re: Of course they didn't sign up (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm almost 50...
Let me break it to you, bullying has always been the way shit gets done. What do you think life is? It's a series of bullying.
Re: Of course they didn't sign up (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, before social media, you just had small groups of people bullying through the perception (satanic panic, yellow journalism, boycotts of rock and roll, Scientology, dupont and hurst banning cannabis, temperance, etc), religion, or straight up violence (KKK, Tulsa massacre, sundown laws, etc). Cancel culture is a true American value. We have canceled kings, tea, southern plantations, bus riding in Montgomery, eating grapes, and once or twice even going to the Olympics. In the 1950's we had a government
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody owes you an exhaustive list of times when conservatives cancelled people.
When somebody writes a story headlined "How X Invented Y", I expect them to explain that, instead of saying "X did Y this one time and a few others". When somebody links to a story like that, and endorses the core claim, I expect them to back it up.
You are acting like you can't back it up. Instead, you're trying to move the goalposts by pretending I asked for an exhaustive list.
Re: (Score:2)
They're clearly not moving the goalposts from the original post. It's quite obvious at this point that Drinkypoo does not think that the Salem witch trials were the original invention of cancel culture. It's just a prominent example from a long time ago. The headline is just a headline. Headlines are usually nonsense. There's no need to act confused about it, since no one was confused. Drinkypoo could have been more concise, but whatever. You pointed out that it should have been phrased better, which is tru
Re: (Score:1)
It's a weird idea to call the Puritans "religious conservatives". They wanted radical change, both religious and political.
Re: (Score:2)
They were conservative in the sense that they brooked no dissent, religiously or politically. Part of their reason for leaving England is that they wanted to freedom to repress their own members with a colony that they ruled asolutely. England was not sad to see them go. Today we'd label them a cult most likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing nobody claimed that.
You literally linked to a story headlined "How White Religious Conservatives Invented Cancel Culture" that listed the Salem witch trials as its earliest example. And you cited it as your only example.
If you don't want people to call you out for echoing dumb claims, try not doing that. Don't try to invoke weasel words, either, because that's a weasel move.
Drinkypoo pointed out that he fundamentally agrees with you, yet you continued with your 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' version of debate. We liberals can and do disagree often, but we really need to stop figting over trivial matters such as the distinction without a difference that you drew and then doubled down on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's unclear why you want to pick a fight with someone who agrees with you, but it's pretty fucking tiresome.
It's a shame you see someone engaging in a discussion as "picking a fight."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course they didn't sign up (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Some people do. They are stock in 21st century thinking that because the southern conservatives (segregationists) were universally Democrats that therefore the Democrats of 2013 are racists today. Some are so confused by all this that they've even called the segregationists "liberal", which frankly says bad things for education in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Democratic Party" is just a name for one of the groups in our two-party system. It's not some constitutionally ascribed collection of political thought.
These days, the "Democratic Party" is composed mostly of liberals. In those times, it was not.
Trying to make historical judgements of people based on the naming of their umbrella today is... like weirdly stupid.
You'd be hard pressed to say the folks in the Republican Party r
Re:Of course they didn't sign up (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, classic conservatives are not habitual complainers and can well be constructive. These people are not classic conservatives and many are not conservatives at all. Just take a typical catalog of conservative core values and compare these people against it.
Populists on the other hand, which are one of the most destructive political force known to man, are always about manufactured and artificially inflated grievances, conspiracy theories and other fantasies. They have nothing real to offer, to they need a whole, complex set of made-up things they can claim they would fix. And many of them are habitual liars and many of their followers are not intellectually capable to recognize that or to understand what it means.
Incidentally, from an European perspective, the US Democrats are pretty strongly conservative and the Republican are right-wing extremists that mostly do not actually qualify as merely conservative anymore. Conservatives are rational and you can work with them and make the whole work for everybody. Extremists and populists you cannot work with and they make everything worse for everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
from an European perspective, the US Democrats are pretty strongly conservative and the Republican are right-wing extremists that mostly do not actually qualify as merely conservative anymore
Oh yeah, absolutely. The Democrats are thoroughly corporate-owned. People don't seem to realize that's literally the road to fascism. They oughta read Space Merchants or Snow Crash to get some perspective on why letting corporations run everything would be soul-destroying. Or maybe just read up on the actions of United Fruit, or even Coca-Cola, for some real world examples.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Although this is worse than fascism. Fascists at least have some values (no matter how screwed up), corporatism has none.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Although this is worse than fascism. Fascists at least have some values (no matter how screwed up), corporatism has none.
I dunno - some might argue that greed, opportunism, and disingenuousness are values...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, technically you are right. If you look at values that are targeted at preserving the community, then no.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida. Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation. Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Republican party has been co-opted. Starting mostly back with the Moral Majority (who were neither) deciding to explicitly mix politics into religion. So they promise to deliver votes to the party if they promise to pay attention to their heaven and earth shattering issues. Over time that wing has grown, and now it's pretty dominant especially as more typical fiscal conservatives are being shunted being has-beens. This really is a socially conservative party now, theire economic agenda does not
Re: (Score:2)
That gets said a lot here but is only partially true, and more so in an economic sense than a social one. There's a number of important social issues where the US Democratic party is to the left of the average European, for instance on gender identity attitudes, abortion rights, and immigration. Also dep
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure about that. Gender Identity? Basically it is "nobody minds but nobody cares much either". For example, I never have heard of any instance of the bizarre "restroom" debate that seems to flare up in the US again and again. Abortion rights are pretty much there permanently, except for a few countries that have too many catholics to be rational. Immigration? Well. Nobody actually knows. The NGOs that do high-sea rescue for all those that think crossing a rather large body of water in an inflatable
Re: (Score:2)
I agree on the "it's complicated". What I mainly object to is that the Democratic party would be seen as right-wing, when in actuality it's far more complicated.
On gender identity, Europe is pushing back noticeably on affirmative care (the norm in the US), and it's not just the conservative religious countries doing so. On abortion, yes they're a fact, but in many (if not most) EU countries they're also more restrictive than what most states had under Roe, and what the Progressive caucus would like. On immi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course they didn't sign up (Score:5, Interesting)
The Dixie Chicks circa 2003 were the victims of cancel culture and blacklisted overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
That's more due to the type of music they performed. If your audience is primarily conservative and you make comments alienating them, that is a foolish business decision (but a respectable moral one.)
The problem with modern cancel culture is that, usually, the ones calling for the cancel do not even watch/listen to the person they are trying to cancel.
Re: (Score:2)
You're splitting hairs.
All humans have engaged in "cancel culture" since the dawn of fucking time.
People build groups to economically isolate people they don't fucking like.
Declaring a "modern twist" that's mostly a result of how connected society is now as "the problem" is laughably naive, or flat out disingenuous.
The result is the same: You can only economically harm a group via the group that agrees with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course they didn't sign up (Score:4, Insightful)
Ultimately, more than 100 committees of both parties signed up for the program, said Google spokesman Jose Castaneda. The RNC was not one of them, ...
They would have had one less thing to complain about. Grievance is their bread and butter now.
They're training their people to play the role of victims.
Re: (Score:2)
My first thought on jan 6th was don’t all these people have jobs?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I think that every time I see a protest.
Re: (Score:2)
Which you can see because they still harp about white Christian males being the most persecuted people on the planet, despite that group holding the vast majority of the power and wealth. But victimhood brings in the votes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
maybe your idea of the republican party is represented by OPs statements, but I'm a card carrying Republican (proudly) and i have not gotten the memo to do any of that or toe any party line.
I am still a reasonable human being and no amount of decrying about my values will change that.
AC to avoid reverting mods
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I carry no card at all! I'm proudly neither Democrat nor Republican nor Libertarian nor Green nor any of the remaining goofball parties. I also don't have a sports team either, I don't care who wins the big game or not! My political stance most of the time when seeing either party blowhard make a speech is "get a grip!"
Now, I am also a contrarian. And right now, the Republicans are the loudest and brashest bunch and so the contrarian part of me shouts "Lighten up, Frances!" at Republicans more often tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mix up Democrat with Liberal, or Republican with Conservative. The conservatives in the south have been conservative for a couple centuries or more, whereas Democrats used to be conservative but are not liberal, and Republicans used to be more centrist but ended up conservative. Also liberal/conservative are wrong labels too - "fiscal conservative" is really "neo-liberal economics". But Americans love simple terms for complex things, and humans in general like to categorize everything, which means t
Re: (Score:2)
Some people already feel like they're being persecuted by not being allowed to be a bother to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people already feel like they're being persecuted by not being allowed to be a bother to others.
I can see that... Like "Religious Freedom" means being able to impose your beliefs, and will, on others and/or deny them theirs.
Re: (Score:1)
Anyway to reverse it? (Score:1)
How can I keep it as spam. Already in my spam box, there's been several emails from Trump. I don't care to see any of this bullshit in my inbox, from either side.
Re: (Score:3)
Why the CANSPAM Act is "Please-spam-me-baby-Act" (Score:1)
The enormous exceptions for political speech in laws like the CANSPAM Act are only one of the reasons the laws do not, and can not, work.
What Else Is Exempt? (Score:2)
And how much does it cost to bypass it?
thank god (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory XKCD (Score:5, Funny)
https://xkcd.com/1948/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, right on the mark as usual.
+1 Funny or Insightful
Pretty much the GOP's fault. (Score:4, Insightful)
The GOP needs to hire someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck! Do you really think people want to receive DNC marketing emails?
It's not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, nor is it a marketing strategy issue. A political party attempting to win over people or raise money by sending emails...is engaging in spam, period.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously nobody wants to get DNC marketing emails.
If the GOP's claims were correct then Democrats should have reason to complain, as Google's spam filter is not working as well for them as for Republicans.
I think the GP is saying that the GOP is sending out far more fundraising emails. If this is true, they can disingeneously say that Google is blocking more of them, even if the percentage blocked is the same or lower. Don't know if this is really true.
I get a lot of annoying crap from democrats as SMS spa
So what does that mean? (Score:3)
If these emails are not exempted from spam rules, does it mean that if enough people flag them as spam that they get sent to the spam folder for everyone? Or just the people marking them as spam? I could see how the former could lead to all kinds of dirty tricks where people sign up for news letters & such just to flag them as spam to effectively kill that stuff landing in anyone's inbox.
Re:So what does that mean? (Score:4, Funny)
If these emails are not exempted from spam rules, does it mean that if enough people flag them as spam that they get sent to the spam folder for everyone? Or just the people marking them as spam? I could see how the former could lead to all kinds of dirty tricks where people sign up for news letters & such just to flag them as spam to effectively kill that stuff landing in anyone's inbox.
The people who would do such a thing are usually referred to as "Heros".
Anyone else find that spam is winning again? (Score:2)
Re: Anyone else find that spam is winning again? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is stale e-mail accounts. Your information gets sold. You need to either set up aliases or use a wrapper service like DuckDuckGo's email privacy where you can create one-time e-mail addresses.
I like to use a system where I create a new alias YYYY@mydomain.com every year and deactivate the previous year's alias. Humans should be able to intuitively increment the year counter whereas computers don't.
My inbox is pretty dang clean even after years of having the same account (because I never give out
Re: (Score:3)
But you need an email for accounts too; billing/autopay; voicemail/notifications... so many places use your email address as the account name that you can't rotate emails without going to all of those and changing the email then verifying if they even allow you to change your account name at all.
I find the separate email by use works pretty well while any volunteer or political or petition emails get heavily spammed rather quickly due to security holes at those orgs and them sharing their mailing lists. Th
Re: (Score:2)
I get about 150 spams a day to my gmail... the filter tends to catch all but about 5 or 6 of them.
On the plus side (Score:2)
Anecdotal evidence says the DNC can type faster than the RNC, so the RNC will get a lot of campaign letters from their mortal enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
What was the down side, exactly??? Discontinuing the pilot seems like an undisputed win to me!
How will Greg Steube get funding from Canadians? (Score:1)
Poor Greg now needs all the help he can get! [house.gov]
As many of you have heard, I was involved in an accident on my Sarasota property Wednesday afternoon and sustained several injuries. After spending three nights in Sarasota Memorial Hospital, I am grateful to be home and recovering. All praise and glory goes to God!
Seeing that I might become a snow bird if I win the lottery, his spam mail has for the last 7 years kept me abreast of how wonderful the state of Florida is especially for Canadians who are white and
That is fine... (Score:1)
I pretty much was planning on blocking all gmail accounts/emails anyway due to the flood of spam from "valid" gmail accounts letting me know my GeekSquid subscription has been renewed or trying to sell me family re-union t-shirts.
Do not care (Score:2)
I do not care, I abandoned gmail a year or 2 ago when it became a PITA for use with mutt. I moved the mailing lists I subscribed to to a new email on my domain.
Will political ads get to me, not now, gmail can sit there building up unreads. I only use gmail now if I need to supply an email when ask by a WEB site.
Stop Writing Emails That Look Like Spam (Score:1)
Speak clearly, without an attempt to deceive or misdirect.
Just look at whatever you consider the politically normal thing to do... then do the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, stop writing emails asking people to donate, or explaining why they should support a particular party? OK, got it, I'm with you there!
Spam spam spam... (Score:3)
As far as I'm concerned, all campaign mail is spam, unless I've agreed to it, which I haven't.
More background ... (Score:3)
This article details what Google did, yet republicans did not use that feature ... [theverge.com].
Re: (Score:2)
This article details what Google did, yet republicans did not use that feature ....
Using the feature came with strings. Perhaps they found Google's requirements unacceptable.
Get to the bottom of this (Score:2)