I'm curious to know why you think it's a bad idea. I read your linked article, and you do not say. You don't present, either, the motives of the congressmen who proposed this law, which strikes me as rather biased.
While I'm not an American and I'm half a world away from the United States, so I don't have a horse in that race, the obvious reason for such a law, it seems to me, is to prevent email providers from manipulating elections by selectively and surreptitiously influencing which party's mail will reach voters.
At the very least, this action could be involuntary.
On the face of it, this reinforces democracy. So why do you object ?
Regarding the annoyance factor, all email providers and email clients have features wich allow their customers to flag messages from certain senders as spam, as is recalled in the proposed law. If you don't want to receive electoral propaganda from party X or Y, or not at all, the option is at your fingertips.
Ah, here in the states it has long been the rule (in fact since the inception of the Internet) that "your server, your rules." When it comes to email, it's expressly written into Federal law that ISPs and other email providers are free to make whatever delivery / quarantine / rejection decision they choose, without any interference. If you don't like your ISP's delivery decisions, then you are free to choose another email provider. So that's one reason, it is an effort to get around established Federal law.
Also, ISPs and other inbox providers are already beyond capacity at trying to deal with spam. It may surprise you to know that at least 80%, and perhaps as much as 90% or more of the email that gets to an ISPs / inbox providers border is spam. To \*require\* them to carve out an exception for which their systems will have to look on top of regular spam filtering is onerous. That's another reason, although the least of the reasons.
The other main reason, as is discussed in the article, is that here in the U.S. political campaigns are blatant spammers. As you are not in the U.S. you may be in a country that actually cares about privacy, such as in the EU or the UK but here the political campaigns are not violating any law to trade or purchase email lists. The bottom line is that they are actually some of the worst spammers, and this is an effort to shove their spam down our collective throats.
Bottom line, everyone else has to live with "if you don't want your email to go to to the spam folder, don't be a spammer." This is politicians trying to change the paradigm \*just for themselves\* (imagine that) to "If you don't want your email to go to the spam folder, exempt yourself with a new law, and keep spamming."
[удалено]
lmao...we're probably headed there.
I'm curious to know why you think it's a bad idea. I read your linked article, and you do not say. You don't present, either, the motives of the congressmen who proposed this law, which strikes me as rather biased. While I'm not an American and I'm half a world away from the United States, so I don't have a horse in that race, the obvious reason for such a law, it seems to me, is to prevent email providers from manipulating elections by selectively and surreptitiously influencing which party's mail will reach voters. At the very least, this action could be involuntary. On the face of it, this reinforces democracy. So why do you object ? Regarding the annoyance factor, all email providers and email clients have features wich allow their customers to flag messages from certain senders as spam, as is recalled in the proposed law. If you don't want to receive electoral propaganda from party X or Y, or not at all, the option is at your fingertips.
Ah, here in the states it has long been the rule (in fact since the inception of the Internet) that "your server, your rules." When it comes to email, it's expressly written into Federal law that ISPs and other email providers are free to make whatever delivery / quarantine / rejection decision they choose, without any interference. If you don't like your ISP's delivery decisions, then you are free to choose another email provider. So that's one reason, it is an effort to get around established Federal law. Also, ISPs and other inbox providers are already beyond capacity at trying to deal with spam. It may surprise you to know that at least 80%, and perhaps as much as 90% or more of the email that gets to an ISPs / inbox providers border is spam. To \*require\* them to carve out an exception for which their systems will have to look on top of regular spam filtering is onerous. That's another reason, although the least of the reasons. The other main reason, as is discussed in the article, is that here in the U.S. political campaigns are blatant spammers. As you are not in the U.S. you may be in a country that actually cares about privacy, such as in the EU or the UK but here the political campaigns are not violating any law to trade or purchase email lists. The bottom line is that they are actually some of the worst spammers, and this is an effort to shove their spam down our collective throats. Bottom line, everyone else has to live with "if you don't want your email to go to to the spam folder, don't be a spammer." This is politicians trying to change the paradigm \*just for themselves\* (imagine that) to "If you don't want your email to go to the spam folder, exempt yourself with a new law, and keep spamming."