Pure speculation?
Not convinced. I am sure there is a significant proportion of fabrication.
The Republican National Committee's attempt to hold Google accountable for sending its emails to Gmail's spam folder have failed, with a federal judge in California dismissing the conservative political group's lawsuit yesterday. US District Court judge Daniel Calabretta of California's eastern district wrote in his decision …
On the part of the RNC, yes. Pretty much 100% imagination and fabrication. I've never seen anybody more prone to playing the "victim" card than the weak-kneed RNC and their perpetual whinging about how everyone "is against" them. It is high time they stopped following a two year old's temper tantrums as a means of "leadership" and started accepting the fact that they simply do not reflect the will of the majority of the people in the US as long as they do so.
Trumps minions are vocal online, but they are not the majority.
Apparently you didn't actually read the article, which explains how political parties had the option of sending their emails with political messaging flags enabled, while the RNC opted not to, and hence had their repetitive emails binned. Had they simply signed up the same as the other parties, everyone would have been subject to their pathetic demands for mo' money, mo' money, mo' money off the backs of the working public they claim to represent from their million dollar mansions.
Werlll... Assuming I get such an email I will flag it as spam. The filters (the weights...) will get updated accordingly.
I would also flag any other political begging for funds as spam, as I'm not interested in that. So they would be told to f'right off. Oh, and it certainly does not help if you send out millions of bulk mails. Spam filters really don't like that (lots of institutions had to learn that lesson, about two decades ago).
"I would also flag any other political begging for funds as spam, as I'm not interested in that."
While I agree with your sentiment, spam is not defined by the individual. "spam" is a technical term meaning unsolicited bulk Internet messaging. It's the unsolicited and bulk that are important, not the content, nor the opinion of an individual receiver.
The meat-like product is actually called "Spam", a trademarked word. Unsolicited bulk email is called "spam". The Hormel Corporation has magnanimously agreed to not sue the anti-spam community as long as they refrain from using their trademark. Hormel came out against spam about a quarter century ago.
Try some Spam today! It's not just a wartime delicacy[0] anymore!
Note that Spam[r] wasn't actually invented by Monty Python; it is actually grown in Hawaiʻi and other Pacific islands.
[0] If you know which British Prime Minister claimed that, you are either old or have too much time on your hands. Or both.
I mean...
1) If you can't figure out why sending out dozens of almost identical messages a day might trigger a spam filter, that's your first problem
2) The only thing they really give a shit about is that this is limiting their ability to fleece gullible idiots out of their hard earned money
3) It's just more performative bullshit where conservatives try to pretend like they're being targeted because they're conservatives and not because they're raging assholes who act like they're above the rules of we mere mortals, but it gives that little dopamine rush to the base and makes them more likely to open their wallets
4) This is all based on the racist conspiracy theories about elite liberal jewish (aka "woke") individuals, like George Soros, who are secretly running the world -- if Soros were responsible for even half the shit people claim he's done, you could take every Bond villain ever, toss in the likes of Hitler and Pol Pot, and he would STILL be a bigger villain
You've summed up American politics from a foreign perspective quite nicely, give or take an utter lack of respect for the childish temper tantrums that have pervaded the US political scene for far too long. How can you respect someone who supports overthrowing the elective process of your own theoretically democratic government? Furthermore, how can you respect anyone who supports such an individual?
Isn't that the very definition of "anti-American" to support the overthrow of the American governmental system?
"Hence also the right to get shot bear arms."
Admittedly, I am no an American so I have not studied the various paperworks with a magnifying glass, but:
"The right to bear arms" implies every individual is allowed to own/use weapons. Which, unsurprisingly, is the "amendment" that gets touted by the NRA and various other groups. However, I believe the line is actually "a well-armed militia". A militia is defined as "a body of citizens organized for military service". Note here: "a body of" and "organized for military service". Not: "everyone" and "feels paranoid about the government".
OK, I probably exaggerate on that last one. But my point it, it doesn't talk about leave weapons in the hands of civilians, it talks about the ability for the populace to be gathered, handed weapon, trained, and used as an organised military group. Not a bunch of individuals who have their own weapons all the time.
Until about 40 years ago, that was the consensus view among US politicians and judges. The current gun frenzy has no historical precedent and therefore cannot claim any moral or legal backing from the 2nd amendment.
Much the same could also be said about the assumption that the US /ought/ to be a Christian country.
It is, and the whole point of that particular amendment was because at its founding, the US had no standing army and relied upon being able to call up a citizen militia. The government, at that time, also had no power of taxation, so it's not like they could just buy and store a bunch of guns in case they were needed.
And the NRA started out as a group of people who like to go target shooting and the like. It was more of a gun safety advocacy group than what it is today. It was taken over by a bunch of extremists who turned it into the terrorist organization it is today. Then mix in a few SCOTUS justices who think that we should take a 200 year-old document literally, even though society today bears absolutely no resemblance to when it was written, and aren't afraid to just make shit up when they want to find justification to rule a particular way and you arrive at America as it is today where a group of black people are just trying to buy some shit at a store in Florida only to have some racist asshole walk in with an automatic rifle and shoot them because he's a racist asshole.
Realistically, what we call the National Guard would probably be pretty close to what the founders of this nation would have been thinking of in terms of their "well-regulated militia". You could even make an argument for the grown men who like to play army out in the woods with their buddies. It's totally not some homoerotic thing, they just really love playing army. Never mind the fact that most of them would piss themselves the second they saw any actual combat and freeze up like a deer in headlights, they pretend like they alone could turn the tide of a war.
Unfortunately for your thesis, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly said otherwise. Even when said Court was extremely liberal. With it being dominated by (American) right wing Trump supporters at the moment, folks might as well drop this entire concept for the duration. Nothing is going to change until the Court shifts more to the (American) Left. You'll know that is happening when they start giving women their civil rights back.
But I'll bet my bottom dollar that we'll still have guns, regardless.
Isn't that the very definition of "anti-American" to support the overthrow of the American governmental system?
The various agencies of the US government have worked covertly for decades to keep American political discourse within relatively narrow bounds, much as has been the case in the UK. I'm not sure that's somehow better than the overt rejection of democracy we've seen more recently. If you look at the polling, support for democracy is actually pretty shallow in many Western countries and there's a pattern of preference for "order" over "law". And, of course, the worse politicians behave, the less respect there is for the political process in general.
Not saying that's a good thing, but if you find yourself called to man the barricades of democracy, you might not be able to count on the support you might hope for.
I'm a yank, so sadly it's my daily reality.
Though I agree. And now we have an asshole who is basically running to be POTUS again because otherwise he's looking at dying in prison. I probably wouldn't have been a supporter of the American Revolutionary War, but at least they had a valid point and made several attempts to address the issue in a non-violent way. They weren't following a demagogue who's only in it for themselves and was literally lying to their supporters.
There was somebody here a while back who admitted to downvoting people simply because they had "too many upvotes". They posted AC, and didn't say how many ups deserved a down. Somebody else (also AC, so maybe the same person? Dunno.) claimed the opposite.
In my mind it just proves how useless such "votes" are.
Suggestion: Ignore it.
You send spam, you go to the spam folder. What else did you expect?
Politicians, advertisers and marketroids all share the same mentality: they believe the entire world is waiting to revel in their next fart, brain or otherwise, and anything that gets in the way must just be wrong, wrong, wrong.
In other words, spam is bad because it employs cost shifting. The bulk of the cost of spam email is born by the receivers, not the sender. It is the equivalent of sending snail-mail postage due. Cost-shifted advertising is illegal in all countries that I am aware of.
Except for politicians (and religions and "non-profits"), of course. The sleazy bastards.
The right to free speech ends where another person's ears begin. No one can compel another to listen.
This post has been deleted by its author
Most likely explanation is that the RNC sends out more begging letters at the end of the month. After all it's when most people get paid.
The RNC is getting desperate as it can no longer hold on to government. Even the rigged system which allowed them to win elections even though more people voted for the other side no longer works.
Thier core support is getting old and dying off. There message of racism and low taxes for the rich is not attracting new blood.
This post has been deleted by its author
So what do you call the Obama years? Where the usual partisan bullshit got turned up to 20 because a black man dared to think he could be POTUS? Remember how Fox News lost its shit because he wore a tan suit once? Can you imagine!
And then during the 2016 campaign, Trump was literally calling for the imprisonment of his political rival, and he's still doing that today, just different political rivals. So I always get a good chuckle when he or his sycophants go around talking about how it's a dark day for American politics when a politician uses their office to go after a political rival. That was like 75% of what he did when he wasn't sitting on his fat ass up in the White House residence or bilking the American taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars by taking his regular trips to mar-a-lago. Just remember all the chants of "Lock her up!" at his rallies. Even better is how Trump thought Clinton should be put in jail for what she did, and then he went and did the same exact thing, only worse. I mean, seriously, all he had to do was just give back those documents at basically any point during the year plus the national archives spent trying to negotiate their return. If he was really so busy, he could have just told them to have the FBI send a couple agents down to go through his "boxes" and pull out anything he improperly kept. The government bent over backwards and twisted itself into knots trying to avoid conducting a raid on a former president's residence, but they weren't really left with any other choice when they obtained evidence that he was brandishing highly classified military intelligence to people who don't hold a security clearance.
‘Idiot’ comes from Ancient Greece where you could collectively nominate people by writing their name on broken pottery. The names were placed in a big ol pot and then counted out (all in public) and if someone was ‘voted’ for enough times then they were ejected from the town. They were deemed an ‘idiot’ and had 1day to gtfo. It’d be nice if El Reg had a commentard peer voting system so we could choose to filter out certain handles. Or a ‘you have been nominated for being a moron, please think about why that might be (hint, the answer lays inside). Please note this is not a reflection on your personality, it’s the result of your output’
Ah well. There again, I’m not sure I’d want to live in a society where I was in charge..
"Unfortunately that really would be censorship.
No, it would not. They would still be free to express themselves anywhere they like... just not using the private resources of ElReg.
"So we will just continue to let them air their stupidity in public"
No. We aren't doing anything of the sort. ElReg sets the rules here, not the collective "us".
No. While the word idiot does come from the Greek, it has absolutely nothing to do with ostracism. In fact, in modern English, the Ancient Greek word idiotes meant anybody not belonging to a professional class (politician, soldier, sailor, etc.). A layman, in other words. Also used for "private person". The plural form meant pretty much all free persons in the country. It was sometimes used patronizingly, to point out someone wasn't educated in the trade.
By the time it passed down through Latin (idiota, meaning again ordinary people, the layman (sometimes patronizingly as "outsider", as in "not part of the professional class"). By the time the French appropriated the word as idiote it mostly held its patronizing meaning (probably because the Romans were awfully patronizing to the French). And then into Middle English where it took the meaning a a simple, uneducated man and finally into the modern meaning.
"Fund raising emails, whether political or not, are spam. They are the very definition of spam."
No, they are not.
As an alumnus of Stanford and Berkeley I get fund raising emails fairly regularly. They are not spam.
Why not? Because I put myself on the list to receive such emails from them, that's why.
"This will never get old."
On the contrary. This has been old for entirely too long already.
Hopefully the bulk of the US public will get off their butts and vote in the next couple of elections, send the bastards a message. A loud one.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
"While it is a relatively close case, the Court concludes [the RNC] has not sufficiently pled facts to establish that Google has acted without good faith."
Generally, those people feel free to invent facts when they need to feed their prejudices.
I receive Republican mails myself, even if I'm not a US voter, just because one of their stupid supporters (sorry for the oxymoron) didn't even know his email address and provided mine instead. So I would rather complain about Google's spam filter not being efficient enough.