FTC chair accuses Google of treating GOP's emails as spam The Trump administration has accused Google of discriminating against Republicans' emails and warned that the tech giant could be in line for a crackdown. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chair Andrew Ferguson wrote [PDF] to Google CEO Sundar Pichai on Thursday, citing a recent New York Post report that alleged Gmail was …
> don't let used car salesmen run your marketing.
OR new-car salespersons. I bought a new Toyota 30 months ago. Toyota Corp has sent me 21 Megabytes of mostly boring pointless or broken emails. Service. Credit card. "Connected Services". Air filters. Batteries. INSURANCE, because they track my driving and think I am a "good driver" (no, I just know what triggers their bad-driver algorithm). Before my car was 2 years old they were inviting me to buy a new one, "You could have great trade-in value." Invitations to surveys written to force the answers they want to hear. "Notices" addressed to my email name instead of my realname (an easy sign of scam).
I still get such notices. Volkswagen Brandon, in Tampa. I'm literally on the other side of the state. I have never bought a VW. I have never been to the Volkswagen Brandon physical site. However, someone with an email similar to one of mine has a VW from them, and misses an awful lot of scheduled visits for various things, as the reminders come to me...
I have made repeated attempts to tell them that they have the wrong address. The emails stop for about six months, then start again. I made the mistake of calling them up; that stopped emails for nearly a year. Then they restarted, and I started getting texts. I have blocked them from my texts and put their address in a spam filter. A check with the spam folder shows email from them up to last month.
I get political email, including, for reasons known best to the idiot politicians in question, political email from politicians running for both national and local office in states ranging from Maine to Washington state. I'm in Flori-duh. I couldn't vote in Maine or Washington if I wanted to. Emails to the idiot politicians' offices do nothing. Actually calling the idiot politicians' offices merely adds me to their text lists. I have updated my block lists and spam lists. I had some spam yesterday from an idiot politician in Missouri who seems to be running for the state legislature. I'm not sure; I didn't read that far before nuking it.
Note that I have received snail mail from idiot politicians in Maine. One would think that perhaps someone would notice that the physical address is in Flori-duh, but apparently, Maine pols hire people who can't read.
"I have made repeated attempts to tell them that they have the wrong address. The emails stop for about six months, then start again. I made the mistake of calling them up; that stopped emails for nearly a year. Then they restarted, and I started getting texts. I have blocked them from my texts and put their address in a spam filter. A check with the spam folder shows email from them up to last month."
You can get off a list for a time and then bad data flows in from the next list they buy and you are in their line of sight once again. The problem is there is no entry in those databases that excludes bad data when it is presented once again.
Files are "updated" and Amazon starts sending you all of the returns that should go back to one of their "sellers". You call Amazon (when you should have an attorney call them) and the barrage stops for a week until there's updates, if you are lucky. If you aren't at the front of the line for some good luck, you get bad luck and that's noted by an assurance from somebody at Amazon that the issue has been dealt with and everything should be fine now...... Soothing words by a phone answerer that isn't empowered to do anything but supply soothing words. Install a high fence in front of your property and get a big dog. Much cheaper than blood sucking lawyers and the "delivery" drivers black ball your address.
Google is in a lose-lose situation:
- Most users will mark as spam annoying e-mails instead of unsubscribing (usefulness/wisdom in clicking the unsubscribe button notwithstanding[a]) or writing a filter to discard the e-mail.
- Do-Not-Call[b] equivalent registries/laws in many (most?) countries have exceptions for political messaging, and IIRC the US is very much one of them.
[a]: For blatant spam the cybersecurity recommendation is to not click the link, as it signals to the spammer that the e-mail address is valid and being read. In my experience however, it worked wonders.
[b]: I know the issue is with e-mails, but it's kind of the same principle.
This is just crowd filtering.
If they consider themselves to be so terribly special, pass a law to say that any e-mail that comes from a US gov domain cannot be subject to crowd filtering for US citizens, and can only be filtered individually at the request of the user. Then their lies will only be blocked on a user by user basis.
Not rocket science.
Please, America, elect fewer morons next time.
Do you honestly think that Donald 'Daddy' Trump will allow elections to happen in 2026 and 2028?
The GQP/MAGA party just lost a safe seat in Iowa with a 25% (or thereabouts) swing to the Dems and in the process, destroying the GOP Super Majority in the Iowa House.
That, along with other losses and over performance by Dems in very red districts in FLA etc, may well mean Trump declaring War and cancelling all Elections from then on.
Please stop with the goddamned defeatist bullshit. States run elections, not the federal government. And as far as a war, we've had elections during the Civil War. That simply won't fly. Why do you think they're in such a rush to gerrymander Texas?
Seriously, if all you can do is tell other people it's hopeless, why are you even here? Why are you even commenting on it? Stop rolling over in advance. The USA in 2025 isn't Germany in 1933, no matter how mych hyperbole is served up.
"Fund raising spam or political partial spam should not be coming from a governmental domain."
There should also be a rule that campaigns can't be announced or run anymore than 6 months in advance of an election, less in smaller ones.
I just got more crap in the mail from my Representative about a local town meeting that should have been announced before the event and him giving himself a firm pat on the back for supporting things I rather he didn't support or don't care about since the issue is somewhere around 2,655 on my list of things to be concerned about.
"Please, America, elect fewer morons next time."
People vote for those who most closely mirror their own world-view, that's what democracy delivers. Nobody can say that Orangestain isn't doing exactly what the pre-election tin said it would. And therefore, 52% of voting Americans presumably identify with misogyny, theft, stupidity, disrespectfulness, entitlement, exceptionally bad taste, and a disregard for all laws, checks and balances.
So I'm not hopeful the American people will make a better choice next time.
It's a lot more complicated than that. Because of the large size of the U.S. it is mostly rural. This is where the conservatives targeted their brainwashing to poison a whole generation of what the Conservatives want people to think of when they hear USA, America, Patriotism. Because of the Electoral College, those voters have more powerful, more meaningful votes than urban and suburban voters, despite those areas having much larger areas. This is where voting map gerrymandering comes into play, where those populations are condensed into very few representatives whereas the rural voters get many representatives.
The fact that 52% of voters voted for Trump in the last election is solely the fault of the Democratic National Committee whose members are weak-willed wallabies. The Democrats haven't had a solid, strong DNC in decades, and few strong leaders to put out in front of voters. Social media siloing is also a strong problem that has affected elections.
But fear no more, the polling for conservatives show a coming blood-bath in 2026.
"Please, America, elect fewer morons next time."
If the bar was set at the requirement of owning a high school diploma to be allowed to vote, it would be decried as racist, misogynistic, immoral and fattening. As I am the proud owner of a couple of college degrees with work done towards a couple more, I don't see a high school diploma as having been that rough. The problem is that any test is verboten. All citizens and even non-citizens these days, cannot be denied a ballot, even if they don't sign it and send it in a few days late. I can't say that the elections in the US are rigged with sure knowledge, but it's so opaque that I could believe it. If there's any truth to those morons being run by people in the shadows, they want Zaphod Beeblebrox, not Richard Feynman. Given Joe Biden's obvious failings during his term, everything signed by him comes into question. His policy positions are questionable too.
Perhaps the country is too big which equals more money/influence/power(/drugs/alcohol/sex) for there to be any hope of ever having responsible leadership.
"Perhaps the country is too big which equals more money/influence/power(/drugs/alcohol/sex) for there to be any hope of ever having responsible leadership."
Britain is tiny by the standards of the US, and we've had two or three decades of government-by-moron (as have France, Italy, Greece, and many other countries) so I'm not sure that size has a bearing on the matter. I think it's a late stage of economic development in democracies. These countries have addressed (most) of the problems of having safe drinking water, reliable electricity, trustworthy courts, healthcare of a form, transport, education, etc. The population are motivated by expectation and entitlement and most don't get involved in politics, either to the extent of reading pre-election manifestos and commitments, or actively participating in politics. This creates and empowers the sort of self-serving political class that we see in these countries.
And where does the intellectual energy of the population get directed instead? Supporting sports teams, following online influencers, gawping at reality TV shows, reading the made-up tattle on minor celebrities.
Interestingly, this trick the established political parties play on voters is now increasingly played by rich individuals on those established parties.
"Britain is tiny by the standards of the US, and we've had two or three decades of government-by-moron"
It's also firmly in the "first-world" class so there's power and money (and power over money).
I think, it's been a while though, that I last turned on my TV to watch Ghostbusters: Afterlife a few months ago. Does Big Clive or Dave Jones count as "influencers"? AVE would have to be classed as an anti-influencer. Like him or hate him, Thunderf00t will make you think so that influence is a good one. I'm not a fan of tatts, piercings, fake boobs/butts/lips and I require anybody I converse with to work in complete sentences (unless quoting snippets of Python or Adams).
"I don't live in the USA, and have no intention of ever even visiting the country while the Mango Mussolini remains on the throne."
The US President has less power afforded to him than many people believe. That doesn't mean that they haven't been overreaching for the last many terms, but what it does mean is that the Congress is so focused on fighting amongst themselves that they aren't reigning them in. If there were a bill passed that removed the ability of a President to rule by Executive Order and then the veto overridden, the proper ratio of checks and balances could be reset. It's an antiquated tool put in place so a President could act in the absence of a quorum of the legislature should something major happen. With modern communications and air travel, assembling enough legislators to conduct business in an emergency is not that hard. When it might be, there could be a very short lifetime for an Executive Order (days) outside of a nuclear attack that wipes out a large percentage of elected officials.
IMO you're incorrect. The Federalist Society members and their fellow travellers that form the bench of the US Supreme Court have effectively given Trump unlimited power as a result of their absurd ruling that, by definition, the President cannot be guilty of illegal behaviour (as long as this is in relation to conduct related to the office of President).
Combine the above with the legal maxim that for an individual "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" means that he could (and possibly will) do anything and just point to the SCOTUS ruling as his "Get out of jail free" card. No doubt the SCOTUS blowhards will bluster that this isn't what they meant when he fires any/all of them but by then it will be too late.
Congress is blatantly allowing the pedo president to do whatever he wants. This is intentional, and a clear violation of their oaths to protect the Constitution. This means he has as much power that Congress and the corrupted SCOTUS members allow him to have.
"Overreach in the last many terms". Obama and Biden didn't overreach. The only overreach has been by Epstein's bestie.
Try again, this time without the perverse trump-love.
"A consumer's right to hear from candidates or parties, including solicitations for donations"
Somehow, I don't believe it's the consumer's rights that concerns them. They want the right to spam "the consumer" and "the consumer" to have no right to decide who gets to fill their mailbox.
Ultimately their argument is "Our spam is treated differently from their spam." Spam is spam. The solution, if indeed it is a problem, is to get tougher on all political spam of all kinds. Now unless they believe that spam is a much more effective fund-raiser for others, but insignificant to their fund-raising, I don't think this is their intended outcome.
They're mad that they can't loophole it like how they loopholed political calls as being exempt from "do not call" lists. They want to make it so political emails can never be marked as spam even if the recipient marked it himself, but since they don't want to be seen passing legislation to that effect they're trying to bully Google into making that a defacto rule. If they succeed they'll go after Microsoft next as other major US email host.
I wonder if these fundraising emails have an "unsubscribe" link? I'll bet not, because why would they let anyone unsubscribe from something that costs them nothing to do send if there's even a one in a million chance that person will give them money? If that's the case, marking it as spam would be the ONLY way you could get silence the flow of shit.
"I wonder if these fundraising emails have an "unsubscribe" link? I'll bet not, because why would they let anyone unsubscribe from something that costs them nothing to do send if there's even a one in a million chance that person will give them money?"
Easy enough, no fundraising or campaign materials allowed to be sent from a .gov mail address and ISP's can't filter any .gov address unless it's a ddos attack or threatening to overload their network some other way. Politicians usually have a "voteForMe(dot)com" URL/email come election time that's run by their staff anyway. If they don't want to do that, they shouldn't have the option of using their official government email address.
There's going to be no way to enforce an "unsubscribe" link for a politician like there is for a business. You can take a business to court, but good luck with that for a politician short of the most serious of crimes (murder is a sport at that level, not a crime. See Ted Kennedy's record). There could be a better chance at enforcing a "misuse of government communications" slap on the wrist.
In the UK it's unlawful to associate any political campaigning with a gov.uk domain. That's only for actual governing, and it's got very strict rules about the organisations that can have one at all.
There's an apolitical civil service department in charge of the TLD.
I assume the same was true in the USA, but perhaps not anymore.
They get filtered cause people mark them as spam, and the GOP emails look like spam. They even use the same dark patterns like Trump's "money bomb", which amounts to obscuring the fact donations are recurring by default. Last time they made this complain I believe part of the problem was the configuration of their mail servers, specifically a lack of email authentication (SPF, DKIM, and DMARC).
Keep in mind that
A) Google rebutted this by saying, in effect, "We invited you to a whitelist and you did not reply."
B) This is the Republican National Committee giving the orders. That's not a government entity in any way!
I think what's more repulsive is that we don't actually have any opposition to this.
"A) Google rebutted this by saying, in effect, "We invited you to a whitelist and you did not reply.""
What, they sent an inquiry via plain white envelope to Occupant as the Capitol Building?
If Google publicly posted that they were going to blacklist .gov email addresses due to overwhelming spam complaints, it would be noticed by politicians. All of them have backchannel gmail addresses that they shouldn't be using such as "10percent4BigGuy688@gmail.com". Something like that or their name spelled backwards. Damn vampires.
The RNC and their superpacs are sending these.
If they're sending fundraising requests from .gov, that's probably unlawful. They should be sending from voteforme.com or similar.
It also seems that the GOP are sending a lot to people outside the US, which means they will get marked as spam by most of the planet. Maybe they should sanitise their dataset.
When America sinks, Trumptards will accuse the rest of the World of pulling the plug - nothing will ever be their fault or their problem, and every critique of their flagrant grifting & self entitled idiocy is always met with the same generic sound - "WAAAaaaauuuuugggghhh!".
Any "political" missive that is comprised of easily-disproven conspiracy theories and falsehoods, especially slanderous ones blaming a minority group, are not only sent to my spam folder, they are submitted for investigation by the authorities as potential hate speech distribution.... Canada sanely puts limits on "freedom of speech."
grey rectangle called a telescreen.
From it issued a constant stream of EngSoc propaganda. It could not be turned off.
From the telescreen all parts of the apartment were visible, except one recess. Winston might be under observation at any moment.
Google should go ahead and let the FTC waste some manhours on this frivolity. Nitwit Andrew Ferguson's complaints ignore a few things:
1) All recipients are receiving the emails; they simply need to look in their spam folders
2) Recipients can create their own filters to move those emails to their Inbox
3) Every Gmail recipient has an All Mail folder that doesn't need to have any filters to show ALL email received
4) People marking email as spam is a protected 1st Amendment act
5) Google must be acting in bad faith, which the FTC would have to prove
I'm sure there are more responses to this government overreach, but these will give Google a good start. However, IMO, I think Google's response should simply be, "Bring it, bitch!"
