On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:59:25 -0400, Alain wrote:

> Le 2011/10/06 13:27, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:48:02 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>
>>> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>>> Incidentally, people talk about how FB has all this valuable user
>>>> data and how they're using it to do ultra-targeted advertising. ARE
>>>> YOU KIDDING ME? Have you *seen* their adverts? What are they aiming
>>>> with? A blunderbuss?! Because the targeting is just laughably poor.
>>>> For example, constantly spamming me with ads for dating websites,
>>>> even after I changed my profile to indicate that I'm no longer
>>>> single.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes, you do something like change your status to mention
>>>> Marmite(tm), and an advert for Marmite(tm) appears. Sometimes you say
>>>> something like "man, I'm really looking forward to the weekend", and
>>>> get an advert for Hellman's mayonnaise. And sometimes, you say
>>>> something like "hey Helen, that was some great dancing yesterday" and
>>>> get adverts for Black&  Decker power tools. I mean, seriously, WTF?
>>>> This is not "targeted advertising", this is "randomly generated
>>>> spam".
>>>
>>> I don't consider it spam if the advertiser pays for the ad.
>>
>> So those "cheap meds" messages don't count as spam?  The seller does
>> pay someone to send the message, after all...
>>
>> If so, that's a very unconventional definition for "Spam" (in the
>> Internet sense).
>>
>> Jim
> 
> Ads on a web page are just ads, not spam. The anouncer does pay the host
> site to show them to you.

I'm not talking about that.  I'm talking about e-mail exclusively.

> Ads IN your in-box are spam. The anouncer don't pay, or pays some crooks
> and criminals, to deliver it to you. YOU end up paying to get those ads,
> both in lost time and through your ISP fees.

So the question really is not whether they pay, but who they pay - if 
they pay a crook/criminal, that doesn't count?

Jim

Post a reply to this message