Bul(k)shit

I'm starting to worry about myself. My long post for last week had a few pretty harsh (in fact, probably overly so) things to say about a president who, for the most part, I respect and support. Now I find myself on the same side of an issue as radical left-wing organization MoveOn.org.

Fortunately for me, I'm very much an "ends justify the means" kind of guy, so I don't feel at all morally conflicted about this--MoveOn and I want the same thing for different reasons. And it helps that on this issue, MoveOn has been joined by several more moderate groups, and even by one that's their diametric ideological opposite.

All of these various camps are united against one very bad idea: AOL and Yahoo have plans to introduce an "e-mail fee". When you put it that way, it certainly seems like the sky is falling and the internet's usefulness as a personal communication tool will soon be severely restricted. On closer inspection, though, the fee will be an optional component that spammers can pay to make certain that their messages reach your inbox without passing through the spam filters.

Of course, several of these groups have the wrong idea. MoveOn's online petition thinks that the fee will leave "people's friends, families, and favorite causes wondering if their emails are being delivered at all." But this terminology indicates a lack of understanding of exactly what AOL and Yahoo are planning. Senders who opt to pay the fee simply guarantee that their messages don't pass through the spam filters that these providers already have in place. Those who continue to send e-mail to AOL and Yahoo members for free will simply have those messages pass through the same filters as they do right now--and unless they're spam or falsely flagged as spam (an increasingly rare occurrence, as most providers prefer to err on the side of allowing questionable messages through rather than risk filtering legitimate mail), they'll be delivered exactly as normal.

What's not fair is that spammers and other dregs of internet society will be able to bypass these filters at all. It's a matter of privacy--I sometimes come out against privacy advocates, but that's only because I'm a bigger fan of not being blown up than I am of privacy. When it comes to corporate types (who don't protect me from being blown up), I want as little to do with them as possible. I don't want their sales pitches invading on my time--media ads are quite sufficient, as anyone who doesn't want to be subjected to them can avoid them quite easily. But sales calls and spam e-mail is another thing entirely--both of these mediums are essential to my job and my life in general, and the only way I could avoid those advertisements would be to essentially cut myself off from civilization and head off in the woods to eat bugs and wear loincloths. The FTC took a major step in the right direction with their national do-not-call list, but now a pair of large corporations are about to take about three steps back if this dodge continues.

Just this once, I'm going to grit my teeth, swallow my pride, and sign the petition at MoveOn.org,making clear the exact reasons why I'm against AOL's plan. Just this once, I encourage all of my readers to do the same.