Rogerian Argument Essay

The Spam Debate (and the Internet Censorship it Hides) By Alfredo Lopez

ecently, America On Line announced its intention

to start charging people a "license fee" to send bulk

mail to AOL subscribers.

'ITie resulting shiver up the spines of mailing list managers

and Internet providers all over the world quickly morphed into

an all too rare quasi-collective outcry that actually forced AOL

a half-step backwards. Upon reconsideration, the Internet giant

announced it would continue to offer the license, but for those

who don't want it they would continue to treat bulk emiiil as

they ha\'e up to now.

Whatever sighs of relief one might discern are actually,

1 think, the sounds of an Internet community threatened

with a deadly kick to the head, now relieved that it only has

a boot on its throat.

In fact, the entire debate over the potential harm in

AOL's plan overshadows the fact that large commercial

providers' response to the problem of "spatn" already

represents a dangerous and potentially crippling attack on

the culture and functioning of the Internet as a vehicle of

free speech.

My interest in tbis issue encompasses not only the

predictable concern of a citizen and political acti\ist but the

even deeper concern of a politically progressive Internet

worker. I'm a co-director of May First/People Link, a social

justice organization whose work is to provide Internet

services like web-hosting, email and email lists to organizers

and organizations in the social justice movement. We live

what I'm describing here and these measures affect our

work, and the work of people who use our services, every

day.

Now let's be clear: Internet communication is in crisis

because of the huge amount of unwanted bulk email we all

receive.

3 6 Organizers' Forum

The issue here isn'r that the large provtdcrs have finally

rccogni/;ed the problem and arc trying to deal with it.

Trying to dchumidify the house when it's already flooded

may show a lack of vision, but it's not unjustified.

"fhc problem is their response, and, at its root - always

a good place to start - their definition of "spam."

Most people have a pretty simple definition of spam:

it's bulk email we don't want.

There's also a popular definition that flows from the

"unwanted bulk email" definition: spam is bulk email sent

without a reasonable expectation that the people receiving

it would be interested in it.

That definition developed because most spam you

receive is sent by people who have acquired or purchased

huge lists of emails with no reasonable expectation that the

people on that list would want to read what they're being

sent. It's "shotgun" marketing in its crudest form. So the

"reasonable expectation of interest" is a prett}- important

component.

But the commercial Internet ignores that. Instead, the

large pro\iders define spam as "unsolicited bulk email":

email sent to more than a small handful of people some of

whom didn't ask for it. They do that because they have no

idea what you might want or be interested in and have yet

to develop a method of figuring that out.

Instead, embarrassed by their tardiness and frightened

by customer unhappincss, they've declared war against

almost all bulk email, making the term "spam" useless and

making email censorship an accepted and publicly

acknowledged policy.

Thc\' tag bulk email the moment someone complains

and make it so easy to complain that people can just push

the "complaint" button without knowing the ramifications.

If there are a number of complaints - usually three or four

are good enough - they will block the issuer of that email.

They monitor "emailers" who are sending the same email to

more than a handful of people and "list" those who have

had complaints lodged against them so those with a

"complaint history" can be blocked more quickly.

What's most dangerous, they keep records of the

sender's IP address — the numeric address of the server the

Just at the time when the progressive movement is

starting to use the internet effectiveiy,

we're faced with measures that couid drive us into siience.

sender uses.

Those efforts are supported by a mini-industry of

"spam detection" companies — the Internet's \'ersion of the

vigilante — who do conduct similar monitoring and then

publish blacklists of "suspected spammers and hosts."

So to have your email to a subscriber of these providers

blocked, you don't even have to send bulk email. All you

need do is share a server with people who've been "listed"

— and almost all of us do.

Bringing the danger of all this into relief, some

companies take short-cuts that effectively stop

communications - "spam" or not. AOL rcjutinely blocks,

hinders or delays emails with the same content sent to more

than a threshold number of AOL subscribers. Many

Internet workers think the "threshold" is about 50 to 100.

AOL isn't saying. But the interference occurs and it makes

no difference if these people have signed onto the email list

or not.

In general, short cut or not, if you are a subscriber of

a major commercial provider, there is a good possibility

you're not receiving all the legitimate email being sent you,

including messages from a list to which you've subscribed.

You'll never know it unless you notice something

wrong: they don't tell you that they've hijacked your email.

The people who sent it to you won't he informed. They

don't tell the prfividcr either. That I know from personal

experience. We find out if someone tells us that recipients

of their email are mysteriously not receiving it. Then we

inquire with the provider of that recipient and, to remove

the "b]ock,"wc must engage in a Kafkaesque process that

consumes time and energy and must often be repeated

periodically.

Social Policy Spring 2006 3 7

What's the answer to spam? Even those of us careful to balance the real need to protect

people against unwanted bulk email and to protect

free speech in the process haven't come up

with a solution.

While blocking and destroying your email is clearly an

attack on the First Amendment, the timing and political

import shouldn't be lost on anyone. Just at the time when

the progressive movement is starring to use rhe Internet

effectively, we're faced with measures that could drive us

into silence.

All f.)f the major., successful Internet campaigns run by

progressive activists (from impeachment to health care to

anti-war to Katrina) use unsolicited email. How could it be

otherwise? How in the world do you communicate with

people to get them information they don't have if you only

email to people who've told you they want it? We could

never build a campaign or expand it that way.

Our tradirional tools have always included leaflets in

the mail, flyers handed out, public speeches, phone calls and

now this powerful Internet. We've heen able to use those

tools because, for a century, we have fought tooth and nail

to protect and expand our constitutional right to protected

speech.

Sure, unwanted email can be a pain. The same is true of

bulk postal mail, leaflets activists shove in your face during

a rally and the insistence of street organizers that they have

a message you should spend minutes of your valuable rime

listening to.

But few of us would ask the post office to stop any of

our mail or ask the police to arrest a street organizer. We

understand that., in the end, these inconvenient "incursions"

benefit us all and sometimes give us information we need.

We also understand that repression of these acti\'ides would

create a far greater problem than the one it solves.

And there's little quesdon that it will get worse because

our movements are making major headway using the

Internet and we're mailing to many more people than ever

before. This automatically means greater monitoring, a

higher incidence of unprovoked blocking and more

complaints.

What's most painfully ironie ahout this commercial

response to "spam" is that it punishes us for something

someone else is doing. Our movements don't email to large

lists we know nothing about. We can't afford it and we don't

organize that way. Movement bulk email is sent to carefully

developed lists, usually shared organizarion to organization,

based on recipients' demonstrated interest in the issue we're

cmailing about.

That's not "spam" by any reasonable definition...exccpl

the commercial providers.

What's the answer to spam? Even those of us careful to

balance the real need to protect people against unwanted

bulk email and to protect free speech in the process haven't

come up with a solurion. That's going to require a full

public discussion of the issue that goes beyond the industry

boundaries.

The commercial Internet is not going to come up with

the right solurion unless the people who use the Internet

force it to and the first step in that process is for our

movement to enter the debate, force it beyond the limited

term "spam" and make the protection of our

communications and organizing as high a point on the

agenda as the protection of people's email in-boxes.

A/fredo l^pi'^_ has been involved hi movements for .social change for

40 years, published five books, produced and directed over a do-:(en

documentary films, and produced two radio series and a telmsion

documentary series: City Look. In 1994. AIf7'edo founded People

Link and has directed the organi-^atiori until it merged into tbe May

Fir.tt/People IJnk organisation, oj which he's co-director.

3 8 Organizers' Forum