Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Proton spam and the AI consent problem

dbushell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 446 posts

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#211

Post by plagiarist »

chrisjj wrote: post #186
plagiarist wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple doesn't send out marketing messages and obeys their customers' marketing email preferences ... except .. when you buy a new iPhone and then they send emails about "Your new iPhone lets you try Apple TV for 3 months free!" and then more emails about "You have Apple Music for 3 months free!" That's "transactional" I'm sure. It makes sense that a company is legally allowed to send transactional emails, but they…

How is it transactional in any way? It looks to me like post-transaction upsell, pure and simple.

I 100% agree with you, but it seems like the courts do not. Even while they were functioning.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#212

Post by pixl97 »

amarcheschi wrote: post #129
specproc wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with tech is that there's absolutely zero accountability. Marketing is, to some extent at least, regulated. There's so little consumer protection in the tech industry, it's a joke. We've got GDPR (in Europe) and I'm really struggling to think what else. Imagine if other forms of engineering had the same level of control. There's this absolutely fallacious notion that in a free market, customers can just v…

Now that we're at it, let's talk about Google ads. I reported a Google ad because I deem it political, and in Europe you must make it clear that a political ad is a political ad and not just an ad (and it failed to do so, it should be corrected or eliminated). Google refused to comply and act in any way, because they "don't moderate 3rd party content". Except that EU says you _must_ comply if you're publishing a poli…

>then I'm going to escalate to the national authority if they still refuse to act.

You are actually doing this wrong...

Report to the national authority first...

Then report to Google.

Fuck them, it is not in your interest to report to them first, make them react for their bullshit. Over here in the states this is how I ended up dealing with telecom in the ISP industry. "Hello, I have put in an FTC/FCC complaint on $issue, and would like to see about getting it resolved".

It didn't matter that's not the order you're supposed to go in, at the telecom side they send it off to a team that actually gets shit solved before it becomes a regulatory problem.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#213

Post by thatguy0900 »

arrozconcosas wrote: post #194
everyday7732 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this, it's the same attitude that they used to create the AI in the first place by using content which they don't own, without permission. Regardless of how useful it may be, the companies creating it and including it have demonstrated time and again that they do not care about consent.

How can you get a machine to have values? Humans have values because of social dynamics and education (or lack of exposure to other types of education). Computers do not have social dynamics, and it is much harder to control what they are being educated on if the answer is "everything".

Maybe if we can't build a machine that isn't a sociopath the answer should be don't build the machine rather then oh well go ahead and build the sociopaths

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#214

Post by 7bit »

fundatus wrote: post #209
7bit wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it an "anti- Proton campaign" or "benign" is just rhetorical hand waving. Those words let you dismiss criticism without engaging with the substance. Proton did deliberately email people who opted out. That is a GDPR violation, full stop. They are a large, well resourced company; "oops" is not an excuse. Criticism over that is not hysteria or bandwagoning, and blaming people for speaking up instead of the comp…

[flagged]

You said all of that already and I replied. If you're not answering to any of my arguments, I'm not going to bother continuing the debate.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#215

Post by duskdozer »

chrisjj wrote: post #186
plagiarist wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple doesn't send out marketing messages and obeys their customers' marketing email preferences ... except .. when you buy a new iPhone and then they send emails about "Your new iPhone lets you try Apple TV for 3 months free!" and then more emails about "You have Apple Music for 3 months free!" That's "transactional" I'm sure. It makes sense that a company is legally allowed to send transactional emails, but they…

How is it transactional in any way? It looks to me like post-transaction upsell, pure and simple.

It's not, but it's their justification

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#216

Post by thatguy0900 »

SCdF wrote: post #196
arrozconcosas wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine making this argument for other technologies. There is no opt-out button for machine learning, choosing the power source for their datacenters, the coding language in their software, etc. Conceptually there is a difference between opting out of an interaction with another party vs opting out of a specific part of their technology stack.

The three examples you listed are implementation details, so it's not clear if this is a serious post. Which datacenter they deploy code in is (other than territory for laws etc, which is something you may wish to know about and pick from) an implementation detail. A better example would be: imagine every single operating system and app you use adds spellcheck. They only let you spell check in American[1]. You will g…

Unrelated but interesting to think about terms like "queens English" now that the queen is gone. Will we be back to kings English some day? I suppose the monarchy might stay too irrelevant to bother changing phrases.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#217

Post by unethical_ban »

BrouteMinou wrote: post #33

I canceled my subscription, and deleted my account due to the nagging and promotional annoyances. I've contacted the support, but they basically don't care. There are not multiple ways to fight back against this behavior. I am now with mailfence until they start the same circus.

Y'all are wild. I have most of their emails turned on and barely think about Proton's comms. Rarely get one, briefly skim if I do.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#218

Post by DerArzt »

chrisjj wrote: post #159
StrangeSound wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the same boat. I think part of that is Proton is spread across a huge suite of products and features, whereas Fastmail is specialised in one.

> Fastmail is specialised in one. Sadly untrue since they added calendar. However I'd would say the email service and support remain excellent regardless.

Email and calendar go together like bread and butter.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#219

Post by unethical_ban »

unethical_ban wrote: post #16

File under "some business bro had this classified in the wrong newsletter". I don't see the big deal and I don't extrapolate this into some systemic disease with marketing emails.

aaand I was right (allegedly). Account claiming to be Proton CTO says it was a technical screw-up.

Re: Proton spam and the AI consent problem

#220

Post by amarcheschi »

pixl97 wrote: post #212
amarcheschi wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that we're at it, let's talk about Google ads. I reported a Google ad because I deem it political, and in Europe you must make it clear that a political ad is a political ad and not just an ad (and it failed to do so, it should be corrected or eliminated). Google refused to comply and act in any way, because they "don't moderate 3rd party content". Except that EU says you _must_ comply if you're publishing a poli…

>then I'm going to escalate to the national authority if they still refuse to act. You are actually doing this wrong... Report to the national authority first... Then report to Google. Fuck them, it is not in your interest to report to them first, make them react for their bullshit. Over here in the states this is how I ended up dealing with telecom in the ISP industry. "Hello, I have put in an FTC/FCC complaint on $…

You might have a stronger case with the national authority if you first do the full "trail" of reporting, appealing, and eventually escalating.

But yes, I feel that there's something wrong in having a stronger case if you first do it "gently" when they wouldn't bother if it were the other way

Post reply on HN