Hacker News Reader

Comment by larrys | Hacker News Reader

I'm not arguing for it's protection based on that fact at all. I'm pointing out that this idea that junk mail is bad because it annoys some people is wrong.

Guess what? Not everyone is annoyed or bothered by junk mail. Not everyone is annoyed by spam either and I'm not talking about idiots who respond to spam or even read it. There are people that get so few emails that if they login and don't see any mail they think the mail is not being delivered at all. So they'd rather have something show up to show that "the system is working".

View on HN

Guess what? The number of people who are annoyed by junk mail or spam greatly exceeds the number of people who gain some benefit from it (mainly spammers and junk mailers - and since they are dishonest actors, I give their considerations very little weight).

My argument is not that junk mail is bad, because it annoys some people. My argument is that it is bad, because it annoys almost everyone.

PS - Surely you can think of a better system of informing users their inbox is working than regularly spamming everyone who has an inbox...?

" The number of people who are annoyed by junk mail or spam greatly exceeds the number of people who gain some benefit from it (mainly spammers and junk mailers - and since they are dishonest actors, I give their considerations very little weight)."

Really? What about the postal service employees?

http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/

Or the people (there are a great number of unmarked trucks on the street) that haul postal service mail. Or the airlines that haul postal service mail (of which a large portion is "junk" mail).

Or we could go further into the people who work in the printing industry or paper suppliers or the makers of the mailing equipment or the people who lease industrial space to these people.

"My argument is that it is bad, because it annoys almost everyone."

Disagree. Is there a survey that shows this? And have the people who (if they were surveyed) fully apprised of the benefits of "junk" mail and if so did they still get "annoyed" by it?

Add: One more thing. Where are you getting that the majority of people who send junk postal mail are "dishonest actors"?

All those workers are still a small minority of the people who receive it, otherwise junk mailing would be completely cost prohibitive.

Of course, even if they weren't, that's still not a good reason to keep it. If we're going to pay just to keep people employed, there are better holes to dig and fill up again.

Disagree. Is there a survey that shows this?

Why, yes: 81% of Americans support the creation of "Do not mail" lists to reduce advertising on their postal mailbox[1].

: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-survey-americans-mail.html

Alright, I'll bite. First off, as I said above, plenty of objectively bad organizations like patent trolls and organized crime provide employment for some people, but that is not a reason to support them. You claimed that that was not your argument, but now you're bringing it up again.

Since you seem unwilling to do any research yourself (while asking a great deal of me for basically a throwaway comment), here are some facts:

1. In 2010, 'advertising mail' (in which junk mail is included) constituted $17 billion in revenue for the USPS, as opposed to $34 billion from first class mail. Direct mail advertising does provide a lot of revenue for the USPS, but not a dominant amount.

2. 44 percent of junk mail is thrown away unopened, and junk mail produces 5.8 million tons of waste in landfills annually.

3. I can't find any statistics or junk mail approval rating, likely because anyone who proposed such a study would get laughed at for trying to answer such an obvious question. I'm not sure what you want me to say here (I'm definitely not going to conduct the survey), but I think that based on the existence of things like spam filters, do not contact lists, and this entire thread that junk mail is not something most people appreciate receiving.

You seem to be arguing in favor of junk mail, because it generates money for certain businesses, including so far, the USPS, other mail delivery services, paper companies, the printing industry, and corporations which use direct mail advertising campaigns. I posit that junk mail is not a good thing, because it harms the environment, consuming over 100 million trees per year in the US alone and contributing to landfills. In addition, it annoys the vast majority of its recipients (even you admitted a successful advertising campaign will convert only a few percentage points of users above). Finally, the industries which you have named are not dependent on junk mail for their survival; even the USPS receives at most a third of annual revenue from the practice, and as I (and several others in the thread) have said, we would be willing to pay more in exchange for a halt to junk mail delivery.

If you have another argument to offer than supporting industry, please share it. Otherwise, I'm finished with this thread; if we're stuck on the basic point 'spam is bad,' we're never going to reach agreement.

Edit: I forgot to include my (admittedly found via random Googling) sources.

1. http://stateimpact.npr.org/new-hampshire/2011/09/27/how-junk...

2. http://environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesign/a/junkmail...

Yes. Junk mail is economically inefficient and solely supported by the subsidization allowed via high first-class post rates. There is a cost for every piece they send out. They are not paying this cost. Hence, externality.

> So they'd rather have something show up to show that "the system is working".

Haha, that's such a ridiculously poor argument. Why not just email yourself something or ask a friend to email something? How bewildered by the internet are the people you imagine? "Oh good, 'embolden my penis'. It's still working. I was worried for a second there when I closed all the internets on my screen."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com