Re: Internet Advertiser's Blacklist Re: Internet Advertiser's BlacklistI don't think we should be too concerned, yet. Net institutions don't
develop overnight. If the person who keeps the blacklist acts unwisely, its
reputation will suffer, and less people will pay attention.
With all due respect to him, threats tio the net, and schemes to "save" it
are numerous, and only a few have lasting impact. ("Imminent death of the
Net predicted, GIF at 11" is thus a net watchword ;)
>I don't believe that that yesterday's Net was the appropriate place to spam,
>because of the government/educational nature it had. But today's, and
>certainly tommorrow's Net is becoming more and more commercial - anything on
>the front of Fortune, Forbes and Newsweek, is commercial - and people must
>face that.
As has been said before, the commercializtion of the net does nothing to
affect the economic arguments against "postage due marketing", indeed one
is often directly "picking the pocket" of the consumer one hopes to reach.
If it seems like people are getting a bit intense about this issue; don't
assume it is directed at you, as a responsible marketer. If you don't read
alt.curent-events.net-abuse, you may not know that Canter & Seigel are
_still_ spamming the net -- in seeming violation of their contract with PSI
-- but the "CancelMoose" is canceling them so fast most people don't see
them.
I think the flip side of this is that ethical net marketers should be
seeking to differentiate themselves in the public eye from net abusers, and
not let Canter & Seigel get all the free publicity.
Anyone care to contact the Chicago Tribune and write a marketer's response
to Martha Seigel's op-ed piece onLaw & the Internet? (I sent a letter
comparing it to having P.T. Barnum write about consumer protection ;)
---
Albert Lunde Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu