Awhile back, Michael Perelman asked why people are up in arms against e-mail spam. I had a tentative answer, which I won't repeat. Here's an additional point:
Spam imposes the need to do work on the recipient. It takes time and effort to get rid of spam without trashing "good" e-mail. Even if you have a spam filter, it's smart to check the auto-trash file to make sure that good e-mail isn't trashed. Further, few if any filters get all spam. Spam interferes with attaining the desired goal of e-mail, i.e., communicating with friends, relatives, and business connections. On the other hand, we learn to not read ads in newspapers and magazines. Some attract our attention, but we don't have to read them. Some are pleasant to look at. Ads on TV are obnoxious, but they give one the chance to go get a beer, brush one's teeth, etc. Some are clever. The big problem is how they turn up the gain during ads (relative to the shows) so that the obnoxious ads jump out at the viewer (especially in the middle of the night). Ads on radio are equally bad, with fewer benefits. I guess the major advantage over spam is that people can switch over to CD players, cassette players, 8-track players, etc. rather than listen to the ads. As I said before, many people view ads on TV and radio as being the price of getting free broadcasts. Spam imposes costs without having any benefits. Jim Devine, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/
