10:25 AM |
Author: Ryan Schaefer
I found the article on "Culture Jammers" and guerilla media slightly amusing, but overall it just agitated me. Spam is everywhere and it is almost impossible to avoid entirely. I do not find it to be an effective advertising method, because I don't lend a second of my time to it. If an ad annoys you... I say complain for a while... and then get over it. That's basically all I have to say to this article.
Thank you pranksters for not having a life and giving birth to evil on the internet- you have tainted my internet experience- This is why we need government regulation -
Ryan
Category:
|
1 comments:
While I respect the fact that this blog was written as an assignment (and asking you to respect the fact that this reply was as well), I cannot help but think that your blog shows that you may be a bit hasty in drawing conclusions.
In your reply to the Culture Jammers article, you conflate the type of activist spam to which the article referred with a different, corporate type of spam intended to make money. These are largely unrelated. Nor do I believe the "culture jammers" interviewed in the article gave birth to the type of spam that is tainting your experience. I would say that street solicitors with coupons, giveaways, and can't-be-beat offers are more the type of precursor to the obnoxious "male enlargement" and Nigerian money wiring scam spam that pollutes the internet.
While government regulation could reduce the amount of spam overall, there would be no safeguard to keep the healthy countercultural spam while discarding the "bad" pornographic spam. In this regard I feel free markets and open source anti-spam software are much more efficient and cost-effective than a government-regulated system of protection.