James Jaeger
Registered user
Registered: 12-2017
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
SPAMAPHOBIA: A Consideration of Deviant Behavior on the Internet
This is an article written by the late JACK ROONEY, one of my good friends and producing partners. Jack wrote the original version of this in 2002 for Matrix Entertainment because we were getting attacked for our stance at the Film Industry Reform Movement. http://www.filmreform.org
-----------------------------
SPAMAPHOBIA: A Consideration of Deviant Behavior on the Internet
by Jack Rooney
This report provides a consideration and analysis of a newly emerging aberrant psychological phenomena observed among some Internet users and members of the associated groups they form and the problem with the cult of the "anti-spammers", web monitor groups, the rising cause of the net-watchers and net-censors, and the behavior of Internet chat group members and Internet users towards each other.
Some of these "Anti-Spam" groups and "Net Watch" groups are bordering perilously close to violating Internet user's First Amendment free speech rights. Some of their members are clearly spamaphobics, defined as an abhorrent and unreasonable fear of unfamiliar contacts through emails. Some of their founders and "Czars"(1), which they like to call themselves, are either too young or too untrained to know the difference between Spam and relevant newsgroup information. They seem to define Spam as "anything they don't like and do not want to hear” and a site member telling other newsgroup members about events or news relevant to the news group can often be removed by the group monitor if someone in the group doesn't like what is being said and complains. It is censorship, plain and simple.
Spam is generally defined as "unsolicited commercial emails" (with the emphasis on "Commercial") sent in mass emailing indiscriminately to a large number of recipients over the internet. Unfortunately, non-commercial emails often are thrown into the category of spam when they are not spam at all. Scholarly treatise, articles, essays, poetry, works of literature, expose, discourse, articles of journalism, and a variety of other informative, educational works may not always be sent out over the internet for any commercial purpose. Yet cross posting in Newsgroups of scholarly works often fall victim to censorship by spamaphobics. An article on anthropology may also be of legitimate interest to sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, theologians, historians, philosophers, poets, teachers, physicians, and a wide range of other intellectual disciplines. Yet some systems are set up to automatically delete cross postings to newsgroups without regard to their content. Since such scholarly works are most definitely protected speech under the First Amendment, deleting them, no matter how many newsgroups they are posted to, is a violation of the author's constitutional rights, and limiting the number of newsgroups one may post such scholarly articles to is also a restraint upon the rights of the author, and therefore illegal.
But group monitors, net censors, and ISP roving robots on an almost daily basis under the pretense that they are cleaning up the internet “spam” delete cross-posted scholarly articles. Robots can be excused from malice and stupidity, but posts deleted by human hands may not be so excused. Some folks just love playing God. They love power. They Love feeling important. It seems clear that some human censors just have too much time on their hands and remove or complain about newsgroup messages and postings that are perfectly legitimate and germane to the topic of the newsgroup (usually because they cannot understand the "topic" connection) or they do not like what the poster is saying, or object to the frequency, subject matter, or content of the email(s) even though it isn't Spam at all, or simply, in some cases, because they want to be able to claim they "bumped" someone's "Spam", and the term is often used much too broadly. Some merely like to complain about posting activities of another group member they do not like, particularly if the victim member is actively posting in newsgroups across a large array of related newsgroup categories. Who is to say that an anthropology article that discusses the dietary habits of primitive man is of no interest to a cardiologist in a medical newsgroup? None of the categories of the social or hard sciences are as strict as classical academe might suggest.
People who join watch groups, web watchers, and anti-spamming coalitions, and such and those who incorporate, form, and maintain Internet monitoring groups of this type are clearly spamaphobic to begin with. Denial is also part of the classic syndrome characteristic of the disease -- the "Who me?" response. Spamaphobics exist in a constant state of emotional trauma and turmoil arising from their intense hatred of unwanted emails. Actually, it extends further, into a deep-rooted hatred of ideas and opinions differing radically from their own. "It is not enough to have a few useful truths -- the true believer must have a monopoly on truth for all times."(5)
Spamaphobia is a psycho-emergent illness with a multifactorial etymology; as an abnormal psychological phobia, it has been observed and witnessed and reported from within net watch groups it is a problem to be address properly or all net users may become victim to it directly or indirectly, both individuals and ISPs are victimized by those who "bear false witness" or, in some cases, simply over-react to an unfamiliar or unwanted email in reporting spamming activities; and, like any other psychological phobia, Spamaphobia is, as defined herein, a variant form of xenophobia, arising from fear. Where xenophobia arises from fear of (technically "the foreign" or "fear of foreigners" or "strangers or "the unfamiliar") persons different from oneself, as when someone from outside a group enters and is met with apprehension by the established group, people from outside the group are/were historically and evolutionary seen as the enemy. Xenophobia has more to do with the innate tribal instinct to self-defense and self preservation than anything else, and in this sense, I believe, it serves as the basis or proto-emotion phobia for the variant manifestation, Spamaphobia, arising, in most cases, from the fear manifesting from past and present experiences in which an individual feels helpless to change or control the circumstances of their own lives.
In some cases, false reporting of spamming activity, "accusing" someone of spamming, as distinguished from a legitimate complaint, can be explained as similar to, and nothing more than, a kid who plays a prank by ringing someone's doorbell and then running away, it is a devious, though juvenile attempt at power assertion. Such behavior in a youth may be considered a childish prank or childish mischief; in an adult, it is seen as an aberrant mental illness, deviant behavior, and when these activities are designed at "getting even" with the poster, these false witness activities are nothing less than illegal "malicious mischief". So the phobia may spill over into the manifestation of misdemeanor criminal behavior.
The Internet offers a certain degree of anonymity and it is not unusual for individuals to assume pseudo-identities in their emails, chat rooms, and even in business arena itself. Even when individual's identities are known, the net provides a buffer very different from that of a live debate in, say, a classroom or at a podium in a auditorium -- more like a telephone, where prank callers, heavy breathers, and obscene telephone calls led to legislation to deal with the rampant anonymous phone calling in the 70's and 80's. Carried to extremes, this "alternate identity" through the net can create a Jeckell and Hyde scenario, in which an individual, hiding behind an alter (sheltered) identity, may do and say things they would never do or say in normal, everyday life where their true identity is known publicly and they are immediately accountable for their actions or words.
Balance of article at:
http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/spamaphobia.htm
Last edited by James Jaeger, 12/18/2018, 12:32 pm
|
|
12/18/2018, 12:25 pm
|
Link to this post
PM James Jaeger
Blog
|
luciddream00
Moderatorₗ
Registered: 04-2018
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: SPAMAPHOBIA: A Consideration of Deviant Behavior on the Internet
quote:
Some of these "Anti-Spam" groups and "Net Watch" groups are bordering perilously close to violating Internet user's First Amendment free speech rights.
Incorrect. They are not congress, therefore they cannot violate anyone's first amendment rights.
Last edited by luciddream00, 12/18/2018, 2:08 pm
---
Account closed permanently. I won't stand for abuse of authority by forum administration to censor criticism of a conservative radio host that celebrated the death of AIDS patients on his show. Maybe some day we'll speak again elsewhere.
|
|
12/18/2018, 1:08 pm
|
Link to this post
PM luciddream00
Blog
|
James Jaeger
Registered user
Registered: 12-2017
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: SPAMAPHOBIA: A Consideration of Deviant Behavior on the Internet
I no longer buy this rationale.
Any large corporation that i. pays to lobby the government and/or ii. receives special privileges from the government and/or is a major influence over the public discourse -- such as Google, FB, the MPAA studios or NY Networks -- cannot censor content and then getaway with the cry not being subject to First Amendment rights of citizens who are paying taxes to support such entity.
These entities are "corporate fascists" as we explicate in the movie CORPORATE FASCISM. Have you screened this documentary yet? It's at http://www.HomeVideo.net
Last edited by James Jaeger, 12/18/2018, 4:13 pm
|
|
12/18/2018, 4:12 pm
|
Link to this post
PM James Jaeger
Blog
|
luciddream00
Moderatorₗ
Registered: 04-2018
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: SPAMAPHOBIA: A Consideration of Deviant Behavior on the Internet
quote:
James Jaeger wrote:
I no longer buy this rationale.
Any large corporation that i. pays to lobby the government and/or ii. receives special privileges from the government and/or is a major influence over the public discourse -- such as Google, FB, the MPAA studios or NY Networks -- cannot censor content and then getaway with the cry not being subject to First Amendment rights of citizens who are paying taxes to support such entity.
You're welcome to "not buy" it all you want, but the first amendment is quite clear.
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first amendment applies to the laws that congress makes, not the way a private organization chooses to enforce their rules. You can certainly say they are "censoring" you, but they are absolutely not violating your first amendment rights.
---
Account closed permanently. I won't stand for abuse of authority by forum administration to censor criticism of a conservative radio host that celebrated the death of AIDS patients on his show. Maybe some day we'll speak again elsewhere.
|
|
12/18/2018, 4:36 pm
|
Link to this post
PM luciddream00
Blog
|
James Jaeger
Registered user
Registered: 12-2017
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: SPAMAPHOBIA: A Consideration of Deviant Behavior on the Internet
>The first amendment applies to the laws that congress makes, not the way a private organization chooses to enforce their rules. You can certainly say they are "censoring" you, but they are absolutely not violating your first amendment rights.
I will agree with that.
Still, it's frustrating. The only thing people can do is stop buying their products. IF free market capitalism works - THEN it should work to curb this behavior, no?
At times like this I'm glad I'm a producer. I have just completed GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS and am looking for a next movie project. I'm considering one on this issue called "SPAMAPHOBIA -- Deviant Behavior in the Age of Email".
Another title I'm considering is one called "HATE SPEECH - Do Public Corporations Owe Anyone the Truth?
What do you think?
Problem is I don't know if I could get any donors for these movies, whereas a movie about taxes -- well WHO has tax problems -- rich people or poor people?
Last edited by James Jaeger, 12/18/2018, 8:01 pm
|
|
12/18/2018, 8:00 pm
|
Link to this post
PM James Jaeger
Blog
|
luciddream00
Moderatorₗ
Registered: 04-2018
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: SPAMAPHOBIA: A Consideration of Deviant Behavior on the Internet
quote:
James Jaeger wrote:
Still, it's frustrating. The only thing people can do is stop buying their products. IF free market capitalism works - THEN it should work to curb this behavior, no?
I suppose it depends on whether or not a significant number of people stop buying their products. A boycott only works if a significant portion of consumers participate.
quote:
James Jaeger wrote:
At times like this I'm glad I'm a producer. I have just completed GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS and am looking for a next movie project. I'm considering one on this issue called "SPAMAPHOBIA -- Deviant Behavior in the Age of Email".
Another title I'm considering is one called "HATE SPEECH - Do Public Corporations Owe Anyone the Truth?
What do you think?
I don't really think may people will care about the spam angle, but "hate speech" is definitely a buzzword these days.
---
Account closed permanently. I won't stand for abuse of authority by forum administration to censor criticism of a conservative radio host that celebrated the death of AIDS patients on his show. Maybe some day we'll speak again elsewhere.
|
|
12/18/2018, 8:15 pm
|
Link to this post
PM luciddream00
Blog
|
James Jaeger
Registered user
Registered: 12-2017
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: SPAMAPHOBIA: A Consideration of Deviant Behavior on the Internet
The idea behind the free market is that people buy products and services they like or want to support, and they stop buying products and services that they don't like or don't want to support.
The problem with free markets is they usually take time to respond. People can be eating rotten, diseased beef for a month before anyone will say anything. A boycott is just people screaming out to speed up the process because the rotten meat is now killing them.
If the big tech companies and big media companies keep doing the shitty things they do, the word will eventually get out and people will simply stop using their services.
I know for one I am now researching alternatives for FaceBook, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Microsoft, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and even FOX NEWS. I am also looking for alternatives to Comcast, Verizon and Netflix.
The key is competition.
If there is not competition there can be no free market.
If there are not other places people can go, the old places will eventually take advantage of the public. Both big government and big corporations are inherently evil. Have you ever sat on a "nice" board of directors? Of course not; these people are shitty ruthless bastards. I have sat on enough to know this. It's just the nature of business.
The ONLY way evil corporations can be dealt with is to sic the government on them or stop giving them money.
Unfortunately Big Gov is worse than Big Corp because Big Gov has the guns.
You try to pay your taxes to some other gov and YOUR gov will put a bullet in your head.
So govs have an advantage over corps in that they can slaughter their customers when they don't give enough blood.
As far as the corp game -- WE THE PEOPLE must always be shutting down the mechanisms Big Corps use to establish and operate their monopolies. If we don't, the Big Corps will eventually !@#$ us.
Usually the Big Corps will use the state to whip their customers into submission. They will get laws passed to require licenses and permits and all sorts of red-tape horseshit that suppresses their competition. WE THE PEOPLE have to make sure we always attack this sort of stuff -- anything that enables Big Corps to !@#$ us with their monopolies.
And right now we have some serious monopolies we have to figure out how to get rid of. Here are some that come to mind:
1) Your Fed money provider;
2) Your electric company;
3) Your cable provider;
4) Your internet provider;
5) Your cell phone provider;
6) Your public school provider.
In every case MONOPOLY = NO FREEDOM + HIGH PRICES
The only places I can get cable and Internet are Comcast or Verizon. I had Verizon and then switched to Comcast. Verizon started !@#$ me with prices and was totally crazy in their billing protocols so I switched to Comcast. Now Comcast raises their fees every year. Started at $60, then $75 then up to $90 then up to $120 per month. As bad as ObamaCare. Since I only have Verizon to go to, and they !@#$ you the same way -- you have NO choice, so your only "choice" is to simply STOP using the services completely. This is where I am at now -- saying !@#$ you to all of them and spending my time reading and watching The Andy Griffith Show.
>I don't really think may people will care about the spam angle,
Yes, that's because most people don't have businesses -- they are slaves for those who do have businesses.
>but "hate speech" is definitely a buzzword these days.
Well "spam" and "hate speech" are the same thing. They are both terms that have been invented by secular, liberal, Jewish males of European heritage that dominate the Hollywood and the U.S. Mainstream Media. The idea is they want to stop any and all negative speech about THEM. So the only way they can do this is to use their powerful media to indoctrinate the public into the idea that certain unauthorized speech is "hateful" -- when in fact hateful speech is relative. I hate Nazis and pedophiles but that's "hate speech" to people who love Nazis and pedophiles.
The First Amendment was written specifically to support spam and hate speech. Only those who are trying to silence or support human thought would disagree with that statement.
Last edited by James Jaeger, 12/19/2018, 8:56 pm
|
|
12/19/2018, 8:34 pm
|
Link to this post
PM James Jaeger
Blog
|
Add a reply
You are not logged in ( login)
|
