Bingo Card Creator's MailChimp account got shut down once for gambling content. I sent in a request to support with an explanation that there was no gambling involved; the matter was resolved within a business day.
Running an email service provider is a rough business:
a) Emails hitting inboxes are basically indistinguishable from cash at scale, and therefore you have all the fraud problems of a payments business but without a lot of the built-in fraud resolution systems
b) There exists an oligopoly of inbox providers who have a Nuke Your Business From Orbit button available to them, and that button can and will be pushed by a cron job if you do not keep your customers squeaky clean
c) The customer population is frequently low-sophistication, like the owners of flower shops or virtually anyone in the cryptocurrency economy (my apologies to professional journalists like, err, Two Bit Idiot)
d) Per-account values are, at the low end, really, really low by the standards of B2B SaaS, and as a result your customer service has to get operated in a very scalable fashion, and that implies some tradeoffs where not everybody is going to be happy with it 100% of the time.
What stops a business owner from abstracting away the underlying email provider and sending domain, so that their email campaigns can be up and running again in minutes if Mailchimp bans them? Thankfully there are several reputable email service providers...and most companies have more than one top-level domain associated with their name...so a legitimate business should be able to keep their email program running without exposing their neck to the mercy of a single bot (atleast until the issue is resolved by support). Real spammers would quickly get banned from all major providers (hopefully), and the content of the spam email would get machine-learned.
I receive cryptocurrency & ICO spam sent via mailchimp several times a week and usually report it right away. Few weeks ago I called out the CEO of a blockchain company and demanded to know how they got my email since clearly I had no relation with them before. They admitted to have bought a list of addresses from another party where my email was part of the dump. After reporting this I still kept getting spam though. This morning another firm spammed me via MailChimp and despite Mailchimp's claims that they've cracked down on it no statement or apology from them, and I even got the impression that they were looking at me like I'm somehow overly pedantic ... (I was pretty pissed so my reply wasn't as friendly as it could have been): https://twitter.com/ValbonneConsult/status/98149715690437427...
The basic problem seems to me MailChimp's assumption that people only upload address lists from users they have consent from, when in reality everyone just uploads their LinkedIn address books and hopes not too many will press the "report" button. I am seriously fed up with Mailchimp not taking any actual action against these users after I already told them that I don't consent to receiving any messages about any topic from anybody via their platform. MailChimp should add a feature IMO where if somebody uploads an email address of people opting out that this person will be blacklisted from further using MailChimp.
> assumption that people only upload address lists from users they have consent from
It's not an assumption, it's a core of e-mail marketing business. They can't really ask for consent to receive marketing e-mails, because they can't get much consent for this. So the whole thing relies on people being tricked into giving away e-mail addresses, unknowingly consenting to e-mail marketing, being lazy to fight unsubscribing bureaucracy, etc.
The tech community has an incredible disconnect with the marketing community here. We all assume buying dumps of email addresses is a bad thing, we all hate it, we all think people are working with us to stamp out the practice.
I have friends in sales in other businesses to who look at their entire job as being "buy Google ads, buy Facebook ads, buy email lists". The idea such a thing might not be ethical is absolutely foreign to them.
> They admitted to have bought a list of addresses from another party where my email was part of the dump.
This is such a crappy practice for bootstrapping a new email marketing list, few things infuriate me as much as this. If nothing else, it instantly makes me never want to even look at your new product or service regardless of how good it might be.
> MailChimp should add a feature IMO where if somebody uploads an email address of people opting out that this person will be blacklisted from further using MailChimp.
That would be the easiest way to eliminate spam from MailChimp's platform. Also probably the quickest way to eliminate a vast majority of their paying customers.
I send out a newsletter to customers about once per quarter. All recipients have opted in by actively checking a checkbox.
I'm pretty sure these mail services already monitor unsubscribe rates and spam flags. But there will always be false positives, i. e. legitimate recipients flagging a newsletter because they no longer want to receive it, or because they forgot they agreed.
Spam recipients, on the other hand, may not report these messages often enough. Some just don't bother, others rely on their mail client or company's filters.
That could make it difficult to find a reliable cut-off separating legitimate and spam mail.
The only real solution to this would be for the mail services to handle opt-in procedures. That, however, would effectively lock you in to a single provider, because it'd be suicide to change providers and ask for confirmation from every recipient again.
Turns out it's illegal in the UK to buy email dumps and send everyone newsletters/marketing emails -- you need explicit consent (i.e. opt-in) or a pre-existing relationship.
> I am seriously fed up with Mailchimp not taking any actual action against these users after I already told them that I don't consent to receiving any messages about any topic from anybody via their platform.
I feel your pain, but it's worth noting that email, by its very design, is intended to be open to receiving unsolicited messages. So frankly, by using email at all you have actually consented to receive unwanted emails from time to time.
I think it's unreasonable to expect MailChimp to maintain a ruthless approach to prevent people from doing something that can be done with any email client, sendmail, or any number of tools that use the open protocol of email.
Things are bad enough as it is with closed and segmented communications methods on the rise. I'm pretty happy that email exists the way that it does, and MailChimp strikes me as a company that really works hard to strike a balance between the competing needs of being useful for sending mass emails while being mindful of spam.
I signed up there with crypterium.io@mydomain. Some time after, I start getting blockchain-related spam to that address. I wonder how that happened!
When I pointed out on their Telegram channel that one of two things had happened, a) they sold me, b) they got hacked, I was threatened with a ban. Their fans thought I was a raving lunatic.
I now have a support ticket open. Surprisingly it isn't really going anywhere.
I no longer accept email at crypterium.io@mydomain...
Every major email provider and sender already does that. That's table stakes, along with a dozen other things, that's required or else your network will be 99% spam (if it gets any kind of volume, that is).
What I want to know is how will MailChimp behave after GDPR kicks in? Will they be more drastic in the clamping down offenders as the penalty for GDPR violations can be substantial.
Funny story. I actually sat next to a person on my last flight who does this for a living. She indicated they do business for large companies and small ones too.
They are paid on a lead basis. Average lead price is $5-$10. I don’t know many campaigns they run at a time, but I glanced at her laptop and it looked like at least 100 active campaigns.
There is big money in this as such people will pay to get investors.
I asked about her reason for travels. She was actually going to a conference for others in her field.
Mailchimp actually states that list buying is a no go on their platform. They also have a very nice unsubscribe system that they honor - even if the downstream customer doesn't want to.
I'm sorry you've had issues with them. I hope you got a bad rep and they haven't become evil. When I used to do business with them I genuinely felt they wanted to do the right thing.
My understanding and experience is that if you complain about a specific email source, MC will ask them to prove they got your name legitimately. Now, I'm sure this can be faked, but I'm not sure MC is to blame.
I think about 3 times a week I get emails from a new cryptocurrency upstart that I've never heard of but which is using either the hacked Mt.Gox or BTC-e list.
The practices these people are using are scummy as fuck.
This is an extremely poorly written article. I'm glad most of the comments seem to be ignoring the actual text in it.
What collateral damage is being done? It seems to me the opposite of collateral damage is being done: Mailchimp has banned cryptocurrency-related email lists, and those writing cryptocurrency-related emails have lost that ability.
Beyond the absurdity of the title, email has always been decentralized. Anyone with a server can send or receive email with whatever technology stack they so wish. Of course, because there is no trust framework, there's no guarantee that your email will get delivered… Which is why Mailchimp validated the opposite of the article's conclusion: there is lots of value in centralizing the management of email. They can act as a trusted authority to negotiate with various email hosts and guarantee(-ish) to customers that the emails will get delivered.
The damage is that if you're writing about cryptocurrency as a topic, the same way any media publication would (rather than trying to scam anyone or sell anything) you're still getting shut down.
Hi, I wrote the article (although not the title). I highlighted this as an issue because MailChimp said it would allow cryptocurrency newsletters that weren't pumping ICOs to keep doing their thing, but didn't follow through on that — or at least hasn't yet.
My biggest problem with the article is that it doesn't even define "ICO". There's this whole community around cryptocurrency trading which seems to have popped up quite suddenly in just the past year or so, with their own jargon and memes.
I own small amounts of Bitcoin and Monero, I've been following the technology with interest for quite some time, and yet the whole "crypto" craze still seems like another alien world.
ICOs and Cryptocurrencies aren't being singled out so much as categorized by the behavior of the topic/community. MC has a long list of product categories that they have empirically found to have deliverability issues so bad that they harm all of their other users.
Escort and dating services
Pharmaceutical products
Work from home, make money online, and lead generation opportunities
Gambling services or products
Multi-level marketing
Affiliate marketing
Credit repair and get out of debt opportunities
List brokers or list rental services
Selling “Likes” or followers for a social media platform
Cryptocurrencies are just the latest. You can read the whole list and more clarifications here (it's very clear and readable for legal documentation): https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/
>deliverability issues so bad that they harm all of their other users.
Why does this harms users who follow the guidelines to show origin/identity (SPF, DKIM, dedicated IP, etc.)? We also use SendGrid for transactional emails and it's the same: some hosts (like Office 365) have told us that they weight all messages coming from sendgrid.net to their users as SPAM because they've seen so many issues there.
I pointed out that they should be able to distinguish between spammers and those who, like us, are positively identifiable and have not engaged in SPAM. No avail.
> On the other hand, MailChimp's decision validates the whole decentralization value proposition that drives cryptocurrencies. Sure, there are other email newsletter platforms. Upstart Substack, which is sort of like Patreon for email newsletters, reached out to at least one unhappy former MailChimp customer.
And this kind of gets to the nub of it. Centralization brings massive economies of scale, and allows you to free ride off the deliverability of other newsletters that don't come anywhere near talking about potentially fraudulent activity. But you have to play by their rules and you're at the mercy of one day being no longer welcome, even if you've paid them thousands of dollars before.
Of course, you're welcome to go off and run your own server / roll your own email protocol / used a 'decentralized' platform or Gab or Voat or whatever, but often a) these things end up being a lot less decentralized than you think, and b) good luck getting anyone to know, care about, or trust you.
This is the classic cycle, that happens for 'decentralized' services like email:
1) Design decentralized service, with low barriers to entry
2) Jerks start using the service for bad things that make life miserable for the rest of the users.
3) To combat the spam, some service providers start creating whitelists of which other service providers they will talk to
4) People flock to those service providers, because they are the only ones that aren't flooded with spam.
5) Holdouts end up HAVING to switch to one of those providers because they are the only ones anyone talks to.
6) The service is no longer decentralized in practice
I don't know how we get around this problem. These people complaining about not being able to send cryptocurrency emails through mailchimp are complaining about the centralization of the service, but most end users are thinking, "I am really glad I dont have to deal with the spam they are trying to send me."
Most people WANT some barriers to entry for services, because without them, spammers will always win.
Email is especially funny as you can literally send email from any internet connected device, but the default assumption is that emails from new devices are just spam.
No man is an island and neither is any decentralized crypto-'coin'.
I think Mailchimp should have done this more tactfully, with a promise to deliver every legit coin newsletter email if the coin is actually in use for something other than speculation, a real use case, adopted and helping the world go round.
Where is the blockchain solution for spam, anyways? I have heard about some land registry in Africa that has moved onto the blockchain and I am ready to get my Kodak coins, fully bought in, expecting my Lamborghini to moon soon. But really, I am stumped when it comes to practical application for blockchain coin things. If I owned Mailchimp and was the benevolent dictator chimp in chief then I would freely deliver every legit coin email three times over if it could be proven to be legit rather than barely believable if you are on the Koolaid.
When I read the article's title, I expected this story to be about other email newsletter platforms being flooded with cryptocurrency mailers who were previously using MailChimp, and how their own deliverability performance was affected.
While I assume that what is described in the article might have happened with other verticals, I would be curious to see how this will play out in the larger emailing ecosystem given the current hype & aggressiveness of the commercial practices of at least some of the players in the cryptocurrency field (as attested by others here).
E-mail is already decentralized. Anyone can send and receive an e-mail with only having network access as a barrier, and you only need a typical modern computer to send millions of them.
Mailchimp's value proposition is that by becoming an authority over a chunk of distribution using their brand, anything they send carries a badge of trust since they promise it isn't malicious. Their e-mail templates are a nice bonus, but I don't think that's the only reason some people use them. That mailchimp origin server is a keycard through a bunch of gatekeepers propped up as sentries against spam.
In essence e-mail is totally decentralized and trust is exchanged amongst members of ad-hoc federation of parties with a vested interest of having non-spam email get through the internet on both receiving and sending ends.
Is there a way a blockchain would make this market-based emergent system more efficient?
Does anyone know if earn.com had another name prior to around November 2017?
I figured it was just spam similar to what this thread refers to because I only ever get crypto-related emails from it. If it wasn't for the more-premium-than-most domain I'd have already auto-spammed it
Edit: Naturally seconds after asking I find an email from Angel List saying 21.co rebranded to earn.com.
As it turns out I'd been added or at some point had added myself to an "Airdrop" list, which is a list of people interested in cryptocoins. Removed myself from that and unchecked "Receive emails for tasks below your contact price?" should finally stop getting emails about dodgy new cryptocoins. Successful rubber duck debugging
Mailchimp is a spamming service. They pretend not to be, but that's what they really do. If Mailchimp was legit, they wouldn't have to work so hard to conceal where they're sending from.
Not the only shady thing, by using Firefox with a webmail interface, all Mailchimp's tracking is automatically removed, which means most businesses these days send me their promotional announcements as a blank email.
I don't know who's to blame - whether Mailchimp has tracking up the wazoo enabled by default and people need to be knowledgeable to turn it off, or if businesses just can't help themselves when offered analytic features, but it's pretty crazy how Mailchimp hosts enough of the email's content in cross-site tracking domains that sanitizing them leaves the mailouts empty.
That "view this email in your browser" link even brings up a similarly blank webpage! That link is already tracked, by clicking on it they already know I've looked at the email and care enough to want to see it properly, but the web version is still woven whole out of cross-site tracking shenanigans that it's filtered out (e.g. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Privacy/Tracking...).
I remember when I was trying to advertise my websites in newspapers back in the day and they "didn't allow advertisements for websites." This and all the other crypto bans (Facebook ads, Google ads, etc.) remind me of that- old regimes afraid of new better competition that aims to remove/replace them or make them less relevant. The future will be decentralized.
I remember when newspapers banned ads for penny stocks, timeshares and other junk too. The newspapers are mostly doing fine. How are the penny stocks getting on?
[+] [-] patio11|8 years ago|reply
Running an email service provider is a rough business:
a) Emails hitting inboxes are basically indistinguishable from cash at scale, and therefore you have all the fraud problems of a payments business but without a lot of the built-in fraud resolution systems
b) There exists an oligopoly of inbox providers who have a Nuke Your Business From Orbit button available to them, and that button can and will be pushed by a cron job if you do not keep your customers squeaky clean
c) The customer population is frequently low-sophistication, like the owners of flower shops or virtually anyone in the cryptocurrency economy (my apologies to professional journalists like, err, Two Bit Idiot)
d) Per-account values are, at the low end, really, really low by the standards of B2B SaaS, and as a result your customer service has to get operated in a very scalable fashion, and that implies some tradeoffs where not everybody is going to be happy with it 100% of the time.
[+] [-] robbiemitchell|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _xnmw|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DyslexicAtheist|8 years ago|reply
The basic problem seems to me MailChimp's assumption that people only upload address lists from users they have consent from, when in reality everyone just uploads their LinkedIn address books and hopes not too many will press the "report" button. I am seriously fed up with Mailchimp not taking any actual action against these users after I already told them that I don't consent to receiving any messages about any topic from anybody via their platform. MailChimp should add a feature IMO where if somebody uploads an email address of people opting out that this person will be blacklisted from further using MailChimp.
[+] [-] zzzcpan|8 years ago|reply
It's not an assumption, it's a core of e-mail marketing business. They can't really ask for consent to receive marketing e-mails, because they can't get much consent for this. So the whole thing relies on people being tricked into giving away e-mail addresses, unknowingly consenting to e-mail marketing, being lazy to fight unsubscribing bureaucracy, etc.
[+] [-] technion|8 years ago|reply
I have friends in sales in other businesses to who look at their entire job as being "buy Google ads, buy Facebook ads, buy email lists". The idea such a thing might not be ethical is absolutely foreign to them.
[+] [-] giobox|8 years ago|reply
This is such a crappy practice for bootstrapping a new email marketing list, few things infuriate me as much as this. If nothing else, it instantly makes me never want to even look at your new product or service regardless of how good it might be.
[+] [-] Washuu|8 years ago|reply
That would be the easiest way to eliminate spam from MailChimp's platform. Also probably the quickest way to eliminate a vast majority of their paying customers.
[+] [-] IAmEveryone|8 years ago|reply
I'm pretty sure these mail services already monitor unsubscribe rates and spam flags. But there will always be false positives, i. e. legitimate recipients flagging a newsletter because they no longer want to receive it, or because they forgot they agreed.
Spam recipients, on the other hand, may not report these messages often enough. Some just don't bother, others rely on their mail client or company's filters.
That could make it difficult to find a reliable cut-off separating legitimate and spam mail.
The only real solution to this would be for the mail services to handle opt-in procedures. That, however, would effectively lock you in to a single provider, because it'd be suicide to change providers and ask for confirmation from every recipient again.
[+] [-] aglionby|8 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_and_Electronic_Communi...
[+] [-] CPLX|8 years ago|reply
I feel your pain, but it's worth noting that email, by its very design, is intended to be open to receiving unsolicited messages. So frankly, by using email at all you have actually consented to receive unwanted emails from time to time.
I think it's unreasonable to expect MailChimp to maintain a ruthless approach to prevent people from doing something that can be done with any email client, sendmail, or any number of tools that use the open protocol of email.
Things are bad enough as it is with closed and segmented communications methods on the rise. I'm pretty happy that email exists the way that it does, and MailChimp strikes me as a company that really works hard to strike a balance between the competing needs of being useful for sending mass emails while being mindful of spam.
[+] [-] jen729w|8 years ago|reply
I signed up there with crypterium.io@mydomain. Some time after, I start getting blockchain-related spam to that address. I wonder how that happened!
When I pointed out on their Telegram channel that one of two things had happened, a) they sold me, b) they got hacked, I was threatened with a ban. Their fans thought I was a raving lunatic.
I now have a support ticket open. Surprisingly it isn't really going anywhere.
I no longer accept email at crypterium.io@mydomain...
[+] [-] ikeboy|8 years ago|reply
See https://blog.mailchimp.com/where-spam-traps-come-from-and-ho...
[+] [-] Bokanovsky|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] janesvilleseo|8 years ago|reply
They are paid on a lead basis. Average lead price is $5-$10. I don’t know many campaigns they run at a time, but I glanced at her laptop and it looked like at least 100 active campaigns.
There is big money in this as such people will pay to get investors.
I asked about her reason for travels. She was actually going to a conference for others in her field.
[+] [-] vorpalhex|8 years ago|reply
I'm sorry you've had issues with them. I hope you got a bad rep and they haven't become evil. When I used to do business with them I genuinely felt they wanted to do the right thing.
[+] [-] rhizome|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] slig|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] piracykills|8 years ago|reply
The practices these people are using are scummy as fuck.
[+] [-] kneath|8 years ago|reply
What collateral damage is being done? It seems to me the opposite of collateral damage is being done: Mailchimp has banned cryptocurrency-related email lists, and those writing cryptocurrency-related emails have lost that ability.
Beyond the absurdity of the title, email has always been decentralized. Anyone with a server can send or receive email with whatever technology stack they so wish. Of course, because there is no trust framework, there's no guarantee that your email will get delivered… Which is why Mailchimp validated the opposite of the article's conclusion: there is lots of value in centralizing the management of email. They can act as a trusted authority to negotiate with various email hosts and guarantee(-ish) to customers that the emails will get delivered.
[+] [-] firasd|8 years ago|reply
The damage is that if you're writing about cryptocurrency as a topic, the same way any media publication would (rather than trying to scam anyone or sell anything) you're still getting shut down.
[+] [-] exolymph|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TillE|8 years ago|reply
I own small amounts of Bitcoin and Monero, I've been following the technology with interest for quite some time, and yet the whole "crypto" craze still seems like another alien world.
[+] [-] michaelbuckbee|8 years ago|reply
Escort and dating services
Pharmaceutical products
Work from home, make money online, and lead generation opportunities
Gambling services or products
Multi-level marketing
Affiliate marketing
Credit repair and get out of debt opportunities
List brokers or list rental services
Selling “Likes” or followers for a social media platform
Cryptocurrencies are just the latest. You can read the whole list and more clarifications here (it's very clear and readable for legal documentation): https://mailchimp.com/legal/acceptable_use/
[+] [-] unclebucknasty|8 years ago|reply
Why does this harms users who follow the guidelines to show origin/identity (SPF, DKIM, dedicated IP, etc.)? We also use SendGrid for transactional emails and it's the same: some hosts (like Office 365) have told us that they weight all messages coming from sendgrid.net to their users as SPAM because they've seen so many issues there.
I pointed out that they should be able to distinguish between spammers and those who, like us, are positively identifiable and have not engaged in SPAM. No avail.
Are they being lazy, or am I missing something?
[+] [-] kristianc|8 years ago|reply
And this kind of gets to the nub of it. Centralization brings massive economies of scale, and allows you to free ride off the deliverability of other newsletters that don't come anywhere near talking about potentially fraudulent activity. But you have to play by their rules and you're at the mercy of one day being no longer welcome, even if you've paid them thousands of dollars before.
Of course, you're welcome to go off and run your own server / roll your own email protocol / used a 'decentralized' platform or Gab or Voat or whatever, but often a) these things end up being a lot less decentralized than you think, and b) good luck getting anyone to know, care about, or trust you.
[+] [-] cortesoft|8 years ago|reply
1) Design decentralized service, with low barriers to entry
2) Jerks start using the service for bad things that make life miserable for the rest of the users.
3) To combat the spam, some service providers start creating whitelists of which other service providers they will talk to
4) People flock to those service providers, because they are the only ones that aren't flooded with spam.
5) Holdouts end up HAVING to switch to one of those providers because they are the only ones anyone talks to.
6) The service is no longer decentralized in practice
I don't know how we get around this problem. These people complaining about not being able to send cryptocurrency emails through mailchimp are complaining about the centralization of the service, but most end users are thinking, "I am really glad I dont have to deal with the spam they are trying to send me."
Most people WANT some barriers to entry for services, because without them, spammers will always win.
[+] [-] XR0CSWV3h3kZWg|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Theodores|8 years ago|reply
I think Mailchimp should have done this more tactfully, with a promise to deliver every legit coin newsletter email if the coin is actually in use for something other than speculation, a real use case, adopted and helping the world go round.
Where is the blockchain solution for spam, anyways? I have heard about some land registry in Africa that has moved onto the blockchain and I am ready to get my Kodak coins, fully bought in, expecting my Lamborghini to moon soon. But really, I am stumped when it comes to practical application for blockchain coin things. If I owned Mailchimp and was the benevolent dictator chimp in chief then I would freely deliver every legit coin email three times over if it could be proven to be legit rather than barely believable if you are on the Koolaid.
[+] [-] jnnnthnn|8 years ago|reply
While I assume that what is described in the article might have happened with other verticals, I would be curious to see how this will play out in the larger emailing ecosystem given the current hype & aggressiveness of the commercial practices of at least some of the players in the cryptocurrency field (as attested by others here).
[+] [-] RobLach|8 years ago|reply
E-mail is already decentralized. Anyone can send and receive an e-mail with only having network access as a barrier, and you only need a typical modern computer to send millions of them.
Mailchimp's value proposition is that by becoming an authority over a chunk of distribution using their brand, anything they send carries a badge of trust since they promise it isn't malicious. Their e-mail templates are a nice bonus, but I don't think that's the only reason some people use them. That mailchimp origin server is a keycard through a bunch of gatekeepers propped up as sentries against spam.
In essence e-mail is totally decentralized and trust is exchanged amongst members of ad-hoc federation of parties with a vested interest of having non-spam email get through the internet on both receiving and sending ends.
Is there a way a blockchain would make this market-based emergent system more efficient?
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] donmatito|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] corobo|8 years ago|reply
I figured it was just spam similar to what this thread refers to because I only ever get crypto-related emails from it. If it wasn't for the more-premium-than-most domain I'd have already auto-spammed it
Edit: Naturally seconds after asking I find an email from Angel List saying 21.co rebranded to earn.com.
As it turns out I'd been added or at some point had added myself to an "Airdrop" list, which is a list of people interested in cryptocoins. Removed myself from that and unchecked "Receive emails for tasks below your contact price?" should finally stop getting emails about dodgy new cryptocoins. Successful rubber duck debugging
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CookieMon|8 years ago|reply
I don't know who's to blame - whether Mailchimp has tracking up the wazoo enabled by default and people need to be knowledgeable to turn it off, or if businesses just can't help themselves when offered analytic features, but it's pretty crazy how Mailchimp hosts enough of the email's content in cross-site tracking domains that sanitizing them leaves the mailouts empty.
When an advertising push looks like this you know they're using Mailchimp: https://i.imgur.com/Yv2QCv2.png
That "view this email in your browser" link even brings up a similarly blank webpage! That link is already tracked, by clicking on it they already know I've looked at the email and care enough to want to see it properly, but the web version is still woven whole out of cross-site tracking shenanigans that it's filtered out (e.g. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Privacy/Tracking...).
[+] [-] skookumchuck|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] EduardoBautista|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JohnJamesRambo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dimgl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shakna|8 years ago|reply
So was our past. How does cryptocurrency upset the balance of power that has caused centralisation to occur?
There have been scam after scam with cryptocurrencies, and despite every player experimenting with the blockchain concept, few results.
Cryptocurrencies have a very real cultural problem they need to overcome. This is a response to that cultural problem.
[+] [-] drawnwren|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristianc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JustAnotherPat|8 years ago|reply