My spam filter has caught 260,504 spam comments to Ethics Alarms to date, and I have read every damn one of them. This is to make certain that one of your comments doesn’t end up in spam purgatory, which sometimes happens, especially if you include a link, or your parents named you “Penis Enlargement” for some reason. You also end up there if you send me a anonymous comment with a fake e-mail, or if you become too insulting or otherwise annoying to justify whatever enlightenment your opinions might provide. I just sent “Another Child of the Future” to Spam Land, as well as “Joe”.
To say I resent spam and spammers wildly understates the case. It is unethical conduct to say the least, and the companies that facilitate the process are beneath contempt. Lately, the field has come to be dominated by something called “lista de email,” which deposits about 100 pieces of junk on Ethics Alarms every day. I really, really hate it, and everyone connected with it. They are vandals, freeloaders, cheaters, liars and frauds. They have added to the abundant wasted time in my life, which was already seriously crowded with the hours I spent studying anti-trust law and the novels of Conrad and Butler, the weeks I spent trying to read “War” by Raymond Aron, and every second I spent watching soccer, “Hart to Hart,” and “American Idol.”
That is not to say that reading all that spam doesn’t have its occasional rewards, for it is often amusing in a surreal way. For example:
- “Nike Air Max Moto” writes this comment in response to my post about airline passengers jumping line by using wheelchairs: “Thanks a lot for providing individuals with such a special chance to check tips from here. It is often very terrific plus packed with a good time for me and my office friends to visit your web site at least three times in 7 days to learn the fresh things you have. And lastly, we’re usually satisfied considering the sensational tips and hints you give. Certain 4 tips in this posting are undoubtedly the most effective we have had.” It’s nice to be appreciated in one’s time.
- For some reason, the intriguingly named “Annornub” thinks this is germane to my post on the young woman who faked cancer to gain a lesbian lover: “Cannabis was traditionally considered drug to its medical claiming workplace atmosphere for growing marijuana properly. I am 63 years old, the husband of the ways been to Marijuana shorter, just like with any other substance abuse situation. Marijuana has a synthetic form of chemical THC, hard weed its sweet grape taste that is not long lasting. This will certainly help in the usage of marijuana as of sleepiness, irritated could land you in legal trouble.” News you can use!
- “Lizette Kuklinsky” complained about my post lauding Marc Randazza’s anti-scam efforts: “Hello ! That post is interesting But what the hell, it can`t be right . I really do not mean any trolling, but I’ve simply found the other point of view. That`s why I can`t simply admit autor`s opinion. And do not try accusing me for the scarcity of evidences ! All the proofs can be seen over here . However, thank you for the article anyway.” WHAT other point of view?
- Here is a comment posted regarding the dead-eyed children singing the anti-Romney song: “Dogs, cats, hamsters, fish, parrots who do you prefer? Or dialect mayhap what that odd animals snakes, crocodiles, lizards, monkeys?” Good question!
- “Practice” was moved to write this unexpected observation about the Tippi Hedren’s sexual harassment by Alfred Hitchcock: “Very interesting points you have observed; thank you for posting. “What is harder than rock, or softer than water, yet soft water hollows out hard rock? Persevere.” by Ovid.” This will haunt me for the rest of my days.
Well, I just deleted all of that, and more. Spam is, if nothing else, a regular reminder that an awful lot of people don’t care about ethics at all, and that there is money to be made legally serving and assisting such people. And this is probably one of the least harmful activities such people engage in. That is incentive for me, at least.
Ethics Alarms 
I run a forum and help moderate a large traffic blog and I see where you are coming from.Spammers will send them in a cascade where you see the same exact spam post 20 times in a minute show up on the spam account.
They are scum
They are indeed.
I love fried spam, spam and eggs, spam and mac and cheese, I just love spam, just not the sort that you are talking about. That stuff gives spam a bad name!
The original inspiration, lest it be forgotten in the dustbin of history.
Never forgotten.
Thanks for the video, Zoe. The Spam Vikings are still celebrated cult stars in Britain, I understand.
“Lista de emails” bombards my blog with a couple of dozen spam comments a day. They have links to half a dozen different domains (listed in the URL I provided, so others can find and block them). When one of their domains is shut down, they have more to fall back on. Fortunately my spam filter catches them all, but they still waste my time and create the risk that I’ll delete legitimate comments in the crush.
It’s important to report spammers, especially massive operations like this one. Filters don’t stop them from attacking everywhere in search of a weak point; only reporting them and blocking their IP addresses can do that.
Posts that don’t format links and instead just have http blah, blah are just going to be spam. Any post with more than 3 links is almost always spam.
Also, any posts containing blurbs of text that have nothing to do with the content (like the nuggets of gold you posted) are fairly easy to to pick out. I don’t bother reading each and every spam comment; I just scan for links and gibberish. Any posts that don’t have either get saved (but those are very rare on account of the spam filter being quite good), and then I hit “Empty Spam”.
I don’t know what’s happening with this “lista” business, but the flood started about a year ago and has been getting worse ever since. I hope the WordPress folks just introduce a filter to just delete it before it even gets to the spam folder.
I also just read your full comment policy. While I vehemently disagree with it (especially regarding anonymous comments), I respect your reasons for having it. I’ve received both good and bad feedback from anonymous users and dealing with the bad (however arbitrarily defined that word is) is OK with me since I would have completely been deprived of the good. To me, that’s not an acceptable loss.
I’d love to know what you vehemently disagree with in the Comments policy. This is an ethics blog, and I analogize anonymous criticism to sniper shots. Forcing commenters to stand behind their rhetoric, at least to me (I allow screen names, as long as I know the real name and e-mail), keeps the exchange within civil bounds, and the participation of illiterates to a minimum. When a particularly trenchant comment has arrives without identification, I always contact the sender and ask that more be provided—unless I have also been given a fake e-mail address. That’s a lie, you know, and also suggests that someone is commenting who either didn’t have the honesty not to try to deceive me or the courtesy to check my policies before commenting.
I’m not clear on what you refer to as a lie.
I feel like you’ve had been personally attacked numerous times and the policy wasn’t written dispassionately as a result.
As for commenting anonymously… I have run forums for many years and one thing that they all have in common are the drive-by insults.
Nothing much you can do about those except mod them down or, in your case, not enable them. But the anonymous comment with nothing to back it but rhetoric and lies is best defeated with a resounding dose of facts.
If they’re just trolls, they’ll ignore the reply and continue on because they’re not interested in debate, but ridicule and harassment. Troll comments should be deleted, no doubt, but to attack the comment not the commenter, I must have the comment in the first place.
Also, we’re mostly anonymous by online (well, not you and me because we have our names published), but it’s easy to hide behind “just” a screen name or “just” an email. You’ll still have the above problem, but with just more labels on a still anonymous user.
When someone posts a comment with no backing, it’s normally the duty of the asserter to support the assertion, but that’s not always how it works. The Internet isn’t like old media and sprinkling [citation needed] here and there is easy and a great way to poke holes on a faulty assertion (this is the “credible evidence please” clause).
I don’t think the policy is effective to stop these comments from appearing because they’ll keep posting whether they’re allowed or not, but it may help your points if you show the counter argument has nothing to stand on. Or they may even change your mind.
And the comments that go “lighten up” etc… these are troll comments whether they realize they’re trolling or not, which makes them particularly devious. Not worthy of mention.
There’s a great article by Joel Spoksly called Building Communities with Software. It’s a bit long and a little old, but has great points which have helped me maintain relevant discussions on my forums.
I’m in the process of building another discussion forum (not looking forward to more “lista” spam) and the community guidelines are just 3 sentences :
* Don’t spam
* Don’t troll
* Be relevant
Not saying you adopt these instead, but intelligent people will adhere to these even without the guidelines and leave the comments section unpolluted. As for the sociopaths… well, there’s not much you can do except give that delete feature a workout.
Then there are those, for whatever reason, don’t want to give out any information of themselves (email, name, nothing.) If they could hide their IP too, they’ll be doing that as well. I have still received good feedback from these people whatever their peculiarities. These would have never reached me without anonymous comments being on.
Sorry, I misspelled Joel Spolsky’s name.
A lie is when someone asked to give an e-mail gives a false one. That is by definition a lie. And I spam commenters who break the rules. Occasionally they slip back in through various means, but not for long. The policy may not be dispassionate, but it is not provoked by any incident or incidents. The discourse can be pretty rough here, and that’s fine, once a certain level of good will and trust have been established. I insist on a real name and a functioning e-mail, which I never divulge. I really couldn’t care less what practices other blogs tolerate.
Well, you asked why I vhemently disagree with your comment policy so there ya go : Practices other blogs tolerate which I believe foster discussion.
To start off, I am “lying.” I don’t give people I don’t know my email address, because it’s none of your business and I don’t want spam. The name and website are real, but I’m assuming you won’t publish this.
My blogs, all three of them, are also bombarded by the “lista de emails” spammer. I don’t understand why WordPress can’t just block all comments from the IP addresses they use.
No, I’ll publish this one, because you’re in half compliance: I have your real name. I just won’t post any more without an e-mail. Your website’s directions as to how to arrive at your e-mail is too baffling for me. I don’t know what your problem is, but is sure as hell is my business who I allow to post opinions on my blog. I would explain in more detail if you gave me the courtesy of your e-mail address—you have mine.
But you aren’t lying—it isn’t a lie when you say, honestly, “this is a lie.” Fakeaddress@example.com is pretty clear. It just doesn’t comply with the rules here.
Just found this via searching for “lista de emails” that have been annoying the hell out of me… Btw, agree with your comments policy. In fact, anonymity on the web is one of my pet hates. We should all be proud to stand in name behind everything we say, or else shut the hell up.
lista de email is an unmitigated nuisance. I am heartily sick of receiving spam from this source. I appreciate the humour in your post. Cheers, Kevin