JC Dill wrote,
| Supposedly there are places where one can opt-in to receive "targeted
| spam", ...
I use several services that charge not in cash but in my accepting occasional
pieces of mail consisting of advertising for companies who pay them to be
| ... but I have yet to hear of a single person who has voluntarily signed up
| for such services who is happy and continues to receive highly targeted and
| relevant promotional email.
Agreed: what I get from them is not highly targeted, and not relevant, even
when the service has asked me to fill out an interest profile in order spe-
cifically for such targeting. Am I happy with them? Well, "unhappy" is a
strong word, and I do put up with them as the cost of the service; still, no,
the ads certainly do not increase the joy in my life.
| What happens is that they get indiscriminately spammed, ...
The adverb certainly applies, because when I have read those messages, the
offerings hawked therein have borne no relation to my listed interests with
the service that is sending them to me; rather, they appear to be all the ads
the service has. As to the participle, well, I did opt into getting the mes-
sages and I continue to accept them because I continue to use the services,
so I'm not going to call them spam.
| ... and hate it.
I don't "hate" getting them; I put up with them as the cost of the service.
But do I buy from those advertisers? Not that I know, for I don't even read
those messages. Many other people who use such services set up filters to
delete their mailings upon fetching them or even straight from the POP3
server without fetching them. I think that's a little dishonest because it
doesn't meet my interpretation of the promise to accept or receive the mess-
ages (but it _is_ a matter of interpretation, so I don't argue the point with
people who do delete them automatically rather than manually.) But just like
them I don't read the content, so we're all the same to the advertisers. If
we do buy what they're selling, those ads are not the reason.