The problem is, the line of what's acceptable communication is different for every user.
Sure it is, but some things are the wrong side of that line for most users. That's why there are laws against them.
Does that mean everyone needs to deal with no email communication by default just because a few people feel it's too hard to find a (legally required) opt-out link in the first email they receive?
As I said, if you're worried enough that you aren't willing to ask people to opt in instead, you're probably a spammer.
"Dealing with no email communication by default" is not what we're talking about. No-one here is saying you shouldn't send e-mails for the purpose that someone actually gave you their address, for example.
If you actually meant "dealing with no marketing email communication by default" then I'm pretty sure most people would "deal with" that just fine. When was the last time you heard someone complain that they didn't get spammed enough today, or their browsing experience was suffering from not having enough ads cluttering the pages they wanted to read?
This isn't a conversation about "SPAM"
I'm pretty sure it is. It's right there in the quote from the article in the first post of this thread, and in numerous further posts between there and here.
But that's begging the question
No, it wasn't. If I'd written "If you want to send people marketing messages that they don't want, you're a spammer", that would indeed have been a tautology. But I left you another option, finding out whether they want them or not by asking first.
In the end, is it really so hard to see how a company acts in it's correspondence before vilifying it?
No, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a company that specialises in sending bulk e-mail discussing the possibility of actively circumventing measures intended to stop users having to read marketing mails they don't want. Again, it's right there in the quotation at the top of this thread.
(Your other examples weren't unreasonable, but they also clearly weren't marketing mail assuming they related to people actually using the service you were sending the information about.)
Please go back (quite a ways at this point) and find my response that started this thread was. It wasn't top level, it was in response to someone specifically calling out companies for sending them email after signing up. In that respect, this isn't just about spam, it's about user responses to company email communications. Please view my posts in that light if you want to accurately interpret my position.
Sure it is, but some things are the wrong side of that line for most users. That's why there are laws against them.
Does that mean everyone needs to deal with no email communication by default just because a few people feel it's too hard to find a (legally required) opt-out link in the first email they receive?
As I said, if you're worried enough that you aren't willing to ask people to opt in instead, you're probably a spammer.
"Dealing with no email communication by default" is not what we're talking about. No-one here is saying you shouldn't send e-mails for the purpose that someone actually gave you their address, for example.
If you actually meant "dealing with no marketing email communication by default" then I'm pretty sure most people would "deal with" that just fine. When was the last time you heard someone complain that they didn't get spammed enough today, or their browsing experience was suffering from not having enough ads cluttering the pages they wanted to read?
This isn't a conversation about "SPAM"
I'm pretty sure it is. It's right there in the quote from the article in the first post of this thread, and in numerous further posts between there and here.
But that's begging the question
No, it wasn't. If I'd written "If you want to send people marketing messages that they don't want, you're a spammer", that would indeed have been a tautology. But I left you another option, finding out whether they want them or not by asking first.
In the end, is it really so hard to see how a company acts in it's correspondence before vilifying it?
No, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a company that specialises in sending bulk e-mail discussing the possibility of actively circumventing measures intended to stop users having to read marketing mails they don't want. Again, it's right there in the quotation at the top of this thread.
(Your other examples weren't unreasonable, but they also clearly weren't marketing mail assuming they related to people actually using the service you were sending the information about.)