Right-leaning political groups in the US have long accused Gmail of unfair left-leaning bias when it comes to spam filtering. As an example, the Republican National Committee alleged so in a lawsuit filed against Google in 2022 (and lost in 2024).
Now, the allegation has been raised again, this time by US Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson. He’s accusing Google’s spam filtering of being “partisan.” Read more about this from Ars Technica.
The courts don't agree with him. The Federal Election Commission doesn't agree with him. And those of us who know how email deliverability tend not to agree with him, either.
There are many of us who have visibly observed, from the outside, how Gmail’s spam filtering works, for years, and I think that most of us are skeptical of this claimed bias. I don’t think spam filtering is inherently political. I think that political senders are inherently spammy, and I think the data might suggest that one party is engaged in more of it than the other.
Koli-Loks OU is a well respected email intelligence and email-security adjacent org that you've probably never heard of. I have heard of them, though, and I trust the analysis that they've shared on Linkedin, showing the D-vs-R counts in their own spamtrap networks. TL;DR, more R spam than D, based on this metric. This isn’t action against spam; this is just recording counts of spam. A magnet has no bias against a piece of metal’s political leanings.
And when I theorize about the choices that Google likely is making with regard to defining their spam filtering; I know their focus is on engagement. Mail that subscribers show interest in is what wins the day and wins inbox placement. Spam folder placement usually means mail with low engagement. Uninterested subscribers. Meaning that the sender is to blame for what they send and how it isn’t connecting with subscribers. I have a hard time believing that this is somehow a bias against a particular political persuasion.
Too many political senders seem to be laser focused on squeezing every last possible dime from every last possible email address, treating the inbox like an ATM, and the email ecosystem suffers because of it.
Political spam is not OK. It is rampant, and I really do not like the idea of changing the rules to mollify somebody who doesn't like those rules.
Right-leaning political groups in the US have long accused Gmail of unfair left-leaning bias when it comes to spam filtering. As an example, the Republican National Committee alleged so in a lawsuit filed against Google in 2022 (and lost in 2024).
Now, the allegation has been raised again, this time by US Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson. He’s accusing Google’s spam filtering of being “partisan.” Read more about this from Ars Technica.
The courts don't agree with him. The Federal Election Commission doesn't agree with him. And those of us who know how email deliverability tend not to agree with him, either.
There are many of us who have visibly observed, from the outside, how Gmail’s spam filtering works, for years, and I think that most of us are skeptical of this claimed bias. I don’t think spam filtering is inherently political. I think that political senders are inherently spammy, and I think the data might suggest that one party is engaged in more of it than the other.
Koli-Loks OU is a well respected email intelligence and email-security adjacent org that you've probably never heard of. I have heard of them, though, and I trust the analysis that they've shared on Linkedin, showing the D-vs-R counts in their own spamtrap networks. TL;DR, more R spam than D, based on this metric. This isn’t action against spam; this is just recording counts of spam. A magnet has no bias against a piece of metal’s political leanings.
And when I theorize about the choices that Google likely is making with regard to defining their spam filtering; I know their focus is on engagement. Mail that subscribers show interest in is what wins the day and wins inbox placement. Spam folder placement usually means mail with low engagement. Uninterested subscribers. Meaning that the sender is to blame for what they send and how it isn’t connecting with subscribers. I have a hard time believing that this is somehow a bias against a particular political persuasion.
Political spam is not OK. It is rampant, and I really do not like the idea of changing the rules to mollify somebody who doesn't like those rules.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments policy: Al is always right. Kidding, mostly. Be polite, please and thank you.