>>The problem is that [Google's] fully-automated system
> >>has a high critical mass for canceling accounts.
>
> James Arthur wrote:
[...]
>I still report regularly, and add comments
> >about the corrosive effect on GoogleGroups and on g-mail users.
>
> I doubt a human ever sees any of it. I believe it's all indexed by
> bots.
Could be, but you're assuming a priori there's no hope & no point. I'm more hopeful.
Successful companies have to listen to their customers. I s'pose for Google that means advertisers.
>Whatever else it is, it's developing into a serious black eye for Google
> >amongst a large group of smart, connected, literate people
> >who control large budgets.
> >Google thinks the usenet is worth serving,
> >and s.e.d. is one of the more active groups. ISTM they will care.
>
> Until Google sees an effect on their bottom line, nothing will change.
> Does anyone here buy ads from Google Groups?
> Yeah. I thought not.
But we're the audience their advertisers' target. Irritating us ain't good for business. Surely Google realizes this.
>>Google knows they've been hacked
> >>and hasn't made any of the obvious moves to deal with it.
> >>[...]The rogue Chinese ISPs are equally responsible[...]
>
> >I liked Paul Hovnanian's idea of informing the Chinese government
> >about their spammers, how this makes China look bad,
> >and how it's bad for business.
>
> Yup. We keep hearing that besmirching the PRC as a society
> can have dire consequences for a native individual.
> So what's the trick to getting the attention of *those* eyes.
Dunno. And, truthfully, I'm not interested in getting these guys killed, just killfiled.
If they're anything like our Supreme Court and Executive Branch,
> commerce gets special dispensation.
> Anybody paying attention to the demonstrations
> surrounding the Olympic Torch Relay?
Yes. Kind of exciting.
Cheers, James Arthur