Hacker News Reader

Comment by xapata | Hacker News Reader

Another case of taking advantage of a low-noise medium. If it works, others will follow and we'll need to get spam filters for SMS.

View on HN

Due to the TCPA rules in the US, the penalties for just missing a few details are high enough many companies just avoid it altogether. I guess this could be an attempt at a loophole since people are doing it "manually." On the other hand, political stuff gets an exemption.

Overall I wouldn't be worried about SMS. The economics don't make sense either with the front end cost or the long term penalties, and soon everyone will be on a third party messaging platform anyways.

We are not a spam sms tool. We work best with organizations that have existing relationships or want to create long lasting relationships.

This is what all spam-distribution platforms say. Nobody ever says "we spam people."

A spam distribution platform is not a defensible business. In a year someone will come along that does it better and cheaper. There is just no long term value.

If the recipient explicitly asks you (or your partners) to text them this and that, and you text them this and that, you're not a spammer. Anything more and you've become a spammer. Seriously. Not cool. Receiving a spam text costs me a postage stamp each time. Buy your own postage stamps.

"Relationship" is the word that is most used by spammers.

Kellogs imagines that we have a relationship. So does Subaru.

More of that, I don't need.

If you're not spam, how do you prohibit bulk unsolicited SMS?

Even if you aren't, if you do well then a different company will follow with different ethics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com