Before anyone launches themselves into the sky: the title is clickbait. This is about phishing attempts that use ICE to persuade you to click. Sendgrid the company is not emailing about supporting ICE. But technically Sendgrid the infrastructure is.
In any case, I revised the title to "SendGrid isn’t emailing you about ICE or BLM. It’s a phishing attack."
Maybe someone can edit the title of the submission on HN accordingly?
Most people aren't even aware that their posted URLs can be changed or their titles re-edited automatically because the UI doesn't give affordances for anything. You're just expected to notice and edit it out within the edit window (which there also isn't an affordance for.)
"Why is SendGrid emailing me about supporting ICE?" becomes "Phishing Campaign Targets SendGrid Users via Compromised Accounts and Politically Charged Bait"
I think it would be more time than I'd like to commit though.
I've been pleasantly surprised how well AI does describing bias, no matter the bias, which gives me hope.
---
Possible alternative titles that better match the article’s content:
How Phishers Are Using SendGrid to Target SendGrid Users with Political Bait
– Accurately reflects the mechanism (SendGrid abuse), the audience, and the novel political/social-engineering angle.
SendGrid Account Takeovers Are Fueling a Sophisticated Phishing Ecosystem
– More technical / HN-native framing, avoids culture-war implications.
Phishception: Politically Targeted Phishing Sent Through Compromised SendGrid Accounts
– Highlights the core insight and the self-reinforcing nature of the attack.
I'd feel pretty stupid getting worked up about something only to realize that getting worked up about it was used against me.
I'm writing this because for a moment I did get worked up and then had the slow realization it was a phishing attack, slightly before the article got to the point.
Anyways, I think the clickbait is kindof appropriate here because it rather poignantly captures what is going on.
There's got to be a way to generalize this for anyone who still cares about the difference between real facts and manipulation.
I thank the author for getting me this way, as I would have likely fallen for the unsubscribe trick.
The number of people who actually read the entire article and then attempt to comment in good faith are few and far between.
What happens a lot, at least for me, is that people will start reading the comments to see if they want to bother reading the link. Then they might start commenting on what's already been said. It's easy to slip into that pattern.
Though you also frequently see top-level comments that appear to be based on the headline alone.
but that would be clear and very boring. nobody would read your blog then. A headline that very obviously implies Sendgrid the company supports ICE, and so much so that they are emailing all their customers about it, clicks galore. Well done.