{"id":97162,"date":"2003-10-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-10-22T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/2003\/10\/22\/spam-is-starting-to-hurt-email\/"},"modified":"2024-04-14T04:14:23","modified_gmt":"2024-04-14T09:14:23","slug":"spam-is-starting-to-hurt-email","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2003\/10\/22\/spam-is-starting-to-hurt-email\/","title":{"rendered":"Spam is starting to hurt email"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">WASHINGTON (October 22, 2003) &#8212; The recent explosion of email spam is beginning to take its toll on the Internet world. A new nationwide survey shows that 25% of America\u2019s email users say they are using email less because of spam. Within that group, most say that spam has reduced their overall use of email in a big way. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"> Further, more than half of email users say that spam has made them less trusting of email in general. One of their fears is that legitimate emails might be turned away by filters designed to stop spam. Another is that they\u2019ll simply miss incoming email from friends, family, or colleagues amid the clutter of spam in their inboxes. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"> A new report entitled \u201cSpam: Hurting email and degrading the Internet environment,\u201d by the Pew Internet &amp; American Life Project, includes scores of stories gathered in a Web-survey by the Washington-based Telecommunications Research &amp; Action Center about how spam has affected people\u2019s experience with email and changed their views about the value of email. <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"> \u201cPeople just love email, and it really bothers them that spam is ruining such a good thing,\u201d said Deborah Fallows, Senior Research Fellow at the Pew Internet &amp; American Life Project and author of the report. \u201cPeople resent spam\u2019s intrusions; they are angered by its deceptions; and they are offended by much of the truly disgusting content.\u201d <\/p>\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"> Here are some other key figures from a national phone survey of 1,380 Internet users conducted by the Pew Internet Project in June. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus three points: <\/p>\n\n<li>75% of email users are bothered that they can\u2019t stop the flow of spam, no matter what they do.<\/li>\n\n<li> 70% of email users say spam has made being online unpleasant or annoying.<\/li>\n\n<li> 55% of email users say they get so many unwanted email messages in their personal account that it\u2019s hard to get to the ones they want.<\/li>\n\n<li> 30% of email users are concerned that their filtering devices may block incoming email that is important to them.<p> Despite their dismay, most Internet users keep the issue of spam in perspective. For them, spam takes its place next to life\u2019s other annoyances, like telemarketing calls. Further, many users believe they know how to behave in a spam-saturated environment. The most popular way of dealing with spam is to simply click \u201cdelete.\u201d More than 2\/3 have made a more aggressive move, clicking to \u201cremove me\u201d from future mailings, although many voice concern that doing so only leads to more spam. <\/p>\n<p> And most email users are judicious about guarding their email addresses in hopes of avoiding spam. A minority employ their own filters, either in work or personal accounts. <\/p>\n<p> At the same time, there is evidence in the survey that enough Americans respond to offers in unsolicited email to sustain spam as a viable, lucrative endeavor. Some 7% of emailers \u2013 more than eight million people \u2013 report they have ordered a product or service that was offered in an unsolicited email,. Fully a third of email users say they have clicked on a link in unsolicited commercial email to get more information. <\/p>\n<p> The report argues that Americans are somewhat fuzzy when it comes to defining spam, an issue of critical importance to legislators as they tackle anti-spam legislation in Congress. There is consensus that spam is \u201cunsolicited commercial email from a sender you don\u2019t know.\u201d However, messages with religious, political, or charity fundraising content are spam to some users, but not others. And users have varying answers about how businesses should interpret their prior relationship with customers. There is not a clear consensus among users about the circumstances under which they are \u201cknown\u201d by a seller or \u201chave a relationship with\u201d a firm. <\/p>\n<p> \u201cThe general findings are striking, but inside the data are even more disturbing details about the reactions women and parents have with pornographic spam,\u201d said Fallows. \u201cPornographers deserve a special place in hell as far as they are concerned.\u201d <\/p>\n<p> The Pew Internet &amp; American Life Project is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to examine the social impact of the Internet. <\/p>\n<p> The Telecommunications Research &amp; Action Center (TRAC) is a nonprofit organization that promotes the interests of residential telecommunications customers. Their stories cited in the report come from a compilation of more than 4,000 first-person narratives about spam that were solicited since September of 2002. As part of a campaign to fight unsolicited commercial email, TRAC invited Internet users to submit stories about their personal experiences with spam. <\/p><\/li>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>WASHINGTON (October 22, 2003) &#8212; The recent explosion of email spam is beginning to take its toll on the Internet world. A new nationwide survey shows that 25% of America\u2019s email users say they are using email less because of spam. Within that group, most say that spam has reduced their overall use of email [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sub_headline":"","sub_title":"","_crdt_document":"","_prc_public_revisions":[],"_ppp_expiration_hours":0,"_ppp_enabled":false,"ai_generated_summary":"","relatedPosts":[],"reportMaterials":[],"multiSectionReport":[],"package_parts__enabled":false,"package_parts":[],"_prc_fork_parent":0,"_prc_fork_status":"","_prc_active_fork":0,"datacite_doi":"","datacite_doi_citation":"","_prc_seo_qr_attachment_id":0,"spoken_article_player_enabled":true,"bylines":[],"acknowledgements":[],"displayBylines":true,"footnotes":"","prc_watchers":[]},"categories":[],"tags":[],"bylines":[],"collection":[],"datasets":[],"level_of_effort":[],"primary_audience":[],"information_type":[],"_post_visibility":[],"formats":[458],"_fund_pool":[],"languages":[],"regions-countries":[],"research-teams":[526],"workflow-status":[],"class_list":["post-97162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","formats-report","research-teams-internet"],"label":false,"post_parent":0,"word_count":751,"canonical_url":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/internet\/2003\/10\/22\/spam-is-starting-to-hurt-email\/","art_direction":false,"_embeds":[],"watchers":[],"table_of_contents":[],"report_materials":"","report_pagination":{"current_post":null,"next_post":null,"previous_post":null,"pagination_items":[]},"parent_info":{"parent_title":"Spam is starting to hurt email","parent_id":97162},"materialsOrdered":[],"chaptersOrdered":[],"partsOrdered":[],"partsEnabled":false,"datacite_doi":"","prc_seo_data":{"title":"Spam is starting to hurt email","description":"WASHINGTON (October 22, 2003) -- The recent explosion of email spam is beginning to take its toll on the Internet world. A new nationwide survey shows that 25% of America\u2019s&hellip;","og_title":"Spam is starting to hurt email","og_description":"","schema_type":"Article","noindex":false,"canonical_url":"","primary_terms":[],"custom_schema":[],"og_image":0,"indexnow_submitted_at":null,"gsc_index_status":null},"prepublish_checks":{"prc-image-alt-text":{"status":"complete","message":"No image blocks in content.","data":null},"prc-about-this-research":{"status":"incomplete","message":"Add an \"About this research\" details block.","data":null},"prc-paragraph-count":{"status":"complete","message":"Found 5 paragraphs.","data":{"count":5}},"prc-internal-link":{"status":"incomplete","message":"Add at least one internal link.","data":{"count":0}}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"relatedPostsOrdered":[],"bylinesOrdered":[],"acknowledgementsOrdered":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=97162"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97162\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":133963,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/97162\/revisions\/133963"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=97162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"bylines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/bylines?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"collection","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/collection?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"datasets","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/datasets?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"level_of_effort","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/level_of_effort?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"primary_audience","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/primary_audience?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"information_type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/information_type?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"_post_visibility","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_post_visibility?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"formats","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/formats?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"_fund_pool","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/_fund_pool?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"languages","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/languages?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"regions-countries","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/regions-countries?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"research-teams","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/research-teams?post=97162"},{"taxonomy":"workflow-status","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/alpha.pewresearch.org\/pewresearch-org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/workflow-status?post=97162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}