A Visible customer was recently the victim of what seems to be a misunderstanding of the company’s automated spam detection system. According to the user, after working with customer service to reactivate an account, the response from the company alleged that the deactivation was due to the account being flagged for excessive text messaging — or spam, as that is against the company’s terms and conditions.

However, there is one problem: the user states this wasn’t spam, but rather they were responding “STOP” to a barrage of unsolicited political messages. This situation has highlighted a potential conflict between automated spam detection systems and legitimate user responses, especially in the context of increasing political text messaging.

  • Ulrich
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1352 months ago

    Hindsight is 20/20 but this could have been avoided by just not replying and blocking the number instead. Replying “STOP” just verifies that it’s a good phone number and that you’re reading their texts. Then they collect that information and sell it to other spammers.

    • zewm
      link
      fedilink
      English
      692 months ago

      Exactly what I do. Don’t respond and I just block and report.

      I do the same for phone calls from unknown numbers. I just press the volume button to mute the ringer and let it time out. If you hang up or pickup you get added to the list as active.

    • @SMillerNL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      262 months ago

      I’m pretty sure the US has a law that requires people to stop texting you after you send STOP. Additionally, service providers like Amazon will just remove subscriptions if they receive a STOP.

      • Encrypt-Keeper
        link
        fedilink
        English
        472 months ago

        That would be really useful if the people behind these texts were subject to US laws.

        • @gibmiser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          62 months ago

          To be fair, we only selectively enforced them before. And now we selectively enforce… worse shit.

        • Ulrich
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 months ago

          Can’t remember ever hearing about spam calls being prosecuted. And judging by the volume I think its fair to assume they never are.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 months ago

        Yes but they’re all based in India so it doesn’t matter.

    • @evulhotdog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Problem with that is there may be other services that also leverage the same short code, meaning you may be blocking something you need in the future.

      Edit: apparently according to Twilio:

      Shared short codes are not permitted in the US and Canada or in most countries worldwide.

      The only (very narrow) exception to the prohibition on shared short codes that is permitted by US/Canada carriers is a short code that sends OTP (one-time passwords) or authentication codes with strict adherence to a template, and no option for customization by the brands that are sharing the short code.

    • @NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      There might be laws against it like there is for mail?

      For instance, you can’t opt out of mail from your member of parliament here, nor political ads that happen around election.

    • @the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      Typically something like a political campaign will use a dedicated texting service intended to send out mass texts. They’re not copy/pasting them on a consumer level cell phone account.