<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mike_hearn</author><text>Former anti-spam guy here. Spam is hardly something everyone agrees on. There are big grey areas where people spam without thinking they&amp;#x27;re spamming, and yes they do get upset about it.&lt;p&gt;The primary moral and legal defence the big email providers have with respect to spam filters is that they&amp;#x27;re essentially democratic: they&amp;#x27;re powered by user reports. So if someone complains to Google that their mail goes into the spam folder, Google can just say &amp;quot;it&amp;#x27;s our users fault, figure out how to make them happy&amp;quot; and that&amp;#x27;s a good answer that puts them back in the driving seat. Also, users can whitelist mail if they disagree with the mail providers opinion. Spam is ultimately not a matter of politics then, it&amp;#x27;s a matter of aggregate user opinion on what sort of mail they want vs don&amp;#x27;t want.&lt;p&gt;This particular issue seems rather different. There are no user votes involved here and it&amp;#x27;s unclear why you&amp;#x27;d want such a system anyway, given that people who disagree with a website can just not visit it. There is no way for visitors who disagree with Google&amp;#x27;s assessment to access the site anyway. And so on.</text><parent_chain><item><author>birken</author><text>If we are framing this as a free speech issue:  Isn&amp;#x27;t spam email free speech?&lt;p&gt;How dare any network provider tell me I can&amp;#x27;t send 500 billion emails about my Viagra supplements?  That is violating my freedom of speech!&lt;p&gt;The US government has actually passed laws making spam email legal (CAN-SPAM, under certain conditions), and still most every reputable network provider will not let you send it on their networks, even if it is legal.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not suggesting the particular issue in the OP is the same as spam, but clearly there are some boundaries of free speech on networks that everybody seems to agree are good.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Google cancels domain registration for Daily Stormer</title><url>http://www.businessinsider.com/google-cancels-domain-registration-for-daily-stormer-2017-8</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Taniwha</author><text>In the US the 1st amendment constrains what the govt can do, it doesn&amp;#x27;t constrain private individuals or companies</text><parent_chain><item><author>birken</author><text>If we are framing this as a free speech issue:  Isn&amp;#x27;t spam email free speech?&lt;p&gt;How dare any network provider tell me I can&amp;#x27;t send 500 billion emails about my Viagra supplements?  That is violating my freedom of speech!&lt;p&gt;The US government has actually passed laws making spam email legal (CAN-SPAM, under certain conditions), and still most every reputable network provider will not let you send it on their networks, even if it is legal.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m not suggesting the particular issue in the OP is the same as spam, but clearly there are some boundaries of free speech on networks that everybody seems to agree are good.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Google cancels domain registration for Daily Stormer</title><url>http://www.businessinsider.com/google-cancels-domain-registration-for-daily-stormer-2017-8</url></story>