Togo is actually a direct ancestor of the vast majority of Siberian Huskies in the United States today. He had a very, uh, fulfilling retirement and as a consequence he’s part of almost every modern day husky’s genetic line. The dog that played him in the movie was something like his twelfth generation descendant.
No one signed up to their newsletter. They scraped the emails of everyone who starred the repo and imported it into MailChimp and subscribed us all to a newsletter. That’s spam.
Merriam-Webster defines spam as: "unsolicited usually commercial messages (such as emails, text messages, or Internet postings) sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places".
The emails were unsollicited and sent to a large number of recipients. It's fits the dictionary definition of spam, despite not containing a direct advertisement.
Cambridge merely defines spam as: "unwanted email, usually advertisements", which this also fits perfectly, as nobody who stars a Github repo sees that as confirmation of wanting join a mailing list.
Furthermore, if this were marketing (it's an invitation into the community more than anything else) this email may actually violate the CAN-SPAM act. IANAL but I don't think it applies here as the email doesn't even offer anything, it's just begging for feedback.
I think this was meant to be a dry and cynical observation that we probably all actually agree with.
I don't think they approve.
Think of it this way, if they actually approved, would this be how they would say it?
Maybe. Anyone who thought it was a great idea and generally liked marketing would necessarily be so different from me that it only makes sense that I would not be good at thinking like them enough to accurately interpret what they wrote. So I suppose it's possible that this is perfectly direct and sincere, but it just does not seem reasonable.
EDIT: From further comments below, I guess I got my answer. They actually don't see this as a problem. Oh well so much for giving people the benefit of the doubt.
I mean, I guess they're allowed to have that opinion or subscribe to that reasoning that the targeted nature makes it somehow different or more acceptable. If someone wants to say "it's not bad behavior because of X train of reasonong" then all that matters is does X hold water? I didn't add either an up or down vote. But it's not an argument I think holds much water.
"unsolicited usually commercial messages (such as emails, text messages, or Internet postings) sent to a large number of recipients or posted in a large number of places"
You're always, always going to be playing catch-up with criminals. It's a defense-only game. It's also like the scenario that caused the development of police radar detector-detectors, etc.
