Ahh, fair point on the source. I should probably let myself wake up more before posting :P You’re right though, it’s a weird “study”… feels more like a quick test I’d run locally to check my processes than anything with real rigor.
No. A university study.
So when I said “article” I meant the FTC letter OP linked to which, via footnote #2, in turn cites an [article in New York Post ](nypost.com/…/google-caught-flagging-gop-fundraise… directly-to-spam-memo/.) which in turn cites the study.
A 2022 study by researchers at North Carolina State University found that Gmail flagged 59% more Republican fundraising emails as spam than Democratic ones during the leadup to the 2020 presidential election.
“We observed that the [spam filtering algorithms] of different email services indeed exhibit biases towards different political affiliations,” the researchers said at the time.
The consulting firm’s tests involved sending identical emails through Gmail, with the only difference being that one contained a WinRed donation link and the other contained an ActBlue link.
“The only difference between the two emails was the link,” the memo said. “ActBlue delivered. WinRed got flagged. That is not a coincidence.”
But I am confused: was a consultancy firm hired by the university? What kind of study refers to a “memo”.
Even if it is indeed biased, surely Google is a business and can do as it pleases?
5too@lemmy.world 1 day ago
GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It could also be that winred is more often associated with spam because emails with winred links use a style more associated with other actual spam. Like if spammers use words like Trump a lot to try to scam victims, and a lot of those emails get flagged as spam, then the word Trump itself becomes more highly correlated with spam. And since the word Trump is highly associated with winred links, maybe winred gets caught up in the rule set/heuristics that associate Trump fundraisers with spam.