This week email-marketing tool MailChimp joined the list of platforms to introduce a ban on cryptocurrency content. This development follows similar though less imposing bans by Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and Snapchat.
While it’s unclear whether MailChimp’s ban has been implemented off the back of a spike in their user base being scammed, or if they’re following the lead of the big tech companies out of caution, MailChimp has made amendments to its acceptable use terms.In a statement to Gizmodo, MailChimp further clarified:
"We recognize that blockchain technology is in its infancy and has tremendous potential. Nonetheless, the promotion and exchange of cryptocurrencies is too frequently associated with scams, fraud, phishing, and potentially misleading business practices at this time."
The company’s response implied it was less a moral crusade, more an issue of protecting its brand. As technology analyst Ben Thompson suggested, if MailChimp can’t deliver content to people’s inboxes because it’s stuck in spam filters, they’re ranking as an email provider will plummet.
And if cryptocurrencies are frequently associated with "scams, fraud, phishing, and potentially misleading business practices," as MailChimp suggests, is it surprising they want to dissociate themselves from the culprit?
Viewed from that angle a ban on crypto content was perhaps unsurprising. After all, MailChimp’s acceptable use policy also bans the promotion of pharmaceuticals, gambling and affiliate marketing.
Maybe equally unsurprising was the reaction the move triggered among crypto enthusiasts. Ryan Selkis summed up the anger he felt on Twitter. From his perspective, he was being shut down irrespective of his credentials as both a loyal customer and crypto commentator.
Evan Van Nesswent so far as to say "centralized capricious power is exactly why we need blockchains".View image on Twitter
Resisting The New
Many in the blockchain industry are calling this out as a centralized old guard fighting a decentralized newcomer, and if this theme sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve been here before. The list of people queueing up to ban cryptocurrencies or its communications seems to be growing by the day.Historically of course, the earliest objectors were the most reactionary.
High on that list of old guard is the Chinese government, followed closely by bank, JP Morgan. The Chinese government has a well-known disdain and wariness of all things decentralized and for its part, JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon famously called cryptocurrencies a fraud.
He was duly mocked by some for this, but part of the damage stuck. More recently, and perhaps more surprisingly, Bill Gates retracted his earlier approval of cryptocurrencies. In 2014, he praised cryptocurrencies for their low friction, but as of March, he’s not so sure. In fact, by facilitating the purchase of Fentanyl, Gates claims that cryptocurrencies are bad news.
"It’s a rare technology that has caused deaths in a fairly direct way," Gates said. Not a fan, then.Standing alongside Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Snapchat and MailChimp, there’s a technology old guard forming.
It’s not as old as the Chinese state, but with the very top Silicon Valley credentials, together they form a formidable enemy, or a least an ally we’d like to have.
The question is, does it matter?
The Driving Force
The need to live outside centralized control is part of the libertarian dream that’s captured the imagination of so many early crypto investors in the first place. And objecting forces are only driving blockchain businesses to innovate even further to make products that truly challenge incumbents.
Businesses are well aware that when you’re disrupting things, you’re not always going to make friends along the way. Wouldn’t it be more worrying if nobody was upset? Wouldn’t that signal what you’re doing isn’t all that significant?
You don’t necessarily want the old guard, such as banks, to like you. You could also argue that you don’t even want Facebook to like you. Especially after some of the centralized and unethical behaviour we saw around the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
As critics suggest, MailChimp’s ban could even be construed as a blow against free speech. For a company that prides itself on giving employees ‘permission to be creative’ it’s easy to see why the ban is being seen as a little authoritarian.
response 'don’t blame us, blame someone else’s algorithm' also feels somewhat disingenuous. Especially when, according to a spokesperson, MailChimp "hasn’t added a category to its [content policy] in several years".
Knowing what we know now about crypto communities, it's safe to say if the legitimate projects are no longer allowed to use email, or market in traditional ways, they’ll find other, perhaps more creative ways of reaching their consumers.
Instead of simply moving their databases to another centralized platform, perhaps they'll be driven to develop their own decentralized solution. If cryptocurrency has taught us anything, it's that you can’t predict how this will play out.
One day a member of the old guard, like JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon, criticizes cryptocurrencies and the next he’s regretting ever saying it. Perhaps there's decentralized versions of the technological old guard in development right now.
If that’s the case, the old guard might still decide to jump on the bandwagon instead of banned wagon. Stranger things have certainly happened, especially in the crypto world.
Dr. Jemma Green is the Chair & Co-founder of PowerLedger.io and a researcher and speaker on the enterprise disruption caused by blockchain technology.
Disclosure: I own Bitcoin and POWR.
Discover more from Forbes here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemmagreen/2018/04/05/mailchimp-is-the-latest-to-ban-cryptocurrencies-b...
While it’s unclear whether MailChimp’s ban has been implemented off the back of a spike in their user base being scammed, or if they’re following the lead of the big tech companies out of caution, MailChimp has made amendments to its acceptable use terms.In a statement to Gizmodo, MailChimp further clarified:
"We recognize that blockchain technology is in its infancy and has tremendous potential. Nonetheless, the promotion and exchange of cryptocurrencies is too frequently associated with scams, fraud, phishing, and potentially misleading business practices at this time."
The company’s response implied it was less a moral crusade, more an issue of protecting its brand. As technology analyst Ben Thompson suggested, if MailChimp can’t deliver content to people’s inboxes because it’s stuck in spam filters, they’re ranking as an email provider will plummet.
And if cryptocurrencies are frequently associated with "scams, fraud, phishing, and potentially misleading business practices," as MailChimp suggests, is it surprising they want to dissociate themselves from the culprit?
Mike Dudas@mdudas29 Mar
This is patently ridiculous. #BoycottMailchimp https://www.coindesk.com/email-service-mailchimp-block-ico-crypto-marketing/ …
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Ben Thompson✔@benthompson
Not ridiculous at all if you understand how spam algorithms work. They have to protect their entire user base from being contaminated in spam filters
11:43 PM - Mar 29, 2018
Viewed from that angle a ban on crypto content was perhaps unsurprising. After all, MailChimp’s acceptable use policy also bans the promotion of pharmaceuticals, gambling and affiliate marketing.
Maybe equally unsurprising was the reaction the move triggered among crypto enthusiasts. Ryan Selkis summed up the anger he felt on Twitter. From his perspective, he was being shut down irrespective of his credentials as both a loyal customer and crypto commentator.
Evan Van Nesswent so far as to say "centralized capricious power is exactly why we need blockchains".View image on Twitter
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Ryan Selkis@twobitidiot.@MailChimp I've spent thousands of dollars with you and sent hundreds of subscriber emails on crypto over the past five years.
I'm restarting my Daily Bit Monday. I don't shill ICOs. Don't fuck with me.
1:06 AM - Mar 30, 2018
Resisting The New
Many in the blockchain industry are calling this out as a centralized old guard fighting a decentralized newcomer, and if this theme sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve been here before. The list of people queueing up to ban cryptocurrencies or its communications seems to be growing by the day.Historically of course, the earliest objectors were the most reactionary.
High on that list of old guard is the Chinese government, followed closely by bank, JP Morgan. The Chinese government has a well-known disdain and wariness of all things decentralized and for its part, JP Morgan’s Jamie Dimon famously called cryptocurrencies a fraud.
He was duly mocked by some for this, but part of the damage stuck. More recently, and perhaps more surprisingly, Bill Gates retracted his earlier approval of cryptocurrencies. In 2014, he praised cryptocurrencies for their low friction, but as of March, he’s not so sure. In fact, by facilitating the purchase of Fentanyl, Gates claims that cryptocurrencies are bad news.
"It’s a rare technology that has caused deaths in a fairly direct way," Gates said. Not a fan, then.Standing alongside Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Snapchat and MailChimp, there’s a technology old guard forming.
It’s not as old as the Chinese state, but with the very top Silicon Valley credentials, together they form a formidable enemy, or a least an ally we’d like to have.
The question is, does it matter?
The Driving Force
The need to live outside centralized control is part of the libertarian dream that’s captured the imagination of so many early crypto investors in the first place. And objecting forces are only driving blockchain businesses to innovate even further to make products that truly challenge incumbents.
Businesses are well aware that when you’re disrupting things, you’re not always going to make friends along the way. Wouldn’t it be more worrying if nobody was upset? Wouldn’t that signal what you’re doing isn’t all that significant?
You don’t necessarily want the old guard, such as banks, to like you. You could also argue that you don’t even want Facebook to like you. Especially after some of the centralized and unethical behaviour we saw around the Cambridge Analytica scandal.
As critics suggest, MailChimp’s ban could even be construed as a blow against free speech. For a company that prides itself on giving employees ‘permission to be creative’ it’s easy to see why the ban is being seen as a little authoritarian.
response 'don’t blame us, blame someone else’s algorithm' also feels somewhat disingenuous. Especially when, according to a spokesperson, MailChimp "hasn’t added a category to its [content policy] in several years".
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Evan Van Ness@evan_van_ness
So @MailChimp is closing the Week In Ethereum account in four weeks because they hate blockchains.
Centralized capricious power is exactly why we need blockchains
11:28 PM - Mar 29, 2018
Knowing what we know now about crypto communities, it's safe to say if the legitimate projects are no longer allowed to use email, or market in traditional ways, they’ll find other, perhaps more creative ways of reaching their consumers.
Instead of simply moving their databases to another centralized platform, perhaps they'll be driven to develop their own decentralized solution. If cryptocurrency has taught us anything, it's that you can’t predict how this will play out.
One day a member of the old guard, like JP Morgan's Jamie Dimon, criticizes cryptocurrencies and the next he’s regretting ever saying it. Perhaps there's decentralized versions of the technological old guard in development right now.
If that’s the case, the old guard might still decide to jump on the bandwagon instead of banned wagon. Stranger things have certainly happened, especially in the crypto world.
Dr. Jemma Green is the Chair & Co-founder of PowerLedger.io and a researcher and speaker on the enterprise disruption caused by blockchain technology.
Disclosure: I own Bitcoin and POWR.
Discover more from Forbes here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemmagreen/2018/04/05/mailchimp-is-the-latest-to-ban-cryptocurrencies-b...
-
- 1
Francisco Gimeno - BC Analyst We have seen this before with other big companies. It matters because it means that corporations are more aware of how tonight scammers. On the other hand it doesn't really matter to the startups and companies doing their ICOs because there are other alternatives and ways to handle them on the long run.