Google is trying to keep political campaign emails out of Gmail spam folders

Google is working on a way to ensure emails from US political campaigns reach users’ Gmail inboxes instead of automatically getting dumped into the spam folder. The company has asked the Federal Election Commission for approval on a plan to make emails from “authorized candidate committees, political party committees and leadership political action committees registered with the FEC” exempt from spam detection, as long they abide by Gmail’s rules on phishing, malware and illegal content.

“We want Gmail to provide a great experience for all of our users, including minimizing unwanted email, but we do not filter emails based on political affiliation,” Google spokesperson José Castañeda told Axios, which first reported on the move. Castañeda added that the pilot program “may help improve inboxing rates for political bulk senders and provide more transparency into email deliverability, while still letting users protect their inboxes by unsubscribing or labeling emails as spam.”

If the project goes ahead, users will see a prominent notification the first time they receive an email from a campaign. They’ll be asked if they want to keep receiving such emails. They’ll be able to opt out of campaign notices later too. That should help cut down on unwanted campaign emails, especially for users who didn’t sign up to receive them in the first place, while making sure they still hit inboxes.

Google has noted that a key reason why Gmail puts many campaign emails in the spam folder is because other users often mark the missives as spam. A North Carolina State University study from earlier this year found that Gmail was more likely than Yahoo (Engadget’s parent company) and Microsoft Outlook to algorithmically filter emails from Republican campaigns as spam during the 2020 campaign.

Republican leaders this month introduced a bill that seeks to make it illegal for email service providers to automatically put campaign messages in the spam folder. It would also require operators to issue a quarterly transparency report detailing how many times campaign messages were flagged as spam, with breakdowns for emails from both the Republican and Democratic parties. In addition, providers would have to disclose the tools they use to determine which campaign emails to mark as spam.

Massachusetts court rejects proposed gig worker ballot measure

The New York Timesreports Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court has rejected a proposed ballot measure that would have enshrined Uber and Lyft’s business model in law. The court said the measure violated the Massachusetts constitution by including two unrelated policy decisions, including one hidden by “obscure language.”

The bulk of the proposed ballot measure outlined limited benefits for rideshare drivers. However, the offending provision would have said that drivers couldn’t be treated as an “employee or agent” of gig-based companies. If voted into law, this might have shielded outfits like Uber or Lyft from liability in the event of a crash or crime — not to mention kneecapping any attempts to reclassify drivers as employees in the state. The unrelated provisions raised concerns that voters might be “confused, misled and deprived” of a real choice, the court wrote in its decision.

Uber, Lyft and their supporters contended that formalizing the gig worker model would have protected flexibility for drivers seeking their own hours. Groups supporting the companies, such as Chamber of Progress, have claimed employee status could cost jobs and income. Critics like AFL-CIO union federation, however, have argued that measures like this create a false dichotomy between flexibility and benefits — they see ballot options like this as attempts to cut employment costs at the expense of laborers.

Uber and Lyft declined to comment. The two spent a total of $17.8 million endorsing the ballot measure, and have had mixed success promoting similar efforts in other states. They got Californians to vote for Proposition 22, a bid to reverse a state law protecting drivers as employees, only to watch as a judge ruled the measure unconstitutional. The companies struck an agreement with Washington State legislators in early 2022, but failed to get much traction in New York State.