Let me say something that's going to make a lot of people uncomfortable: I think Gmail might be letting those incessant "guest post opportunity" and "link placement" spam emails through on purpose. And before you write me off as another conspiracy theorist, hear me out, because the economics of this situation tell a very suspicious story. Every single day, business email inboxes are absolutely bombarded with messages from "SEO specialists," "content managers," and "outreach coordinators" offering to buy backlinks, place guest posts, or insert links into existing content. These emails have become so ubiquitous that they're practically a defining feature of running a website in 2025. They're annoying, they're repetitive, and they clog up our inboxes with a relentlessness that would make telemarketers blush. But here's the thing that keeps me up at night: Gmail's spam filters are incredibly sophisticated. We're talking about technology developed by one of the most advanced AI companies on the planet. Google can detect and filter out actual malicious phishing attempts, elaborate Nigerian prince scams, and cleverly disguised malware distribution campaigns. Their machine learning algorithms can identify spam patterns across billions of emails. They can detect anomalies in sending behavior, analyze natural language patterns, and cross-reference sender reputations across their massive infrastructure. So why—and I mean why—can these SEO link buyers get through so easily? why These emails follow predictable patterns. They use the same templates. They come from similar domains. They have identifiable linguistic markers. Many are clearly mass-sent with minimal personalization. Gmail should be able to squash these messages like bugs. But day after day, week after week, year after year, they keep landing in our primary inboxes while legitimate newsletters sometimes get banished to the promotions tab or worse. Let's follow the money and the motivation. Let's follow the money and the motivation. Google's entire empire is built on search. And search quality depends fundamentally on one thing: links. The PageRank algorithm that made Google dominant in the first place is essentially a link-counting and link-quality assessment system. Even with all the sophisticated signals Google has added over the years—user behavior metrics, content quality analysis, entity recognition, semantic search—links remain a cornerstone of how the algorithm determines which sites deserve to rank. But here's the problem that Google faces: websites don't want to link to each other anymore. Think about it from a website owner's perspective. Every outbound link you give is potentially diluting your own site's authority. Every link you place to a competitor or adjacent site in your niche is potentially sending your visitors—and your hard-earned search rankings—to someone else. Backlinks have real, measurable value. SEO professionals can quantify this value. Websites buy and sell links specifically because they move the needle on search rankings, which translates directly into traffic, leads, and revenue. So if you're running a legitimate website with decent domain authority, why would you just hand out free links? Why would you altruistically help other sites rank better at potential cost to yourself? In the early days of the web, people linked freely because that's what you did—the web was supposed to be interconnected, a web of information where the best content naturally bubbled up through citations and references. But once everyone figured out that links equal money, that idealistic ecosystem started dying. The natural economic equilibrium of the modern web is for websites to be stingy with their outbound links. To hoard their authority. To build moats, not bridges. This creates an existential problem for Google. This creates an existential problem for Google. If legitimate websites won't link to each other organically anymore, how does Google's algorithm determine quality? How does PageRank function in an ecosystem where the natural incentive is to never link out? How do new websites get discovered? How do smaller sites ever compete with established players? Enter the spam army. Enter the spam army. These freelance link resellers, these "outreach specialists" sending thousands of emails per day, these SEO agencies running link-building campaigns—they're not just annoying parasites on the digital ecosystem. They're actually solving a critical problem for Google. They're the ones keeping the link graph alive. They're the economic actors who are motivated enough—by the money they can make facilitating link transactions—to actually get links placed between websites. Yes, many of these links are paid. Yes, they're often low-quality. Yes, the whole ecosystem of link buying and selling technically violates Google's guidelines. But here's the uncomfortable reality: Google needs these people. Without this army of persistent spammers reaching out to website owners day after day, the flow of new links across the web would slow to a trickle. The link graph would calcify. Google's algorithm would have increasingly stale data to work with. The evidence is circumstantial but compelling. The evidence is circumstantial but compelling. Gmail could stop these emails. We know they could because they stop so many other types of spam effectively. The technology exists. The patterns are obvious. But they don't stop them—at least not completely. Sure, some of the most egregious mass-email operations get filtered, but a huge volume of link-building outreach sails right through to the inbox. And think about Google's incentives here. They publicly condemn paid links and link schemes. They have guidelines against it. They occasionally penalize sites for obvious link manipulation. But do they really want to completely eliminate the ecosystem of people who are actively working to create links between websites? Do they want to kill off the economic actors who are motivated to maintain the link graph that their algorithm depends on? I don't think they do. I think Google is in a position where they need to publicly condemn link buying while privately benefiting from the fact that link buying exists and keeps their algorithm fed with data. Consider the alternative scenario. Consider the alternative scenario. Imagine Gmail actually cracked down hard on link outreach emails. Imagine they built filters that caught 99% of "I'd like to contribute a guest post" and "I noticed you mentioned Topic X on your site" messages. What would happen? The link graph would slow down dramatically. New websites would have an even harder time getting discovered. The algorithm would rely more heavily on other signals, many of which favor established players even more than links already do. The rich would get richer, the big would get bigger, and the dynamic, competitive nature of search results would diminish. Google doesn't want that. They need churn. They need new sites to have at least some pathway to ranking. They need the link graph to stay active and relatively current. And if that means tolerating an ecosystem of spam emails that drive website owners crazy but ultimately facilitate link creation, well, that's a trade-off they seem willing to make. Are freelance resellers are doing Google's dirty work? Are freelance resellers are doing Google's dirty work? These people sending you emails about guest posts and link placements aren't just bottom-feeding opportunists (though they are that too). They're actually fulfilling an essential function in the search ecosystem. They're the ones creating the economic incentive structure that keeps links flowing between websites despite the natural disincentive to link out. Think about it: without these middlemen, how would links happen at scale? Websites wouldn't spontaneously decide to link to competitors. Content creators wouldn't naturally cite sources that might outrank them. The only links would be the truly editorial ones, the rare cases where the value of the citation genuinely outweighs the SEO cost. That would leave Google with a sparse, stale link graph dominated by old authoritative sites linking among themselves. The spammers solve this. They find websites willing to accept payment or content in exchange for links. They match buyers with sellers. They create a market where none would naturally exist. And that market, however sleazy and annoying it might be, keeps the fundamental infrastructure of Google's search algorithm functioning. Google's public position versus private interest. Google's public position versus private interest. Publicly, Google maintains that link schemes violate their guidelines. They tell you to earn links naturally through great content. They want you to believe that the best sites rise to the top purely on merit. And yes, they do penalize the most obvious link manipulation—the really spammy networks, the most blatant paid link schemes. But look at their actions, not just their words. If they truly wanted to stop the link-buying ecosystem, they could make it much harder for the outreach emails to land in inboxes. They control one of the world's largest email platforms. They have the technology. They're not doing it. And I think the reason is simple: they need the link buyers more than they're willing to admit. These spammers are the grease that keeps the machinery of search working. They're the economic actors who ensure that links continue to be created, that the web remains somewhat interconnected, that Google's algorithm has fresh data to work with. The websites are stuck in the middle. The websites are stuck in the middle. Meanwhile, those of us running websites are caught in this frustrating situation. We can't just hand out free links because they have real value and we'd be idiots to give away valuable assets for nothing. But we're also drowning in spam emails from people trying to buy those links or trick us into giving them away in exchange for "valuable guest content" that's really just more backlink building. We're annoyed by the spam, but we're also sometimes tempted by the offers because, let's face it, everyone's trying to rank and most of us don't have unlimited budgets for SEO. Some of these outreach emails actually result in legitimate business transactions. Some websites make good money selling link placements. Some SEO agencies make their living buying links for clients. It's a whole ecosystem, and Google sits at the center of it, publicly disapproving while privately benefiting from its existence. The conspiracy that's not really a conspiracy. The conspiracy that's not really a conspiracy. Is this a grand conspiracy? Not really. I don't think there are executives at Google sitting in rooms explicitly deciding to let link spam through. But I do think there are aligned incentives that result in the same outcome. The teams building Gmail's spam filters know that link outreach emails could be filtered more aggressively. But maybe they also know that completely eliminating these emails would have downstream effects on the link economy that powers search. Maybe there's institutional awareness—even if it's not explicitly stated—that some amount of link-building spam is actually beneficial to Google's core business. It's not corruption. It's not malfeasance. It's just rational self-interest expressed through the design choices and priorities of a large organization. Gmail's filters get tuned to catch the malicious stuff, the actual fraud, the dangerous malware. The annoying-but-ultimately-beneficial link outreach? That gets a pass, or at least doesn't get prioritized for aggressive filtering. What does this mean for the rest of us? What does this mean for the rest of us? For website owners, it means the spam isn't going away. Those emails asking to buy links on your site? They're a feature of the ecosystem, not a bug. They're annoying, yes, but they're also a symptom of the underlying economic reality that links have value and Google's algorithm needs links to keep flowing. emails asking to buy links For anyone trying to understand how the modern web works, this situation illuminates the gap between the idealistic vision of organic, merit-based search results and the messy reality of how rankings actually get determined. The web isn't a pure meritocracy. It's an economy with market dynamics, and one of the most important markets is the market for backlinks—a market that technically shouldn't exist according to Google's guidelines but absolutely does exist and seemingly operates with Gmail's tacit permission. Google built an empire on an algorithm that counts links. But links only get created if someone has an incentive to create them. In the modern web economy, those incentives have increasingly disappeared—unless someone's getting paid. The army of link-building spammers filling our inboxes might be annoying, but they're also keeping the link economy alive. And Gmail, despite having the technology to stop them, lets them through. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think it's rational corporate self-interest dressed up as insufficient spam filtering. And I think it's going to continue until either Google finds a way to make their algorithm work without links (which seems unlikely given how fundamental links are to measuring authority and relevance) or until the web develops some alternative mechanism for websites to willingly connect to each other. Until then, expect your inbox to keep filling up with "guest post opportunities" and "link placement inquiries." Google might publicly tell you to ignore them, but privately, they're probably glad someone's keeping the link graph alive. And that, in my opinion, is the uncomfortable truth nobody wants to acknowledge about how modern search actually works.

The writer was physically present in relevant location(s) to this story. The location is also a prevalent aspect of this story be it news or otherwise.

Google

Why Australia's Under 16 Social Media Ban Matters 

The Cloud Hosting Scam: Why You're Paying Premium Prices for Glorified Shared Hosting

Read About The Technology Industry News Trends

Is Gmail Deliberately Letting Paid Link Spam Emails Through Because Google Needs It?

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

560 Million Ticketmaster Customers Possibly Exposed In Data Breach

The Cloud Hosting Scam: Why You're Paying Premium Prices for Glorified Shared Hosting

AI Is in Production. Security Isn’t. That Gap Is Costly.

Cision PR Distribution Promises Rarely Deliver Real Media Results - A Total Rip Off

126 Stories To Learn About Freelancing

20 Free Job Sites for Freelance Developers and Coders

560 Million Ticketmaster Customers Possibly Exposed In Data Breach

The Cloud Hosting Scam: Why You're Paying Premium Prices for Glorified Shared Hosting

AI Is in Production. Security Isn’t. That Gap Is Costly.

Cision PR Distribution Promises Rarely Deliver Real Media Results - A Total Rip Off

126 Stories To Learn About Freelancing

20 Free Job Sites for Freelance Developers and Coders

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps