5 ms·

Or just make the tips refundable for a short time period with no formal process (submit a short sentence about why for later review in case of abuse suspicion m

by jakear 6y ago

Or just make the tips refundable for a short time period with no formal process (submit a short sentence about why for later review in case of abuse suspicion maybe). If people abuse the system, ban them (eta: identity banning should be pretty easy given you need to provide a credit card) If sites frequently get refunds requested, disable the app for them.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> Or just make the tips refundable for a short time period with no formal process Then you get the fraud the other way. People get content and then ask for a refund. > If people abuse the system, ban them So now you're back to needing an expensive dispute resolution process. > If sites frequently get refunds requested, disable the app for them. Which punishes the sites who are the most common victims of buyer fraud. There are three options. Option one, dispute resolution process, high transaction costs. Option two, caveat emptor, no refunds. Option three, caveat venditor, totally unconditional refunds. And option three doesn't really work either, because if readers are anonymous they could all ask for a refund with no consequences, but if they're not it's a privacy problem. So what you really need for small transactions is option two. Which isn't really a problem for small transactions, because they're small -- if somebody rips you off to the tune of $0.03, whatever, lesson learned, don't do business with them again.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  > if somebody rips you off to the tune of $0.03, whatever, lesson learned, don't do business with them again. They won't need you to do business with them again. 10k viewers being ripped off is $300, and let the site fail, onto the next domain to do it over again. Now it's the email spam problem - every site gets to rip you off $0.03, you add them to your blocklist, but there are so many you never hear of that site again anyway.
  - jakear 6y ago
    I don’t think people would pay 3 cents to every site? Or pay the money before even seeing content? I envision this as more of a European style tipping than American: I read an article, watch a video, cline a GitHub repo, etc. I find that the content is well made and I’d like to support the creator. I press the “tip” button in my browser and top them some small amount (<$1 in most cases). This way there’s no need to deal with refunds, bad actors, etc.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Now it's the email spam problem - every site gets to rip you off $0.03, you add them to your blocklist, but there are so many you never hear of that site again anyway. We already have this problem with clickbait. They get the $0.03 from filling their site with spamvertisements and then waste your time getting you to click on it. Whether the $0.03 is from you or advertisers is irrelevant. Though you could add a "screw those guys" button where you don't get your money back but they don't get it either. That might even allow there to be no transaction costs, by using that money to fund the system.
    - jodrellblank 6y ago
      A "give the money to their competitors" button, I like the sound of that.

by jakear 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> Or just make the tips refundable for a short time period with no formal process Then you get the fraud the other way. People get content and then ask for a refund. > If people abuse the system, ban them So now you're back to needing an expensive dispute resolution process. > If sites frequently get refunds requested, disable the app for them. Which punishes the sites who are the most common victims of buyer fraud. There are three options. Option one, dispute resolution process, high transaction costs. Option two, caveat emptor, no refunds. Option three, caveat venditor, totally unconditional refunds. And option three doesn't really work either, because if readers are anonymous they could all ask for a refund with no consequences, but if they're not it's a privacy problem. So what you really need for small transactions is option two. Which isn't really a problem for small transactions, because they're small -- if somebody rips you off to the tune of $0.03, whatever, lesson learned, don't do business with them again.

jodrellblank 6y ago
> if somebody rips you off to the tune of $0.03, whatever, lesson learned, don't do business with them again. They won't need you to do business with them again. 10k viewers being ripped off is $300, and let the site fail, onto the next domain to do it over again. Now it's the email spam problem - every site gets to rip you off $0.03, you add them to your blocklist, but there are so many you never hear of that site again anyway.
- jakear 6y ago
  I don’t think people would pay 3 cents to every site? Or pay the money before even seeing content? I envision this as more of a European style tipping than American: I read an article, watch a video, cline a GitHub repo, etc. I find that the content is well made and I’d like to support the creator. I press the “tip” button in my browser and top them some small amount (<$1 in most cases). This way there’s no need to deal with refunds, bad actors, etc.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Now it's the email spam problem - every site gets to rip you off $0.03, you add them to your blocklist, but there are so many you never hear of that site again anyway. We already have this problem with clickbait. They get the $0.03 from filling their site with spamvertisements and then waste your time getting you to click on it. Whether the $0.03 is from you or advertisers is irrelevant. Though you could add a "screw those guys" button where you don't get your money back but they don't get it either. That might even allow there to be no transaction costs, by using that money to fund the system.
  - jodrellblank 6y ago
    A "give the money to their competitors" button, I like the sound of that.