3 ms·

What a horrible concept. Two reasons: a) Implies someone thinks they are too important to deal with emails that they establish a paywall (the charity bit is i

What a horrible concept. Two reasons: a) Implies someone thinks they are too important to deal with emails that they establish a paywall (the charity bit is irrelevant, frankly). And yet obviously they are not actually important/successful enough because otherwise they would have a PA/Secretary acting as gatekeeper. So its basically arrogance mixed with an inability to manage their time correctly. b) The whole ramming charity donations down your throat thing. Its MY business alone to choose what charities to donate to and how much I donate. I do not need other people, whether chuggers on the street or "gated challenges" attempting to force (or "strongly persuade" if you prefer) me to donate to their chosen cause. c) The whole thing is too fragile anyway. What about your bank/Amazon etc. ? Are they going to have to make a donation before reaching your email ? Good luck with that ! People who think they are "too busy for email" should just setup a "hidden" email instead that you only give the chosen few and that comes straight through to your Inbox, then a second email that goes to some folder you look at as and when, its not rocket science.

jokethrowaway 5y ago
A is why I think this service won't have customers
- doctor_eval 5y ago
  This is what I think when someone asks me to join a meeting by sending me a Calendly link. Even though arranging an acceptable appointment time can be annoying, it’s a little personal to-and-fro that somehow sets the tone. I dunno, maybe I’m just old.
teruakohatu 5y ago
> So its basically arrogance mixed with an inability to manage their time correctly. I think you are being too harsh. This idea has existed for a long time as a hypothetical way to reduce spam: make the sender pay for postage. The charity aspect is simply a feel-better way to require postage. A cryptocurrency that simply burnt up would also work (but be wasteful to the environment). This would not be used for a primary private personal email account. It would be used for a public email account used by, for example, an open source developer. It would keep signal high and spam low. The real problem I see is that senders, after paying a dollar or two and spending time going through a payment gateway, are going to feel entitled to a response and may get angry when they don't get their money's worth.
- traceroute66 5y ago
  > make the sender pay for postage. I don’t know about you, but I don’t go round paying for other peoples postage in the physical world. If you are saying I should pay for emails like I pay for stamps, then as I said, good luck getting banks, Amazon etc on board with that one !! That ship has well and truly sailed !
josephg 5y ago
> a) Implies someone thinks they are too important to deal with emails that they establish a paywall ... So its basically arrogance mixed with an inability to manage their time correctly. I don't have a PA (ha!) but I still get a lot of random email from people wanting to get in touch. Especially just after I publish something. And I find it socially overwhelming to respond to everyone - especially when lots of folks seem nice & interesting, and they're asking to schedule a zoom chat or something. I like a lot of those conversations when we have them - but scheduling and socializing really takes it out of me. And that means less coding time, which costs. I suspect making people donate $1 to a charity in order to reach me would help cut down almost all of the traffic. Gosh, I'd enable that on linkedin in a heartbeat if I could. If everyone who messaged me on linkedin first paid $5 to a charity for the privilege first, I might even check my linkedin messages. But for email, my worry is that it would filter out the interesting people, and leave the pushiest and most entitled people in my inbox. Probably leave them feeling even more entitled to my time. > So its basically arrogance mixed with an inability to manage their time correctly. I wouldn't characterize introvert tenancies + social overwhelm from strangers as "arrogance". To briefly reframe it, nobody is entitled to my time no matter how nicely worded their email is, or how much effort they put in to a pull request. My attention is my own to direct. If you're a stranger to me, basic civility doesn't demand I reply to your email, or publish my email address at all. I often do reply; but the decision (and the rules) are up to me (the receiver). Not up to the sender.
- michaelt 5y ago
  > If everyone who messaged me on linkedin first paid $5 to a charity for the privilege first, I might even check my linkedin messages. See, I think the opposite: If it cost $5 to e-mail me, I suspect every e-mail would be from someone who expected the interaction to produce cash profit for them.
ratww 5y ago
> Implies someone thinks they are too important to deal with emails that they establish a paywall (the charity bit is irrelevant, frankly) But I am too important to deal with emails from people I don't care about. Even if I were living paycheck to paycheck, it wouldn't mean I have time for bullshit from marketers, cold callers, recruiters who guessed my mail and people trying to sell tech to my company. And even if I the person donated, I would probably just delete any spam email anyway. I honestly wish there was a fine for spammers and cold callers to deter them, and would totally vote for candidates proposing it. > Its MY business alone to choose what charities to donate to and how much I donate Then don't send me an email, simple as that. Delete the donation request and move in with your life. Why are you entitled to bothering me and is arguing for it, but when I do the same for you it's suddenly "YOUR business"? > People who think they are "too busy for email" should Entitled people like you, who get angry about people who are "too busy for email", should just realize that nobody owes you their time.
wincy 5y ago
I’ve had this feature to avoid random bots and scammers from contacting me in EVE Online since 2006 or so. On there you can adjust the amount. Why not on real email, if it has existed in a dumb spaceship and spreadsheets game for over a decade? The charity thing is honestly kind of weird, like maybe you’re gonna get people who want to email you but under no circumstances want to donate to Planned Parenthood or the ACLU or something (although Silicon Valley types might consider that a feature, not a bug). Or, because I feel my tone is unfairly targeting progressives, would someone be okay if the Gate email was donating to some pro-life nonprofit? You’re dead on with what charities you donate to being a very personal thing.

jokethrowaway 5y ago

A is why I think this service won't have customers

doctor_eval 5y ago
This is what I think when someone asks me to join a meeting by sending me a Calendly link. Even though arranging an acceptable appointment time can be annoying, it’s a little personal to-and-fro that somehow sets the tone. I dunno, maybe I’m just old.

teruakohatu 5y ago

> So its basically arrogance mixed with an inability to manage their time correctly. I think you are being too harsh. This idea has existed for a long time as a hypothetical way to reduce spam: make the sender pay for postage. The charity aspect is simply a feel-better way to require postage. A cryptocurrency that simply burnt up would also work (but be wasteful to the environment). This would not be used for a primary private personal email account. It would be used for a public email account used by, for example, an open source developer. It would keep signal high and spam low. The real problem I see is that senders, after paying a dollar or two and spending time going through a payment gateway, are going to feel entitled to a response and may get angry when they don't get their money's worth.

traceroute66 5y ago
> make the sender pay for postage. I don’t know about you, but I don’t go round paying for other peoples postage in the physical world. If you are saying I should pay for emails like I pay for stamps, then as I said, good luck getting banks, Amazon etc on board with that one !! That ship has well and truly sailed !

josephg 5y ago

> a) Implies someone thinks they are too important to deal with emails that they establish a paywall ... So its basically arrogance mixed with an inability to manage their time correctly. I don't have a PA (ha!) but I still get a lot of random email from people wanting to get in touch. Especially just after I publish something. And I find it socially overwhelming to respond to everyone - especially when lots of folks seem nice & interesting, and they're asking to schedule a zoom chat or something. I like a lot of those conversations when we have them - but scheduling and socializing really takes it out of me. And that means less coding time, which costs. I suspect making people donate $1 to a charity in order to reach me would help cut down almost all of the traffic. Gosh, I'd enable that on linkedin in a heartbeat if I could. If everyone who messaged me on linkedin first paid $5 to a charity for the privilege first, I might even check my linkedin messages. But for email, my worry is that it would filter out the interesting people, and leave the pushiest and most entitled people in my inbox. Probably leave them feeling even more entitled to my time. > So its basically arrogance mixed with an inability to manage their time correctly. I wouldn't characterize introvert tenancies + social overwhelm from strangers as "arrogance". To briefly reframe it, nobody is entitled to my time no matter how nicely worded their email is, or how much effort they put in to a pull request. My attention is my own to direct. If you're a stranger to me, basic civility doesn't demand I reply to your email, or publish my email address at all. I often do reply; but the decision (and the rules) are up to me (the receiver). Not up to the sender.

michaelt 5y ago
> If everyone who messaged me on linkedin first paid $5 to a charity for the privilege first, I might even check my linkedin messages. See, I think the opposite: If it cost $5 to e-mail me, I suspect every e-mail would be from someone who expected the interaction to produce cash profit for them.

ratww 5y ago

> Implies someone thinks they are too important to deal with emails that they establish a paywall (the charity bit is irrelevant, frankly) But I am too important to deal with emails from people I don't care about. Even if I were living paycheck to paycheck, it wouldn't mean I have time for bullshit from marketers, cold callers, recruiters who guessed my mail and people trying to sell tech to my company. And even if I the person donated, I would probably just delete any spam email anyway. I honestly wish there was a fine for spammers and cold callers to deter them, and would totally vote for candidates proposing it. > Its MY business alone to choose what charities to donate to and how much I donate Then don't send me an email, simple as that. Delete the donation request and move in with your life. Why are you entitled to bothering me and is arguing for it, but when I do the same for you it's suddenly "YOUR business"? > People who think they are "too busy for email" should Entitled people like you, who get angry about people who are "too busy for email", should just realize that nobody owes you their time.

wincy 5y ago

I’ve had this feature to avoid random bots and scammers from contacting me in EVE Online since 2006 or so. On there you can adjust the amount. Why not on real email, if it has existed in a dumb spaceship and spreadsheets game for over a decade? The charity thing is honestly kind of weird, like maybe you’re gonna get people who want to email you but under no circumstances want to donate to Planned Parenthood or the ACLU or something (although Silicon Valley types might consider that a feature, not a bug). Or, because I feel my tone is unfairly targeting progressives, would someone be okay if the Gate email was donating to some pro-life nonprofit? You’re dead on with what charities you donate to being a very personal thing.