5 ms·

How about banning calling people with robots? Then enforcing it.

by ianlevesque 3y ago

ghaff 3y ago
How about appointment reminders from my doctor? Should those be banned?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Obviously you would need an exception for calls you've given consent to receive. But then companies would stick consent in every form license on the internet. So you'd need some kind of cookie banners that require you to give consent explicitly. But then you might miss the box you actually wanted to check opting in to appointment reminders from your doctor and then miss your appointment. So maybe we allow default opt in under some byzantine circumstances that require everyone to hire a lawyer to understand which also has the effect of exempting political donors so that everyone can continue to be inundated with calls. What was the downside of letting people set inbound fees again?
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Theoretically you already need to have a relationship with the sender today. Set an inbound fee and some people will set a high fee which catches the unwary and many legit senders simply will refuse as a matter of policy.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The obvious implementation would warn the caller that there is a fee and tell them how much it is, and then notify the recipient if they had a caller who refused the charge and provide their number. Robocallers might then refuse the call if there is any fee at all, which is great, and then if you get the one from your doctor's office you see it in the call log and can exempt the number for next time.
      - ghaff 3y ago
        Make it hard for people to reach you and they’ll be happy to just hang up. They have better things to do than get through to people playing elaborate games. It’s usually hard enough to connect to a doctor’s office as it is without expecting them to jump through hoops to get you on the phone.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        "Press 1 to pay $0.10 and connect the call" is an elaborate game? It doesn't happen to anyone who regularly calls you because you've exempted them but it handles the case of someone you know calling from an unusual number with something important, because they just pay the pittance. But spammers can't afford to do that at scale, and if they can you can raise it to $0.25.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > "Press 1 to pay $0.10 and connect the call" is an elaborate game? [...] > It doesn't happen to anyone who regularly calls you because you've exempted them Yes, this sounds like an elaborate game and putting unnecessary burden on me.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        I'm not sure what you're referring to as an unnecessary burden. Identifying who it is you consent to have call you? How do you propose to avoid that without allowing either everyone or no one to call you?
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        This sounds like a pretty huge hassle to me as a phone customer, honestly. I'd prefer that they just have to get my consent first. It would be a lot cleaner and easier for everyone, including the marketers.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
- Beldin 3y ago
  Why would you need to receive an automated voice call for a reminder?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Why would you need to receive an automated voice call for a reminder? Because they want to. The burden of evidence is on the side trying to restrict what others do.
  - tass 3y ago
    Not everyone can read texts as easily as the majority of the population. Some people can’t read at all.
konschubert 3y ago
There are many downsides to banning robocalls outright. Robocalls are a weird bill to die on, but this kind of “just ban it” mindset creates a lot of invisible loss in our world. Better is to let people put a price on the externality and let the market figure out the rest.
- Beldin 3y ago
  As someone who has never lived in a country where automated calls happen: what quality of life do you imagine I've been missing out on? Just to note: we do get appointment reminders here.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > this kind of “just ban it” mindset creates a lot of invisible loss in our world. Such as? > Better is to let people put a price on the externality and let the market figure out the rest. How is that better than just requiring these callers to get your consent first?

How about banning calling people with robots? Then enforcing it.

ghaff 3y ago

How about appointment reminders from my doctor? Should those be banned?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Obviously you would need an exception for calls you've given consent to receive. But then companies would stick consent in every form license on the internet. So you'd need some kind of cookie banners that require you to give consent explicitly. But then you might miss the box you actually wanted to check opting in to appointment reminders from your doctor and then miss your appointment. So maybe we allow default opt in under some byzantine circumstances that require everyone to hire a lawyer to understand which also has the effect of exempting political donors so that everyone can continue to be inundated with calls. What was the downside of letting people set inbound fees again?
- ghaff 3y ago
  Theoretically you already need to have a relationship with the sender today. Set an inbound fee and some people will set a high fee which catches the unwary and many legit senders simply will refuse as a matter of policy.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The obvious implementation would warn the caller that there is a fee and tell them how much it is, and then notify the recipient if they had a caller who refused the charge and provide their number. Robocallers might then refuse the call if there is any fee at all, which is great, and then if you get the one from your doctor's office you see it in the call log and can exempt the number for next time.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      Make it hard for people to reach you and they’ll be happy to just hang up. They have better things to do than get through to people playing elaborate games. It’s usually hard enough to connect to a doctor’s office as it is without expecting them to jump through hoops to get you on the phone.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        "Press 1 to pay $0.10 and connect the call" is an elaborate game? It doesn't happen to anyone who regularly calls you because you've exempted them but it handles the case of someone you know calling from an unusual number with something important, because they just pay the pittance. But spammers can't afford to do that at scale, and if they can you can raise it to $0.25.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > "Press 1 to pay $0.10 and connect the call" is an elaborate game? [...] > It doesn't happen to anyone who regularly calls you because you've exempted them Yes, this sounds like an elaborate game and putting unnecessary burden on me.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        I'm not sure what you're referring to as an unnecessary burden. Identifying who it is you consent to have call you? How do you propose to avoid that without allowing either everyone or no one to call you?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      This sounds like a pretty huge hassle to me as a phone customer, honestly. I'd prefer that they just have to get my consent first. It would be a lot cleaner and easier for everyone, including the marketers.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Beldin 3y ago
Why would you need to receive an automated voice call for a reminder?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Why would you need to receive an automated voice call for a reminder? Because they want to. The burden of evidence is on the side trying to restrict what others do.
- tass 3y ago
  Not everyone can read texts as easily as the majority of the population. Some people can’t read at all.

konschubert 3y ago

There are many downsides to banning robocalls outright. Robocalls are a weird bill to die on, but this kind of “just ban it” mindset creates a lot of invisible loss in our world. Better is to let people put a price on the externality and let the market figure out the rest.

Beldin 3y ago
As someone who has never lived in a country where automated calls happen: what quality of life do you imagine I've been missing out on? Just to note: we do get appointment reminders here.
JohnFen 3y ago
> this kind of “just ban it” mindset creates a lot of invisible loss in our world. Such as? > Better is to let people put a price on the externality and let the market figure out the rest. How is that better than just requiring these callers to get your consent first?