3 ms·

I don't think so. The idea is that you could set the fee so low that a normal person would never ever encounter it, but when multiplied against the number of bu

I don't think so. The idea is that you could set the fee so low that a normal person would never ever encounter it, but when multiplied against the number of bulk emails a spammer sends out becomes a real cost. And at that point you could allot everyone a small credit sufficient for even vigorous personal use.

dredmorbius 3y ago
True this, and a far lower ding, closer to say, $0.01 than $10, could still be quite effective. Keep in mind that egregious robocall providers have been making billions of calls annually (55 billion in 2023: <https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/16/americans-received-55-million-robocalls-in-2023-a-9-jump-from-2022/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/16/americans-received-55-mi...>), whilst a typical instance was unable to pay a $10 million fine (<https://therecord.media/ftc-settles-with-company-that-facilitated-billions-of-robocalls https://therecord.media/ftc-settles-with-company-that-facili...>). At that rate, a per-call ding of only $0.0002 (2 hundredths of a cent) might prove sufficient. A penny-per-call penalty should actually be relatively effective against the lowest of the bottom-feeders, though a higher rate would afford additional protections.
torstenvl 3y ago
You could also have a periodic forgiveness of de minimus amounts. The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system charges 10¢ per page. Every month, balances under $10.00 (edit: apparently it's $30.00 per quarter) are forgiven. It strikes me that a similar model could be employed. Are there people who send more than 100 unsolicited texts per month? More than 200?
- burnished 3y ago
  I didn't know about that, thank you, and yes exactly. The difference between normal use and spam is so marked that any system of charges could be set such that no normal user was ever even aware of them. And to be clear I'm not talking 'normal' as in 'median' I'm talking 'human using their thumbs'. Even if you spend all day every day hunting down craigslist bargains and coordinating swaps

dredmorbius 3y ago

True this, and a far lower ding, closer to say, $0.01 than $10, could still be quite effective. Keep in mind that egregious robocall providers have been making billions of calls annually (55 billion in 2023: <https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/16/americans-received-55-million-robocalls-in-2023-a-9-jump-from-2022/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/01/16/americans-received-55-mi...>), whilst a typical instance was unable to pay a $10 million fine (<https://therecord.media/ftc-settles-with-company-that-facilitated-billions-of-robocalls https://therecord.media/ftc-settles-with-company-that-facili...>). At that rate, a per-call ding of only $0.0002 (2 hundredths of a cent) might prove sufficient. A penny-per-call penalty should actually be relatively effective against the lowest of the bottom-feeders, though a higher rate would afford additional protections.

torstenvl 3y ago

You could also have a periodic forgiveness of de minimus amounts. The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system charges 10¢ per page. Every month, balances under $10.00 (edit: apparently it's $30.00 per quarter) are forgiven. It strikes me that a similar model could be employed. Are there people who send more than 100 unsolicited texts per month? More than 200?

burnished 3y ago
I didn't know about that, thank you, and yes exactly. The difference between normal use and spam is so marked that any system of charges could be set such that no normal user was ever even aware of them. And to be clear I'm not talking 'normal' as in 'median' I'm talking 'human using their thumbs'. Even if you spend all day every day hunting down craigslist bargains and coordinating swaps