4 ms·

"Extremely cheap global telecommunications accessible to everyone" came with a lot of drawbacks we didn't consider at the time they started to become viable. Al

by gary_0 2y ago

"Extremely cheap global telecommunications accessible to everyone" came with a lot of drawbacks we didn't consider at the time they started to become viable. Although all the spam in our inboxes should have been a clue.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
Not exactly an advantage to pay a fee to a middleman. It's more like frictionless communication should be the default, and we had a period where friction accidentally acted as signal
- Avicebron 2y ago
  I mean if the signal isn't replaced by anything, then the onus is put on to the person receiving the call. If years ago, there was a barrier for an army of phone scammers from across the world throwing everything they can think of at an old person with borderline dementia, and suddenly that went away..I don't know how you can really justify the "frictionless communication" outside of a couple of options. A) "Well it's their fault, they should be on their guard all the time everyone is always trying to scam and manipulate you" -- (idk about you but this seems pretty grim and inhumane) B) "well it's a net benefit for ~someone~ so we should all be happy about it, and refer to A)"
- vkou 2y ago
  You don't actually want frictionless communication. Frictionless communication will drown you in a mountain of spam. A 'Frictionless' ability to transmit puts all the friction, pain, and negative externalities onto the recipient.
- qq66 2y ago
  I want frictionless communication with the people I've already communicated with, but very high friction communication with people I've never talked to before. I'd love a way to charge $10 to get into my inbox. If it ends up being a long lost friend or whatever, I'll Venmo them back the $10.
  - smabie 2y ago
    You can send everyone not on a list to spam and auto respond with a link to pay you $10 to get on the white list should be doable
    - thanksgiving 2y ago
      Not currently doable with phone calls. From what I understand, the caller ID feature is completely useless. There is no willingness to implement rules that guarantee the number the call is coming from is the owner of the number. The best you can do is call them back and hope the routing doesn't get screwed up.
      - gsck 2y ago
        Depends on the circuit that you are dialling out onto. I know where I work there are some rules about presenting whatever number you want on our trunk provider, but this is something they have put in place themselves with no "legal" reason for them to do it. We've been working with them for years so we are one of their trusted clients and have the ability to present any number we want as long as we have permission to do so from the number owner. The fact its up to the trunk provider to put these rules in place and not just standard everywhere is wild to me.
  - c22 2y ago
    You'll have to just to send your reply!
  - outop 2y ago
    If I was your long lost friend I probably wouldn't pay the $10 upfront.
    - jtriangle 2y ago
      Not much of a friend then eh
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  > It's more like frictionless communication should be the default No. We should have complete control on how much friction anybody gets to communicating with us. And frictionless should absolutely not be the default.
- pradn 2y ago
  Friction is signal. I recall I used to individually send snaps to like 30 friends each time, back before Snapchat invented Stories. I had to think a tiny bit, and put a tiny bit of effort, for each person. We lost that when people started posting to stories only.
Gravityloss 2y ago
With enough technological development we can make everything in the future like getting off from the airport train in a big third world city and surrounded by beggars and fraudsters. Robocalls, AI blogspam, Email, Facebook etc.

by gary_0 2y ago

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago

Not exactly an advantage to pay a fee to a middleman. It's more like frictionless communication should be the default, and we had a period where friction accidentally acted as signal

Avicebron 2y ago
I mean if the signal isn't replaced by anything, then the onus is put on to the person receiving the call. If years ago, there was a barrier for an army of phone scammers from across the world throwing everything they can think of at an old person with borderline dementia, and suddenly that went away..I don't know how you can really justify the "frictionless communication" outside of a couple of options. A) "Well it's their fault, they should be on their guard all the time everyone is always trying to scam and manipulate you" -- (idk about you but this seems pretty grim and inhumane) B) "well it's a net benefit for ~someone~ so we should all be happy about it, and refer to A)"
vkou 2y ago
You don't actually want frictionless communication. Frictionless communication will drown you in a mountain of spam. A 'Frictionless' ability to transmit puts all the friction, pain, and negative externalities onto the recipient.
qq66 2y ago
I want frictionless communication with the people I've already communicated with, but very high friction communication with people I've never talked to before. I'd love a way to charge $10 to get into my inbox. If it ends up being a long lost friend or whatever, I'll Venmo them back the $10.
- smabie 2y ago
  You can send everyone not on a list to spam and auto respond with a link to pay you $10 to get on the white list should be doable
  - thanksgiving 2y ago
    Not currently doable with phone calls. From what I understand, the caller ID feature is completely useless. There is no willingness to implement rules that guarantee the number the call is coming from is the owner of the number. The best you can do is call them back and hope the routing doesn't get screwed up.
    - gsck 2y ago
      Depends on the circuit that you are dialling out onto. I know where I work there are some rules about presenting whatever number you want on our trunk provider, but this is something they have put in place themselves with no "legal" reason for them to do it. We've been working with them for years so we are one of their trusted clients and have the ability to present any number we want as long as we have permission to do so from the number owner. The fact its up to the trunk provider to put these rules in place and not just standard everywhere is wild to me.
- c22 2y ago
  You'll have to just to send your reply!
- outop 2y ago
  If I was your long lost friend I probably wouldn't pay the $10 upfront.
  - jtriangle 2y ago
    Not much of a friend then eh
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
marcosdumay 2y ago
> It's more like frictionless communication should be the default No. We should have complete control on how much friction anybody gets to communicating with us. And frictionless should absolutely not be the default.
pradn 2y ago
Friction is signal. I recall I used to individually send snaps to like 30 friends each time, back before Snapchat invented Stories. I had to think a tiny bit, and put a tiny bit of effort, for each person. We lost that when people started posting to stories only.

Gravityloss 2y ago

With enough technological development we can make everything in the future like getting off from the airport train in a big third world city and surrounded by beggars and fraudsters. Robocalls, AI blogspam, Email, Facebook etc.