5 ms·

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 accide

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
  This use case is actually the reason we have bitcoin, tho it's a shame it took off as a protest to banks instead of getting implemented as a functional anti-spam tool. To this day spam is regularly in my inbox and I have to check my spam folder for legitamate messages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash
  - dartos 2y ago
    Well, no. That’s the reason we have hash cash (the pow algo for bitcoin) Bitcoin itself, as with most early cryptocurrencies, is and was a protest against banks and centralized finance.
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      fair enough, I should say it was a prerequisite
  - gosub100 2y ago
    There's nothing stopping this from happening. Build encryption into the email protocols and hide the decrypt key behind a block chain that costs even $0.01 of a fungible token to access.
    - jazzyjackson 2y ago
      the blockchain, as usual, is not necessary, the header is proof enough on that a penny worth of energy[0] was expended in generating the hash [0] (or however much energy you want to demand before throwing the message in the spam folder - you just require whatever number of leading zeros in the hash ie crank up the difficulty, bitcoin's innovation was assigning ownership to these proofs-of-work via signatures and implementing a mechanism to update and broadcast that ownership)
- CPLX 2y ago
  There’s lots of services like this that I have seen, including a popular one where you can donate $1 to a charity in order for your email to reach someone’s inbox.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  Ye imagine if you got 50c for each call or email you received not on a whitelist and the social contract was to refund it by pressing #1 after the call ended or whatever. Pay numbers are a thing so I guess it should be doable.
  - tantalor 2y ago
    Yes please. SMS too.
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.

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
This use case is actually the reason we have bitcoin, tho it's a shame it took off as a protest to banks instead of getting implemented as a functional anti-spam tool. To this day spam is regularly in my inbox and I have to check my spam folder for legitamate messages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash
- dartos 2y ago
  Well, no. That’s the reason we have hash cash (the pow algo for bitcoin) Bitcoin itself, as with most early cryptocurrencies, is and was a protest against banks and centralized finance.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    fair enough, I should say it was a prerequisite
- gosub100 2y ago
  There's nothing stopping this from happening. Build encryption into the email protocols and hide the decrypt key behind a block chain that costs even $0.01 of a fungible token to access.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    the blockchain, as usual, is not necessary, the header is proof enough on that a penny worth of energy[0] was expended in generating the hash [0] (or however much energy you want to demand before throwing the message in the spam folder - you just require whatever number of leading zeros in the hash ie crank up the difficulty, bitcoin's innovation was assigning ownership to these proofs-of-work via signatures and implementing a mechanism to update and broadcast that ownership)
CPLX 2y ago
There’s lots of services like this that I have seen, including a popular one where you can donate $1 to a charity in order for your email to reach someone’s inbox.
rightbyte 2y ago
Ye imagine if you got 50c for each call or email you received not on a whitelist and the social contract was to refund it by pressing #1 after the call ended or whatever. Pay numbers are a thing so I guess it should be doable.
- tantalor 2y ago
  Yes please. SMS too.

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.