3 ms·
You don't need to re-pay for the blue checkmark for everyone who reads your post. The key insight here was making it expensive for spammers, but cheap for ever
by ethbr1 2y ago
You don't need to re-pay for the blue checkmark for everyone who reads your post.
The key insight here was making it expensive for spammers, but cheap for everyone else.
- fragmede 2y agoThe point I'm making is that is just a cost, so X is the money made from spam, and Y is how much it costs to send it, if X > Y, you're still getting spam. Companies pay MailChimp and every one in that whole ecosystem money. adding another cost is just adding another mouth to feed.
- ethbr1 2y agoYes. And the worst spam all meets the criteria of massive distributions of low-value email. Consequently, where X < Y.
- mcronce 2y ago...which changes the economics of sending the spam email. Surely some of them will be "valuable" enough to send even with the added cost; however, a measure doesn't need to be 100% effective to be useful.