4 ms·
> I'm not sure what the correct end solution is, but the current solution seems to be very broken. I think one of two high-level approaches: We could be ultra
by gwbas1c 1y ago
> I'm not sure what the correct end solution is, but the current solution seems to be very broken.
I think one of two high-level approaches:
We could be ultra-strict about who is allowed to call whom, and have penalties and enforcement similar to how we police credit card fraud.
Or, we could do away with phone numbers and instead come up with a scheme where you show a QR-like code to allow someone to call you; and then you can revoke that permission if/when it is abused.
---
Finally, I think the crux of the problem is that in the US we tolerate far too much of this kind of behavior. (Unsolicited contact for the purpose of sales.) Without a corresponding publicity campaign, there's far too much cultural tolerance of allowing anyone to contact anyone at any time for any reason to accept the kind of change needed to truly contain SPAM.
- SoftTalker 1y agoVery simple: charge caller $0.25 to make a call.
- dreamcompiler 1y agoThat's how it was before about 1980. Every call outside the local area cost money, and every international call cost a lot more. As a result, spam landline calls were rare and international spam calls were nonexistent. Keep in mind this was the era before CallerID so you never knew what number was calling you in advance. You answered every call on blind faith. And strangely enough most calls were worth taking, because all calls cost money. Spam happens when it costs the spammer nothing.
- account42 1y agoAnd regular folks didn't make much international calls because of the costs. Hardly a great solution.