3 ms·

I'd rather have a system where there's a small investment cost to making an account, but you could always make another. Imagine A system where there's a vendin

by Terr_ 8mo ago

I'd rather have a system where there's a small investment cost to making an account, but you could always make another. Imagine A system where there's a vending machine outside City Hall, you spend $X on a charity for choice, and you get a one-time, anonymous token. You can "spend" it with a forum to indicate "this is probably a person or close enough to it." Misuse of the system could be curbed by making it so that the status of a token cannot be tested non-destructively.

JimDabell 8mo ago
Do you think there is a price point that locks out spammers without locking out poor people?
- bobthepanda 8mo ago
  probably not, the problem is that spammers/scammers are looking for whales, and if you are talking about draining the retirement accounts of an American who's been saving all their life, that's quite a big payout in the six or seven figures.
  - PaulHoule 8mo ago
    In the case of the 415 scams I used to ask “who would expect $20M to fall out of the sky?” The obvious answer is “someone who already had $20M fall out of the sky”
    - cindyllm 8mo ago
      [dead]
tlonny 8mo ago
I’d love something like this implemented for email. Sending an unsolicited email to a random person X requires you to pay a small toll (something like 50p). Subsequent emails can then be sent for free - however person X can “revoke” your access any time necessitating a further toll payment. You would of course be able to pre-authorise friends/family/transactional emails from various services that you’ve signed up for. This would nuke spam economics and be minimally disruptive for other use cases of email IMO…
- jimmydorry 8mo ago
  >transactional emails from various services that you’ve signed up for These are one of the main culprits of unwanted emails... and a toll system would make them all the more valuable for the even worse actors to take advantage of.
gzread 8mo ago
Something Awful made you pay $10 for an account. Directly to the forum. If you got banned you could pay another $10 to try again. Somehow this didn't lead to that bad incentives even though you'd think it would.
- pardon_me 8mo ago
  Ban reason and the moderator name were public on Something Awful, which allowed the community to respond (actively or passively), and for more senior moderators/admin to take public action against rogue moderators. The transparent audit trail countered the incentive to ban somewhat, but a lot of people also treating getting banned as a game.
  - koolala 8mo ago
    Did they ban for this rule often? "Am I making a post which is either funny, informative, or interesting on any level? I hate how Reddit mods ban any post they don't like as being 'low effort / shit / spam' when it is completely vague.
    - ranger_danger 8mo ago
      Lemmy is even worse on the moderation front, even with public logs: https://a.imagem.app/G3R9xb.png https://a.imagem.app/G3R9xb.png
      - emaro 8mo ago
        Lemmy isn't simply Lemmy since it's federated. A screenshot like this is somewhat meaningless without specifying on which instance this happened. There are instances with very lax or even no moderation at all.
        ranger_danger 8mo ago
        For the majority of large, well-federated instances, I don't think it's meaningless, because deletions also propagate to other instances. If a mod on one server doesn't like something I say, and they delete my comment, all the other (well-behaved) federated instances will also delete my comment. Of course this also creates problems in the other direction, like servers that ignore deletion requests. That combined with a large amount of blocked instances across the board, I feel like you get into this "which direction would you like to piss into the wind" situation where you have no idea how many people/instances will actually see your message if at all.
Angostura 8mo ago
When Digg restarted, you had to pay $5 to create an accoun
deanc 8mo ago
What does it matter? If there is incentive enough people will just pay and let their bot act on their behalf.

by Terr_ 8mo ago

JimDabell 8mo ago

Do you think there is a price point that locks out spammers without locking out poor people?

bobthepanda 8mo ago
probably not, the problem is that spammers/scammers are looking for whales, and if you are talking about draining the retirement accounts of an American who's been saving all their life, that's quite a big payout in the six or seven figures.
- PaulHoule 8mo ago
  In the case of the 415 scams I used to ask “who would expect $20M to fall out of the sky?” The obvious answer is “someone who already had $20M fall out of the sky”
  - cindyllm 8mo ago
    [dead]

tlonny 8mo ago

I’d love something like this implemented for email. Sending an unsolicited email to a random person X requires you to pay a small toll (something like 50p). Subsequent emails can then be sent for free - however person X can “revoke” your access any time necessitating a further toll payment. You would of course be able to pre-authorise friends/family/transactional emails from various services that you’ve signed up for. This would nuke spam economics and be minimally disruptive for other use cases of email IMO…

jimmydorry 8mo ago
>transactional emails from various services that you’ve signed up for These are one of the main culprits of unwanted emails... and a toll system would make them all the more valuable for the even worse actors to take advantage of.

gzread 8mo ago

Something Awful made you pay $10 for an account. Directly to the forum. If you got banned you could pay another $10 to try again. Somehow this didn't lead to that bad incentives even though you'd think it would.

pardon_me 8mo ago
Ban reason and the moderator name were public on Something Awful, which allowed the community to respond (actively or passively), and for more senior moderators/admin to take public action against rogue moderators. The transparent audit trail countered the incentive to ban somewhat, but a lot of people also treating getting banned as a game.
- koolala 8mo ago
  Did they ban for this rule often? "Am I making a post which is either funny, informative, or interesting on any level? I hate how Reddit mods ban any post they don't like as being 'low effort / shit / spam' when it is completely vague.
  - ranger_danger 8mo ago
    Lemmy is even worse on the moderation front, even with public logs: https://a.imagem.app/G3R9xb.png https://a.imagem.app/G3R9xb.png
    - emaro 8mo ago
      Lemmy isn't simply Lemmy since it's federated. A screenshot like this is somewhat meaningless without specifying on which instance this happened. There are instances with very lax or even no moderation at all.
      - ranger_danger 8mo ago
        For the majority of large, well-federated instances, I don't think it's meaningless, because deletions also propagate to other instances. If a mod on one server doesn't like something I say, and they delete my comment, all the other (well-behaved) federated instances will also delete my comment. Of course this also creates problems in the other direction, like servers that ignore deletion requests. That combined with a large amount of blocked instances across the board, I feel like you get into this "which direction would you like to piss into the wind" situation where you have no idea how many people/instances will actually see your message if at all.

Angostura 8mo ago

When Digg restarted, you had to pay $5 to create an accoun

deanc 8mo ago

What does it matter? If there is incentive enough people will just pay and let their bot act on their behalf.