3 ms·
If snail mail cost $0.001 per recipient people would be getting much, much more junkmail. Likewise, if e-mail cost as much as even bulk snail mail, there'd be m
by wahern 2mo ago
If snail mail cost $0.001 per recipient people would be getting much, much more junkmail. Likewise, if e-mail cost as much as even bulk snail mail, there'd be much less spam.
Some sort of payment scheme is really the best, most durable option. The problem of mailing-lists and personal correspondence could be solved by an exclusion mechanism where the recipient effectively whitelists senders, explicitly or implicitly (e.g. whitelist a replying-sender automatically if a recipient initiates a conversation).
- ryandrake 2mo agoThe problem with a payment scheme is that spammers (who make money by spamming) will happily pay as a cost of doing business (or negotiate discounts/deals), but Joe User might just look at the cost and say, "you know what, maybe I'll send this as SMS instead of E-mail." So the end result will be more spam and fewer legit E-mails.
- stevenicr 2mo agoI've wondered if it cost $10 to get through my email box the first two times what they would mean. Hormozi could charge $1,000 to get into his read box. We could refund people, add them to a whitelist - and return a 405? payment required by default and things change in interesting ways when the amount is variable.
- grodriguez100 2mo agoThere are platforms based on this idea: pay to reach a public person’s inbox, often with guaranteed responses (“guaranteed” as in “you get a response or you money back”). For example: https://mypublicinbox.com/en/ https://mypublicinbox.com/en/