3 ms·
>Perhaps, instead of a free-net, what's needed is a for-a-nominal-charge-net? We had those. They were called things like Compuserve and Prodigy. And they did
by Perceval 17y ago
>Perhaps, instead of a free-net, what's needed is a for-a-nominal-charge-net?
We had those. They were called things like Compuserve and Prodigy. And they didn't do well, as you recall.
The problem with spamming is that it is very profitable. And it's not clear that a micropayment for each email sent, each facebook message, each blog-comment-spam is going to significantly cut into the fat margins of the most profitable spamming rings.
At most, a surcharge will weed out the small fries, leaving only the big successful spamming rings without any competition. Not exactly a big victory.
And like you say, the spam targets "the least savvy segment of the population." If only there was a way to directly link the credulous fools to the scruple-less cheats, we could achieve a worldwide system that more effectively fleeces the idiots while leaving the rest of us in peace. Alas, such a system is not on the horizon.
- stcredzero 17y agoIf only there was a way to directly link the credulous fools to the scruple-less cheats I suspect that some black-hat entrepreneur is already working on such a database and the tools for automatically harvesting such user's information. Or was that last line sarcasm? We had those. They were called things like Compuserve and Prodigy. And they didn't do well, as you recall. But those things had a fee for entry. To directly address spammers, without creating undue friction to participation, all you need is some sort of a fee for posting. But alas, the problem is with collecting the payment. One could argue that stackoverflow's karma/privilege system demands a non-monetary sort of payment, but they don't have this as a barrier to posting.