←back to thread

1737 points pseudolus | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Uehreka ◴[] No.41860626[source]
When people try and say that regulating stuff like this is impossible, I often think about how unreasonably great the regulations around “Unsubscribe” links in emails are.

There really seems to be no loophole or workaround despite there being huge incentive for there to be one. Every time I click an “Unsubscribe” link in an email (it seems like they’re forced to say “Unsubscribe” and not use weasel words to hide the link) I’m either immediately unsubscribed from the person who sent me the email, or I’m taken to a page which seemingly MUST have a “remove me from all emails” option.

The level of compliance (and they can’t even do malicious compliance!) with this is absurd. If these new rules work anything like that, they’ll be awesome. Clearly regulating behavior like this is indeed possible.

replies(46): >>41860684 #>>41860824 #>>41860883 #>>41861066 #>>41861129 #>>41861436 #>>41861512 #>>41861678 #>>41861722 #>>41861736 #>>41861811 #>>41861814 #>>41861817 #>>41862226 #>>41862350 #>>41862375 #>>41862533 #>>41862548 #>>41862583 #>>41863105 #>>41863467 #>>41863955 #>>41863981 #>>41864245 #>>41864326 #>>41864554 #>>41864607 #>>41864815 #>>41865404 #>>41865413 #>>41865616 #>>41866082 #>>41866103 #>>41866240 #>>41866351 #>>41866850 #>>41866986 #>>41869062 #>>41869290 #>>41869894 #>>41870054 #>>41870127 #>>41870425 #>>41870478 #>>41871231 #>>41873677 #
andrewla ◴[] No.41862533[source]
The big difference here is that this was created by an act of Congress, not the result of a regulatory body straining at the limits of its remit. That makes it much more likely to survive administration changes or court challenges.

Even now the CAN-SPAM act feels outdated -- I do like the unsubscribe button, but I would like to see email verification made explicitly required. That in order to start emailing you, you need to send an initial engagement email saying that the organization wants to start emailing you, and requiring you to actively opt-in to emails rather than just start sending them.

This would both cut down on marketing spam as well as mistaken email addresses. Most reputable websites do email verification where you have to enter a code or click on a link, but I have a surprising number of emails that get sent to me even though I am not the person the emails were aimed at.

replies(2): >>41863174 #>>41863183 #
ethbr1 ◴[] No.41863183[source]
I think we should go back the early web idea and just fractionally charge for email.

E.g. $0.001 per email, paid to the recipient

Insignificant at personal scale, but a deterrent to sending low-value emails at mass scale, and double-painful when an unbalanced flow (i.e. a spammer who receives no organic email coming in)

replies(2): >>41863409 #>>41867971 #
fragmede ◴[] No.41863409[source]
And, as we all know, charging money for a blue checkmark totally solved the bot problem on Twitter.
replies(1): >>41863579 #
1. ethbr1 ◴[] No.41863579{3}[source]
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.

replies(1): >>41864919 #
2. fragmede ◴[] No.41864919[source]
The 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.
replies(2): >>41864948 #>>41866358 #
3. ethbr1 ◴[] No.41864948[source]
Yes. And the worst spam all meets the criteria of massive distributions of low-value email.

Consequently, where X < Y.

4. mcronce ◴[] No.41866358[source]
...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.