Most active commenters
  • xnx(4)
  • bawolff(4)

←back to thread

706 points ortusdux | 54 comments | | HN request time: 1.282s | source | bottom
1. xnx ◴[] No.42138885[source]
Seems like the logical endpoint of a lot of this is people getting paid directly for their attention. Want to call me? I've set a price of $5/call that I answer, and an additional $10/minute of listen time after the first 10 seconds. Want to send me an email? $1/email and $5/100 words. Anyone I have emailed is automatically on my allow-list, which I can also adjust manually.
replies(12): >>42139147 #>>42139164 #>>42139519 #>>42139522 #>>42139766 #>>42141330 #>>42141511 #>>42141816 #>>42142129 #>>42143384 #>>42143710 #>>42144710 #
2. wzsddtc ◴[] No.42139147[source]
I think you have just described LinkedIn's business model, minus the fact that you don't get the money but the filter provider does.
replies(1): >>42139755 #
3. tokioyoyo ◴[] No.42139164[source]
And maybe like a temporary hold of the money, so you get it back if I’m convinced it’s not spam. Probably would resolve 99% of spam issues in the real world and create a chain of trust. Add some temporary disabling feature as well if you’re expecting a call from a random number too, so you’re set.
replies(1): >>42139712 #
4. guidoism ◴[] No.42139519[source]
That's similar to the idea I had for combating texting spam: - If your number is in my address book then texts are free for you - If this is the first time you are contacting me then you pay me $1

There are probably downsides and ways this will screw up real relationships but it will certainly increase the cost of spam.

replies(2): >>42139601 #>>42141223 #
5. bawolff ◴[] No.42139522[source]
If you have already sorted the world between people you want to take calls from and people you don't, why wouldn't you just block the people you don't want instead of charging them money?
replies(2): >>42139629 #>>42139780 #
6. Nition ◴[] No.42139601[source]
One issue I can forsee:

- Every contractor (plumber etc) you hire will ask you to please add them to your contact list first so that they can message you.

- After a while of half their clients not doing that and lots of fees on their end, contractors stop providing a phone number at all, asking you to please install ContractorApp to communicate with them.

replies(5): >>42139777 #>>42139815 #>>42140812 #>>42141207 #>>42146202 #
7. dotancohen ◴[] No.42139629[source]
Because there's a middle ground of people who we have not yet categorized. I don't know every phone number my doctor might call me from.
replies(2): >>42140489 #>>42140553 #
8. swores ◴[] No.42139712[source]
Sounds like a great solution to the minority of people like you and me who wouldn't mind the added steps of approving every real phone call as not spam after, having to remember how to set that you're expecting a call from a random number, etc. I can't see it being acceptable to enough people for any network to go down this road unless spam levels get way worse.
replies(3): >>42141172 #>>42142083 #>>42143917 #
9. xnx ◴[] No.42139755[source]
Yes. There are all kind or brokers selling the attention of their audiences: Google, TV Networks, podcasts, LinkedIn, etc. I'd like to see another attempt at disintermediation in the space.
10. speerer ◴[] No.42139766[source]
Satoshi Nakamoto's first visionfor Bitcoin was just this - pay-to-send email.
replies(2): >>42140852 #>>42141015 #
11. thejazzman ◴[] No.42139777{3}[source]
I love every part of this. Not having things in writing is one of the most common tactics with bad contractors. And I miss their call backs because I have unknowns goto spam, so I have to remember to disable that feature...
12. xnx ◴[] No.42139780[source]
My attention is valuable. I should be able to sell it on my terms.
replies(3): >>42140232 #>>42140688 #>>42140987 #
13. crummy ◴[] No.42139815{3}[source]
Maybe when you first receive a text you see:

This message is from an unknown number. (Accept / Block / Charge sender $1)

replies(2): >>42139955 #>>42144687 #
14. telgareith ◴[] No.42139955{4}[source]
Well, that just invokes we-had-a-baby-its-a-boy
replies(1): >>42140402 #
15. vinceguidry ◴[] No.42140232{3}[source]
No way to vet the quality of your offering makes a both-ways attention economy fundamentally unworkable in a Western society. If you were really prepared to be an 'attention worker', then you could go work at a click farm or content moderation firm or the like, one of the fastest growing markets in the developing world.

Best I can offer you is an in-game bonus for watching an ad.

16. sailfast ◴[] No.42140402{5}[source]
They had a baby.

It’s a boy!

That said - perhaps harder to change the name that shows up as quickly as you could leave a recorded name? :)

Still one of the best ads ever made.

17. anonzzzies ◴[] No.42140489{3}[source]
My doctor, bank, eh well everyone, will text or email me if they cannot reach me. I haven't answered a number I don't recognize for the past 10 years; life is excellent.
18. bawolff ◴[] No.42140553{3}[source]
And you think your doctor would be willing to pay for the privledge of talking to you?
19. bawolff ◴[] No.42140688{3}[source]
Is it though? Like it might be valuable to you, but i doubt its valuable to anyone else in a phone call situation and both parties need to find value to make a sale.

Like if you are interested in the convo then you should be paying the other person as you are getting value from the convo.

What's the situation where you don't care about the convo but for the right price you could care, and the other party also thinks that price is reasonable? Like maybe if someone is trying to recruit you i guess, but the situations where that is true seem very few and far between (and we already have a system for that, where traditionally someone offers to buy you a meal in exchange for listening)

replies(2): >>42140993 #>>42142057 #
20. zeroonetwothree ◴[] No.42140812{3}[source]
They already charge $200 so I doubt $1 extra is going to matter.
21. petesergeant ◴[] No.42140852[source]
90% sure this was also an idea in Bill Gates’ “The Road Ahead”
22. kspacewalk2 ◴[] No.42140987{3}[source]
No one's buying your attention on your terms. They're only exchanging it for the online services you want to use. No attention, no services, better up your subscriptions budget or make do without.

(Sorry if I'm being blunt, attention economy participants can't be so they'd sugar coat it to such a degree that you might miss the point).

23. lozf ◴[] No.42140993{4}[source]
> Is it though?

Marketers seem to think so, or they wouldn't waste their time calling.

24. wcoenen ◴[] No.42141015[source]
I think you're thinking of Hashcash? Not invented by Satoshi, and not pay-to-send exactly. It's proof-of-work for email.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash

replies(1): >>42141753 #
25. toss1 ◴[] No.42141172{3}[source]
Spam is already at the level of changing people's default behavior from answering calls that come in to (as I saw described abt younger mobile users) "would rather pick up a live hand grenade than an unknown caller"

Personally, my default was to pick up and is now if recognized contact pickup, if not and I'm expecting an unknown call, scrutinize, then if pickup, only answer with a cough or two — never "hello" or "yes" due to threat of voice cloning escalate to banks.

Spam is universally detested

My assessment is that voice calls are on the verge of going obsolete if the telcos fail to get a handle on spam. Yet the telcos behave as if they have no clue whatsoever and DGAF.

26. asah ◴[] No.42141207{3}[source]
one click to add from the first message = $1 total cost.

contractors can add this to their invoices if they care.

27. jameshart ◴[] No.42141223[source]
You just made the new scam ‘persuading you to text me’. I get $1 for everyone I fool!
replies(1): >>42142547 #
28. janalsncm ◴[] No.42141330[source]
I have considered creating this email service. I’m sure many others have as well, in some form or another. Does it already exist?
29. j2kun ◴[] No.42141511[source]
Pay to email has been tried multiple times, and failed.
30. speerer ◴[] No.42141753{3}[source]
I'm certain Satoshi was thinking of Hashcash! But I did mean what I said, though it wasn't until Martti Malmi released his emails with Satoshi that I knew this, and so might not be well known:

https://mmalmi.github.io/satoshi/

> "[this next bit turned out to be very controversial. there is extreme prejudice against spam solutions, especially proof-of-work.]

> It can already be used for pay-to-send e-mail. The send dialog is resizeable and you can enter as long of a message as you like. It's sent directly when it connects. The recipient doubleclicks on the transaction to see the full message. If someone famous is getting more e-mail than they can read, but would still like to have a way for fans to contact them, they could set up Bitcoin and give out the IP address on their website. "Send X bitcoins to my priority hotline at this IP and I'll read the message personally."

31. edelbitter ◴[] No.42141816[source]
Or.. just have telcos do that to each other, instead of offloading any more of their service onto their customers/victims?
32. ethbr1 ◴[] No.42142057{4}[source]
> What's the situation where you don't care about the convo but for the right price you could care, and the other party also thinks that price is reasonable?

Minimally targeted advertising.

replies(1): >>42145111 #
33. plagiarist ◴[] No.42142083{3}[source]
Reporting spam should be the other way around, it defaults to assuming a normal interaction.

Consider: if you get harassed with a call or text you don't like, you send an SMS with that phone number to some known short code. You then receive $1 from the caller. If the caller cannot be found, the last verifiable link in the chain is responsible for paying the fine.

This would cause carriers to behave overnight, instead of allowing foreign call centers to spoof other people's real private numbers with your area code.

replies(3): >>42142784 #>>42145433 #>>42149552 #
34. mos_basik ◴[] No.42142129[source]
That's EVE Online's approach to fighting ingame "email" spam [0].

Every player can configure an amount of ingame money that is levied from a sender's account to deliver a message to them. It's a currency sink, so it's themed as a "tax" levied by the NPCs and its value is destroyed rather than paid to the recipient of the message.

I thought it used to default to 5 ISK (a pittance, something you can make back by shooting a single NPC pirate ship). I see some references to the default being ~2000 ISK at the time that it was changed to 0, where it is now.

Worked pretty well, imo. Players that need to be publicly contactable (people who organize public events, for instance) can turn it off easily. People who are "space famous" can crank it up to reduce targeted spam. Even at the default setting, it's effective at keeping ingame scammers from blasting the whole player list with messages (at least, the poor ones :). Doesn't apply to people you've already exchanged messages with. I think there's also some allowlisting you can do, etc.

0. https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/EVE_Mail#CONCORD_Spam_Prevent...

replies(2): >>42142587 #>>42144182 #
35. odo1242 ◴[] No.42142547{3}[source]
Presumably the money would go to the telecom company, I think. Still very good for trolls though.
36. xnx ◴[] No.42142587[source]
Great real world functioning example.

The idea in general seems to have been around since 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash

37. kyleee ◴[] No.42142784{4}[source]
At least we can dream, ehh?
38. carlosjobim ◴[] No.42143384[source]
Even if it was 20c per call/e-mail, it would solve the spam problem overnight, while not interfering significantly with legitimate communication.
39. zahlman ◴[] No.42143710[source]
How exactly do you propose to collect the money?
40. tokioyoyo ◴[] No.42143917{3}[source]
Not approving all the time, just setting every call by default to $1. Everyone who knows you will call knowing they’ll get their money back. And you can do an easy “add everyone in your contacts to a whitelist”, boom done.
replies(1): >>42146029 #
41. ryandrake ◴[] No.42144182[source]
> it's themed as a "tax" levied by the NPCs and its value is destroyed rather than paid to the recipient of the message.

It’s a cool idea and would work good for real world fines, too: fines that destroy the money paid instead of transfer it (to the city, the court, the police and so on). The fines would disincentivize bad behavior, while also not incentivizing the police to “go generate some crime” because it pays them.

replies(1): >>42145775 #
42. Nition ◴[] No.42144687{4}[source]
Ha! Okay, I like this, I think it changes my mind on the whole thing being viable. There's probably some reason it wouldn't work in reality but the satisfaction from pressing the charge $1 option on spam would be huge.

I disagree about the we-adda-baby-itsa-boy issue. I don't see how that'd apply given that you can charge them $1 from the very first message.

43. IshKebab ◴[] No.42144710[source]
Well... I still get SMS spam. I assume spammers just use other people's hacked phones.
replies(1): >>42144782 #
44. Scoundreller ◴[] No.42144782[source]
You can get a sim for a few bucks and spam under the rate limit.

You can buy jigs that hold hundreds of SIMs connected to a handful of cellular modems connected to a c&c and drip them out.

replies(1): >>42150202 #
45. bawolff ◴[] No.42145111{5}[source]
Why would the other party think the price would be reasonable? Like the entire point of minimally targeted ads is to spray and prey.

Like if you assume a CPM of $2, that means $0.002 per phone call. Would you really find that acceptable?

If the answer is no, then you aren't really accepting payment,you are just blocking people with extra steps. No different than if you said you will accept a phone call for a billion dollars. You aren't really accepting something for payment if you set a price that nobody will pay.

46. swores ◴[] No.42145433{4}[source]
That sounds a lot better to me
47. xnorswap ◴[] No.42145775{3}[source]
Some argue that's how taxes work already. Taxation destroys money, government spending creates money.

MMT (modern monetary theory) argues that taxation isn't about "funding", it's actually about controlling inflation.

MMT is somewhat controversial.

replies(1): >>42147780 #
48. another-dave ◴[] No.42146029{4}[source]
It'd work well for both ends of the spectrum (spam callers & friends) but think would kinda fall down in the middle though — kids' school, doctor's office, plumber coming to service your boiler.

Where you are expecting a call and it's definitely not spam, but they're not going to be ringing from a pre-approved whitelist. Don't think they'd want to be putting $1 per call on the line and hoping for people to remember to click the right button afterwards

replies(1): >>42157613 #
49. GoblinSlayer ◴[] No.42146202{3}[source]
Here they do already use watsapp, viber etc for communication, maybe because they are cheaper.

>Every contractor (plumber etc) you hire will ask you to please add them to your contact list first so that they can message you.

This is reasonable. If they want to reach me, they should whitelist in advance instead of hoping they can randomly get through.

replies(1): >>42149577 #
50. ryandrake ◴[] No.42147780{4}[source]
Totally agree, but only if those taxes go to the entity that creates the money. From the federal government's point of view, who prints money, there is zero difference between collecting money and throwing it in a furnace. Both do the same thing. Money is just a piece of paper that says "the government owes you a debt of one buck". So if it is returned to them, they no longer owe it to you, and if it gets destroyed, the same thing is true.

But if those taxes go to the State of California, it's different. They don't print money, so it becomes a real debt to them. Destroying it in that case would cancel that debt and free the debtor (the Treasury) from that obligation.

51. red-iron-pine ◴[] No.42149552{4}[source]
couldnt they just automate ways to handle the code?

plus a lot of spam comes out of compromised phones, or compromised systems. what good is this if i have your phone, or just your SIM?

52. red-iron-pine ◴[] No.42149577{4}[source]
aye. i have a business relationship with these people, let me know how to communicate with you ahead of time so I can whitelist or clear that.
53. IshKebab ◴[] No.42150202{3}[source]
Right but it costs money to send SMSs. At least it used to. I dunno if they've given up charging for that now since nobody uses them. Tbf I haven't seen a phone contract without unlimited texts for at least a decade I guess.
54. BlueTemplar ◴[] No.42157613{5}[source]
The plumber at least is presumably paid a lot more than $1 for doing that job, and they would most likely just pass the cost onto you ?