←back to thread

We need to start doing web blocking for non-technical reasons

(utcc.utoronto.ca)
57 points birdculture | 4 comments | 23 Oct 25 13:54 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
1970-01-01 ◴[23 Oct 25 15:36 UTC] No.45683083[source]▶
Blocking bots would solve 98% of the problem. We need something that does just that and only that. Once traffic becomes natural again, we can rethink the abuse problem. Charging per click or even per MB sent is an excellent idea that nobody will ever support. I wonder if that is even technically possible.
replies(6): >>45683209 #>>45683490 #>>45684133 #>>45684379 #>>45684384 #>>45684832 #
1. abtinf ◴[23 Oct 25 16:06 UTC] No.45683490[source]▶
Back in the 90s or early aughts, there was an article along the lines of “so you have an anti-spam scheme?”

It listed like 2 dozen spam control schemes that had been proposed that failed, mostly for social reasons.

If I had the link, I would have simply posted it as the reply.

replies(1): >>45683586 #
2. dredmorbius ◴[23 Oct 25 16:12 UTC] No.45683586[source]▶
Doctorow FTFW:

<https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt>

Your post advocates a ( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting spam...

replies(1): >>45688566 #
3. abtinf ◴[23 Oct 25 23:04 UTC] No.45688566[source]▶
That’s the one!

I spent such a long time searching for it, including using LLMs. And yet you were able to take my misleading clues and find it.

replies(1): >>45689134 #
4. dredmorbius ◴[24 Oct 25 00:07 UTC] No.45689134{3}[source]▶
I'd seen it before, had a pretty good idea what to look for.

Hadn't twigged that Cory seems to be a principle source/reference these days. I think I first saw this on Slashdot back in the day.