Honestly the $10 barrier to SomethingAwful back in the day (and I guess now since it’s still around) definitely made a huge difference. I hate the idea of subscribing to a site like HN or Reddit… but one time $10 to post? I’d accept that if it meant less bots.
Odds are it would harm real discussions more than it would harm bot spam.
The bots exist for a reason, usually to covertly advertise a product, and by themselves already cost money to run. Someone looking to astroturf their AI B2B SaaS would probably be more willing to pay $10 to post than a random user from a less wealthy country who just wants to leave a comment on an interesting discussion.
I would probably not pay $10 to post on HN, but many spammers who expect some kind of tangible return would pay that, so the fee just makes the problem worse.
The spammers wouldn't pay it once though - the idea is that it's a good way to scale moderation. Each time an admin needs to ban a user there is a 10$ subsidy supporting that action - and if the bots come back then they get to pay 10$ to be banned again.
Assuming the money isn't wasted and is actually used to fund moderation 10$ is probably comfortably above the cost to detect and ban most malicious users.
There are large swaths of spammers that indeed would not pay it. There are on the other hand plenty of NGO's that would pay it without a second thought to promote specific topics and dogpile on others. Those are the movements I would expect AI to take over if not already. AI does not sleep, humans do. AI won't miss the comments that groups believe need to be amplified or squelched.
Yeah, I love HN, but I wouldn't pay and I know many if not the majority of other people wouldn't. It would increase quality for awhile for sure, but what happens a year or two down the road? It would kill the user count and reduce comments and become less valuable over time.
reminds me of Bill Gates in the 90s when asked about email spam. He said it would make sense to make an email cost like 1 cent so the spammers can't spam as much but this didn't sit right with the mindset of the people at the time.
Also, while real people probably would not be willing to pay to E-mail, spammers who are making money would pay and consider it a cost of doing business. So the fee is having the opposite of its intended effect.
I don't think the current firehose model of spam would be sustainable anymore, though. Those spammers send millions of mails a day. Even with a 1 cent cost, they'd have to be much more selective about their address lists, given the low success rate. It may not solve the problem but I'm almost sure it would help a little. It also may be an additional qualitative barrier for crime-linked spam such as phishing mails, because they'd have to try and find a non-traceable was of payment, which is not trivial and always carries a slight risk of being identified anyway.
Hashcash was a proof-of-work system that would have put a computational tax on email. I don't know what kept it from getting more traction other than simple chicken-and-egg network effects, but it's a good idea, and worth resurrecting.
TLDR: Mail storage is the sender's responsibility. The message isn't copied to the receiver. All the receiver needs is a brief notification that a message is available.
Sounds like a horrible system where you retain many of the problems of email (you still need to deliver notifications) and new surveillance and persistence and mutability problems layered on top..
We need something else, we need an "extreme" (~$1) fine that anyone can claim from any sender who bothered them, no questions asked. Spammers will stop instantly overnight. This would work for phone spam as well.
I read about an idea for an incentive/check system like that before. Something like: make the cost 10c instead of 1c, but implement a system where recipients can mark mails as confirmed "wanted" mail, upon which the sender would be reimbursed 9c. Increasing the cost for unsolicited mails while keeping the cost low for well-behaved newsletters.
it's also something that was in my mind when i wrote about those two options. I still keep this idea in the back of my head since those days (i'm old enough to remember when gates had this atrocious, yet interesting idea).
payment would need a delay too.
Pay $10 and then wait a week or so for the payment to clear without it being reversed. Hopefully that stops the card stealers from dumping as much as possible before getting booted.
Could we just add complex and varied captcha to the comment & posting forms?
That's not a bad idea, sending mail could simply be an authorization for a $1 or $10 charge. And if the receiver said the message was unwanted, then the charge would go through.
There's just the pesky problem of incentives on the other side of the coin - who gets the $? The spammee? But there would be enshitification issues like:
1. Those who are incentivized to take as big a cut as possible.
2. Those who would put it in their EULA that you must accept their spam and not chargeback or else you lose access to something you value like their services (EULA Ransom... not much different to today "accept our EULA or lose access to what you've already paid for!")
I'm sure there are many other perverse incentives which would creep in..
