I'm reading all these comments and it's as if I read a completely different article from everyone else. People are constantly complaining that something like this will never work because spammers won't agree to it or never pay the fees. This proposed solution may very well not fly for various reasons but spammers' consent is not one of them.
The article makes it clear that (1) The user is in control of the price of the "interruption fee" (2) Any proposed fee payment system is such that the spammers in question must pay the fee upfront in a manner that INSURES that you will receive the fee if you are in fact contacted by the spammer
If the spammer doesn't want to pay the fee, then you WIN. If the spammer pays your $.50 fee or $10 fee or $100 fee or whatever you ask, then you WIN since they agreed to pay the fee you felt would compensate for their interruption. Either way you WIN.
And there is nothing in the article to suggest that its success on a global scale is a hard requirement for its success on a local scale (i.e. whether it would work for you personally).
I'm not saything that there aren't problems or issues that might prevent this type of system from becoming a reality in the near future but it has nothing to do with what spammers want, which is the whole point of the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you!
I'm reading all these comments and it's as if I read a completely different article from everyone else. People are constantly complaining that something like this will never work because spammers won't agree to it or never pay the fees. This proposed solution may very well not fly for various reasons but spammers' consent is not one of them.
The article makes it clear that
(1) The user is in control of the price of the "interruption fee"
(2) Any proposed fee payment system is such that the spammers in question must pay the fee upfront in a manner that INSURES that you will receive the fee if you are in fact contacted by the spammer
If the spammer doesn't want to pay the fee, then you WIN. If the spammer pays your $.50 fee or $10 fee or $100 fee or whatever you ask, then you WIN since they agreed to pay the fee you felt would compensate for their interruption. Either way you WIN.
And there is nothing in the article to suggest that its success on a global scale is a hard requirement for its success on a local scale (i.e. whether it would work for you personally).
I'm not saything that there aren't problems or issues that might prevent this type of system from becoming a reality in the near future but it has nothing to do with what spammers want, which is the whole point of the matter.
- Abi-Wan