121–130 of 277 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then, once the spammers have blacklisted the Daisy numbers, cycle those spam-free numbers to their customers and start a new batch of Daisy numbers. This is actually genius. The spammers will have blacklisted all of their targets eventually.
Until they catch on and un-blacklist the numbers periodically.
This is cool when some independent hacker / artist does it as "Lemmy". When a big telecom does it, the second thing they do with it is to fuck up the spam detection so bad that every third phone call I make gets answered by "Daisy". And just think about it - why would a telecom need this tech? They can already drop the spam calls and stop routing calls from the bad actor telecoms who enable the spammers. They don't d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
My attention is valuable. I should be able to sell it on my terms.
(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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My attention is valuable. I should be able to sell it on my terms.
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…
Marketers seem to think so, or they wouldn't waste their time calling.
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.
Satoshi Nakamoto's first visionfor Bitcoin was just this - pay-to-send email.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have this notion of a visualization gimmick and have visualized me using it (ironic). In fact my game is far simpler; blithly preempt and thereby insult anybody who subscribes to a belief I consider to be misguided. For all I know they look just like me, it makes no difference.
> preempt and thereby insult anybody who subscribes to a belief I consider to be misguided This is the totem. You react to a misguided belief even when it’s a phantom. If you look at two-mode polarised discussions, you’ll find both sides talking about a totem of the other, reacting to imagined preëmptions and rarely interacting with each other. The graphs separate. As a result, the preëmptions are more imagined than…
Good on them! > and one in five (22%) experiencing a fraud attempt every single week That seems low. I guess they mean phone calls only. I get -no exaggeration- several hundred spam mails a day (and these are the ones that made it past the first line defense). I also get 10 or more scam texts. Some of the phising emails that I get, are frighteningly realistic (but invariably seem to have at least one speling eror in…
> I get -no exaggeration- several hundred spam mails a day I've seen no legit spam e-mail in years, on my very old, very used, "forums and other logins I don't care about", 2005 gmail address. What provider are you using?
I have an OG address that was registered about five minutes after Steve introduced the service.
Network Solutions sold it to spammers, and the rest is history.
Also, a couple other of my emails (and phone numbers) are associated with businesses, so are sort of public record (not really, but everyone finds out, anyway).
Of course, the scammers have created their own AI to call people and scam them so it's just playing catchup. It's like corporate avatars for hiring or cold call bots for sales. I'd say stick to white listed numbers, but pro phones can't do that, and they are the most prone to spam.
I always ask the robocalls to say something specific. It finally worked the other day! A robot repeated "chrysanthemum" back to me when asked. Sadly it seemed to be limited to this one single trick; as I continued my attempts to exploit it, it abruptly apologized and ended the call. Cute, but one day I am going to get lucky and a scammer is going to get absolutely wrecked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.