Live data from Hacker News

Want to chat with inaccessible people? Pay them, not Facebook

gramicon.com

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: Want to chat with inaccessible people? Pay them, not Facebook

#11
post #8

I don't know who your target advertisor or target advertisee is But, if I were an advertiser, I'd worry that people willing to spend time looking at ad messages for money don't have a lot of disposable income... and thus they are exactly the type of people I don't care about advertising to.

But that solves the users' problem. No advertiser will ever send them spams or any promotional message.

I do see value in this for busy people. Who want to receive message by urgency. So yeah, if it's urgent then only contact me like use case certainly exists.

I actually liked the concept of pay to send message. Want to contact a star no problem. Pay the highest or set number of credits and you are in.

Re: Want to chat with inaccessible people? Pay them, not Facebook

#12
post #4

While I can see this being of use to a certain type of person, the twitter-only login is a pretty big limitation. Please stop doing that.

I'd be curious what rationale was behind this design decision. (ie was it as simple as expediency?)

Re: Want to chat with inaccessible people? Pay them, not Facebook

#13
post #9

A great opportunity for an entrepreneur to take these emails and direct them to the spam folder.

It says that a read message demands a reply, and a replied to message can be rated upon by the receiver.

There was a service years back that did something similar via the phone -- you could register as an expert of something and people would call and pay them for time with you. It is a good idea, fundamentally, though voice was a horrendous medium for it.

Re: Want to chat with inaccessible people? Pay them, not Facebook

#16
Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses ( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (x) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (x) Sending email should be free (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Re: Want to chat with inaccessible people? Pay them, not Facebook

#17
Reminds me very much of a Seth Roberts article earlier this year which actually references a PG article:

>Here’s what I want: A price per email. A service that charges people for each email they send me (e.g., $1/email). I get most of the price, the company providing the service gets a small percentage (1%?).

Even the comments seem like they're describing the exact features here:

>A great feature would be allowing people to pay more and being able to see that in the inbox. The $40,000 email gets answered first! Seth: Yes, rank them in your inbox by how much was paid. More paid, closer to the top.

http://blog.sethroberts.net/2012/03/27/the-future-of-email-m...

Re: Want to chat with inaccessible people? Pay them, not Facebook

#18
post #9

A great opportunity for an entrepreneur to take these emails and direct them to the spam folder.

It says that a read message demands a reply, and a replied to message can be rated upon by the receiver. There was a service years back that did something similar via the phone -- you could register as an expert of something and people would call and pay them for time with you. It is a good idea, fundamentally, though voice was a horrendous medium for it.

The company you are thinking of is keen.com. It degenerated into a service for getting psychic readings: http://www.keen.com

Re: Want to chat with inaccessible people? Pay them, not Facebook

#20
post #11
post #8

I don't know who your target advertisor or target advertisee is But, if I were an advertiser, I'd worry that people willing to spend time looking at ad messages for money don't have a lot of disposable income... and thus they are exactly the type of people I don't care about advertising to.

But that solves the users' problem. No advertiser will ever send them spams or any promotional message. I do see value in this for busy people. Who want to receive message by urgency. So yeah, if it's urgent then only contact me like use case certainly exists. I actually liked the concept of pay to send message. Want to contact a star no problem. Pay the highest or set number of credits and you are in.

You are right that "pay to send" solves the spam problem. But gmail filters spam so well that this is already a solved problem.

Additionally, the sidebar ads in google or facebook are auctioned off to the highest bidder. So users are already receiving improved targeting based on pay-to-send. The only problem I see this solving for users, is that they collect the money instead of facebook or google.

That is very little money on a per-user basis. So it's not solving a meaningful problem.

I agree that there is huge potential in "pay-to-send." But this marketing appears to be off-the-mark.

Post reply on HN