Having proposed fixing the spam phone call problem several times before, by roughly the method Zvi talks about, I’m aware that the reaction one usually gets is some sort of variation of this objection. I have to wonder, do the people objecting like spam phone calls?
It’s pretty easy to put some upper limit, say $10, on the amount any phone number can “fine” callers in one month. Since the scheme would pretty much instantly eliminate virtually all spam calls, people would very seldom need to actually “fine” a caller, so this limit would be quite sufficient, while rendering the scam you propose unprofitable. Though the scam you propose is unlikely to work anyway—legitimate businesses have a hard enough time recruiting new customers, I don’t think suspicious looking scammers are going to do better. Remember, they won’t be able to use spam calls to promote their scam!
I don’t actually get many spam calls, maybe once a month.
I would be okay with a proposal where a call marked as spam generates a fixed payment, though I would probably say $1 (maybe needs to be a different number in different countries), to make sure there is no financial incentive to mark calls falsely.
Remember, they won’t be able to use spam calls to promote their scam!
That depends on whether a similar rule also applies to spam SMS.
Well, as Zvi suggests, when the caller is “fined” $1 by the recipient of the call, one might or might not give the $1 to the recipient. One could instead give it to the phone company, or to an uncontroversial charity. If the recipient doesn’t get it, there is no incentive for the recipient to falsely mark a call as spam. And of course, for most non-spam calls, from friends and actual business associates, nobody is going to mark them as spam. (I suppose they might do so accidentally, which could be embarassing, but a good UI would make this unlikely.)
And of course one would use the same scheme for SMS.
Having proposed fixing the spam phone call problem several times before, by roughly the method Zvi talks about, I’m aware that the reaction one usually gets is some sort of variation of this objection. I have to wonder, do the people objecting like spam phone calls?
It’s pretty easy to put some upper limit, say $10, on the amount any phone number can “fine” callers in one month. Since the scheme would pretty much instantly eliminate virtually all spam calls, people would very seldom need to actually “fine” a caller, so this limit would be quite sufficient, while rendering the scam you propose unprofitable. Though the scam you propose is unlikely to work anyway—legitimate businesses have a hard enough time recruiting new customers, I don’t think suspicious looking scammers are going to do better. Remember, they won’t be able to use spam calls to promote their scam!
I don’t actually get many spam calls, maybe once a month.
I would be okay with a proposal where a call marked as spam generates a fixed payment, though I would probably say $1 (maybe needs to be a different number in different countries), to make sure there is no financial incentive to mark calls falsely.
That depends on whether a similar rule also applies to spam SMS.
Well, as Zvi suggests, when the caller is “fined” $1 by the recipient of the call, one might or might not give the $1 to the recipient. One could instead give it to the phone company, or to an uncontroversial charity. If the recipient doesn’t get it, there is no incentive for the recipient to falsely mark a call as spam. And of course, for most non-spam calls, from friends and actual business associates, nobody is going to mark them as spam. (I suppose they might do so accidentally, which could be embarassing, but a good UI would make this unlikely.)
And of course one would use the same scheme for SMS.