undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTerr_2mo ago0 comments

I'd rather have a system where there's a small investment cost to making an account, but you could always make another.

Imagine A system where there's a vending machine outside City Hall, you spend $X on a charity for choice, and you get a one-time, anonymous token. You can "spend" it with a forum to indicate "this is probably a person or close enough to it."

Misuse of the system could be curbed by making it so that the status of a token cannot be tested non-destructively.

0 comments

gzread2mo ago

Something Awful made you pay $10 for an account. Directly to the forum. If you got banned you could pay another $10 to try again. Somehow this didn't lead to that bad incentives even though you'd think it would.

pardon_me2mo ago

Ban reason and the moderator name were public on Something Awful, which allowed the community to respond (actively or passively), and for more senior moderators/admin to take public action against rogue moderators. The transparent audit trail countered the incentive to ban somewhat, but a lot of people also treating getting banned as a game.

koolala2mo ago

Did they ban for this rule often?

"Am I making a post which is either funny, informative, or interesting on any level?

I hate how Reddit mods ban any post they don't like as being 'low effort / shit / spam' when it is completely vague.

AlexeyBelov2mo ago

It's because you can't reasonably put everything in the rules. They would be thousands of words and still have holes and special carve-outs, _and_ users will still argue about rules application if you say your rules cover everything.

It's more reasonable to have "a spirit of the law", so to speak.

ranger_danger2mo ago

Lemmy is even worse on the moderation front, even with public logs: https://a.imagem.app/G3R9xb.png

2 more replies

tlonny2mo ago

I’d love something like this implemented for email.

Sending an unsolicited email to a random person X requires you to pay a small toll (something like 50p).

Subsequent emails can then be sent for free - however person X can “revoke” your access any time necessitating a further toll payment.

You would of course be able to pre-authorise friends/family/transactional emails from various services that you’ve signed up for.

This would nuke spam economics and be minimally disruptive for other use cases of email IMO…

jimmydorry2mo ago

>transactional emails from various services that you’ve signed up for

These are one of the main culprits of unwanted emails... and a toll system would make them all the more valuable for the even worse actors to take advantage of.

JimDabell2mo ago

Do you think there is a price point that locks out spammers without locking out poor people?

bobthepanda2mo ago

probably not, the problem is that spammers/scammers are looking for whales, and if you are talking about draining the retirement accounts of an American who's been saving all their life, that's quite a big payout in the six or seven figures.

PaulHoule2mo ago

In the case of the 415 scams I used to ask “who would expect $20M to fall out of the sky?” The obvious answer is “someone who already had $20M fall out of the sky”

1 more reply

Angostura2mo ago

When Digg restarted, you had to pay $5 to create an accoun

deanc2mo ago

What does it matter? If there is incentive enough people will just pay and let their bot act on their behalf.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse