On 16 Aug 2014, at 00:37, ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote: > This is a well-written, thought-provoking article, well worth reading albeit a bit long. > David, please consider forwarding to the AC list and www-tag. > > The solution it recommends, fee-for-service, will not solve all the Web's problems but is > certainly worth debating. Even charging a fraction of a cent for every email you send > would have a major impact on spam. Perversely, generating a potential stream of revenue (based on the number of emails sent by subscribers) creates an incentive for someone to (i) generate spurious email traffic on a user’s behalf, and (ii) “divert” the resulting revenue to their own ends. (By analogy: cloned cellphones have been used to dial premium-rate numbers; the result is that the legitimate subscriber gets billed for the attacker’s access to the premium-rate number. This is good for the attacker if the attacker is the one who owns the premium-rate number…). I’m not saying Ashok is wrong, by the way, but apparently rational mechanisms can have unexpected outcomes. Best wishes, Robin > > I wish, though, the article had explored further the parallels with another ad-supported > industry: network TV. > > All the best, > Ashok > > On 8/15/2014 4:00 PM, David Singer wrote: >> …that people might find interesting. Of some relevance to DNT, of course. >> >> <http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/08/advertising-is-the-internets-original-sin/376041/2/> >> >> David Singer >> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc. >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 18 August 2014 11:50:29 UTC