[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bulk postage fine (was Re: non-censorous spam control)
On Tue, Aug 05, 1997 at 10:28:02AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> >Kent Crispin <[email protected]> writes:
> >> In more general terms: A "free market" fundamentally grants more
> >> control to those with more money. Postage of whatever variety turns
> >> the medium over to those with more money. That would, in my opinion,
> >> fundamentally alter the character of email in a strongly negative
> >> direction.
>
> More to the point, if you're charging prices that don't reflect the
> true costs of the activities, it'll catch up with you after a while;
I am, of course, familiar with this line of reasoning :-).
However, it is arguably the case that the true cost of email *is*
being paid. The real problem is that email is unbelievably cheap, for
both recipient and sender -- a sender can send more mail than anyone
can read at a very low cost, and a recipient can easily receive more
mail than they can possibly read, again for a very low cost.
[...]
> The present situation is that the social dynamics and economics are such
> that Tacky People can make money by being rude to everyone without being
> interesting in return. While trying to charge money for communications
> may work, I'm inclined to doubt it; the more interesting currency to
> try to model is Reputation, which leads to more like an Ender's Game
> kind of net, or to semi-closed communities like the Well (is?was?).
Yes, virtual cryptographically closed communities. A concept whose
time has come, perhaps.
--
Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited",
[email protected] the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html