its deployer. Subject: Re: game theoretic analysis of junk mail Bryce wrote:
If I send a message to cpunks, and it is destined to reach 1000 mailboxes, do I have to include USD 100.00 with my message, which will be split by the majordomo into 1000 10-cent pieces? Yikes! And then I have to hope that all of the cypherpunks return my deposit. Sounds like a bad bet.
All discussions of eca$h charges for email seem to refer to a figure of $ .10 as a reasonable sum. I suspect that this is due to people subconsciously equating email with snail mail. I think that email, however, is a creature of its own design, and its essence lies somewhere between snail mail and conversation. Think about this: What if, everytime you spoke to someone during the day, you had to pay a dime? How would this change the interpersonal rapport that goes on daily between friends, acquaintances, and strangers? What if you are a polite person, who thanks others regularly? And it costs you a dime every time you do so? What if people rarely reply, "You're welcome." and it ends up costing you an arm and a leg to be polite? This is just a simple conversational example, to illustrate that a small cost can have major ramifications when applied to various situations. The Internet and the Web indeed have the potential to bring global change in the arenas of knowledge and communications, but the question is, will it do so in a manner that promotes equality, or in a manner that promotes elitism and increased class-structures? The concept of limiting UCE/Spam through use of an email surcharge may be viable, but then one has to deal with issues surrounding those who have a need to communicate and few funds to devote towards doing so. For example, people with disabilities who have legitimate needs to receive support and information via support forums. The minute that $$$ enter the picture, then a class-system begins to develop, and all sorts of individual, corporate and government entities come out of the woodwork to level the playing field, or to build many different levels on the playing field. The Internet's future may well parallel the development of the public school system, in some ways. Public education was indeed something which raised the level of all, but private schools made certain that those who had the edge kept it. My view is that the nadir point in any new direction that society takes comes fairly early after its inception. Thus the near future is the time when it will be decided which direction the Net and the Web will move, and in what areas its potential will be developed. Those who shape the Internet and the Web in the next year or so will have a vast effect on the future. TruthMonger