January 09, 2003

Lessig, label-or-pay anti-spam, and "substantially reduce"

Further on Lessig's advocacy of a label-or-pay anti-spam proposal, I don't find the bet about "substantially reduce the level of spam" all that interesting.

Let's say that the "Label-Else-Spam-Stops-Immediately-Gimmick Law" kills 30% of the spam. This would be great. Phenomenal. A work of genius from simplicity.

Then what do we do about the remaining 70%?

Note, if it kills 30%, the fact that 30% is not 100%, isn't a reason to reject it. Anything helps.

I'm for it. Pragmatically, the labeling system seems more a legal-fiction way of having a de facto spam ban, rather than, in practice, an end in and of itself.

But we've still got a problem with spam, in what do we do NOW?

By Seth Finkelstein | posted in spam | on January 09, 2003 03:00 AM (Infothought permalink) | Followups

Seth Finkelstein's Infothought blog (Wikipedia, Google, censorware, and an inside view of net-politics) - Syndicate site (subscribe, RSS)

Subscribe with Bloglines      Subscribe in NewsGator Online  Google Reader or Homepage