Hacker News Reader

Comment by qppo | Hacker News Reader

Why first principles? Create a do-not-mail list. Make up the funding gap with taxes.

It always puzzles me why this is the oft suggested answer. Surely the sane default should be to already not receive unnecessary spam? In the digital world, the general consensus seems to agree with this sentiment, I wonder why the same doesn't apply for the real world. If anyone wants your ads, they can sign up for it, delivering it to anyone else should be punishable by law.

The financial structure is very different. Email service providers deal with the costs imposed by spam. They wish to be rid of it. The USPS derives much of their revenue from direct mail advertising. They depend on it.

This argument is not convincing, if the postal service can't be sustainable on its own without sending spam, surely the right answer would be to address the problem at the root. Think of the time and effort wasted nationwide in producing, delivering and then subsequently throwing away this amount of advertising. Surely it would collectively be cheaper to simply not produce most of it to begin with?

"If anyone wants your ads, they can sign up for it, delivering it to anyone else should be punishable by law."

Let's say I am a Gray Actor, Company X, who sells great products but I want to make money on digital signups. I add this unchecked box to my order form: "By checking this box, you agree to be contacted by our partners with promotions." - can checking this box apply promotions to the mail address you entered on my shipping form? - can I sell the rights to send you mail promotions after you check this box? - how long can I send you promotions? - how hard can I make it for you to "unsubscribe" (phone, written by mail, difficult to navigate website)? - you demand proof from a partner that you did indeed check this box after I send you a promotion. What do I need to supply? - the original subscriber has moved (without my knowledge) and I send generic ads in their name to the new tenant at the old address. Am I still in compliance?

Even if you presuppose "sign up for ads" is the only way to get spam, there are a lot of protections that are still missing.

There's no reasonable way to tell if something is solicited or not, mail is not duplex, and it's not on demand. Most mail I get that matters was not explicitly requested to begin with.

As well, most ads I get in the mail look like normal mail anyway, and I don't really want the government opening my mail to check if it's spam or not.

I'd much prefer a way to opt out of receiving advertisements wholesale on a per-address basis (not per-person, mind you). While you can "opt out" of receiving ads, it's borderline impossible without giving PID to advertisers!

I would like to see a fee for unsolicited bulk mail senders to help pay for the service, along with a "do not mail" list.

I would prefer that nobody subsidies the delivery of landfill to my mailbox.

It's the other way around: bulk mail is incredibly cheap to sort, route, and transport, and it's that which subsidizes your hand-addressed letters.

The USPS literally has a service "deliver this flyer to every residential mailbox in this ZIP". It's cheaper per-item than a letter, yes, but the margins on "stuff a bunch of identical objects into N boxes" are much higher than "figure out which of N boxes this 1 unique mailpiece goes to".

> I would like to see a fee for unsolicited bulk mail senders to help pay for the service,

This is how it currently works, the USPS gets money for delivering bulk mail.

I wonder how much we would need to subsidize. As it is the junk mail is adding that money into the system for us.

This seems like a valid idea to look further into.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com