Hacker News Reader

Comment by sheri | Hacker News Reader

I think this is really cool. The price point will definitely deter random spammers who just want to talk to Mark. But it is low enough for someone who wants to reach out to Mark to be feasible. If I had a brilliant idea I wanted Mark to know about, I'd be stoked. There is no guarantee that he will read it, but if someone paid 100$ to message him, he might be intrigued.

Most likely he has some folks to review those messages, and bring a (select) few to his attention.

View on HN

> If I had a brilliant idea I wanted Mark to know about, I'd be stoked.

(...)

> Zuck: People just submitted it.

> Zuck: I don't know why.

> Zuck: They "trust me"

> Zuck: Dumb fucks.

This really is a hilarious play when you take his reputation into account.

That quote is taken a bit out of context methinks.

As much as I might dislike or distrust the man, and might consider $100 worth the chance to send a one-off drunken insult, I can see that intended as self deprecating humour. I do it about myself all the time: "what sort of fool would trust the likes of me with that" said to the person who has just indeed trusted me with what-ever "that" is, for instance.

You want to pay Mark $100 to take your idea?

To listen to it. Comment too pedantic.

I don't think you know what pedantic means.

At one point if you tried to message Tom on MySpace it would take you in to a non-standard UX flow where it would try to nudge you in messaging their support people instead.

And knowing how clear Facebook tries to be (sarcasm) - they will surely let you know he might not be reading your $100 message or even hear about it, if that's the case.

I think some credits-based system (Quora?) based on quality of some kind of internet activity would be better. I agree on the use of scarcity to remove noise from clogged communication channels, but there are fairer ways to do scarcity.

$100 is nothing for me (and astronomically more of a nothing for Zuck) if there's a career benefit, but it's a substantial amount of money for most people in the world.

Yeah, ideally a system like this would scale in relation both to the desirability of the recipient and the wealth of the sender, though not completely for the latter - wealth should always be some form of advantage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com