435 sats \ 3 replies \ @joda 15 Feb freebie \ parent \ on: [draft] snip-0006: engagement-based zapping meta
Good point.
I also failed to bring up the vast wealth disparity. Many of us can easily drop hundreds or thousands of sats, but for some people that is a substantial investment. We certainly want to tax trolls and spam, but not at the expense of muting the voices of the poor.
I understand it would be "opt-in" (and I would), but at some point it might be converted to "opt-out" (default opted in). Or even mandatory with a minimum 1 Sat or something...
write
preview
26 sats \ 2 replies \ @kr 15 Feb
yup, don’t think there should be a high cost associated with these autozaps either.
just the idea that a troll has to pay money (however little) directly to the person they’re attacking might be enough to make them think twice.
reply
445 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 16 Feb
just the idea that a troll has to pay money (however little) directly to the person they’re attacking might be enough to make them think twice.
Sounds like what you want is to apply what we planned for DMs to comments as well: custom fees for replies. For DMs, I envisioned that it should be possible to set different fees per user (give some users a discount for DMing you) so if you feel like someone is trolling you, you could punish them with higher fees if they are replying to you.
Details and UX might be tricky though.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @kr 16 Feb
similar, though i was imagining the fee would be determined by the commenter rather than the OP.
that means the fees can just be inherited from each commenter’s default zap settings rather than introducing a new UX element.
reply