All of spencerb's Comments + Replies

Honoring Petrov Day on LessWrong, in 2020

My company "evaluates" phishing propensity by sending employees emails directing them to "honeypots" which are in the corporate domain and signed by the corporate ssl certificates. Unsurprisingly, many employees trust ssl and enter their credentials. My takeaway was not that people are bad at security, but that they will tend to trust the system if the stakes don't appear too high.

8philh7moMy partner says that as a kid, their school did something similar as part of "don't talk to strangers" teaching. The "stranger" in question was someone the class been working with all day, introduced by their teacher.
Could we solve this email mess if we all moved to paid emails?

I agree that email is an attention-sucking mess, but I see the problem differently from jacobjacob. I would happily get all the emails from the rationality community; my problem is that email is dominated by marketing, mailing lists, etc.

I think that using earn.com is likely to exacerbate the problem of unrequested marketing emails. It is free to send messages, and the sender only pays upon receipt of a response. This is like selling advertising on a per-click-though basis rather than on a per-view basis, and if it took off I would expect spam to quickly d... (read more)

3Gurkenglas2ySpam dominating the platform is fine, because you are expected to sort by money attached, and read only until you stop being happy to take people's money. If your contacts do not value your responses more than corporations do, that actually sounds like a fine Schelling point for choosing between direct research participation and earning to donate. If you feel that a contact's question was intellectually stimulating, you can just send them back some or all of the fee to incentivize them sending you such.
Could we solve this email mess if we all moved to paid emails?

One reason to escew earn.com specifically is the use of bitcoin. Proof-of-work cryptocurrencies are a major waste of energy (0.2% of the global energy use currently) and should be avoided by rationalists.