EFF Email Debate: Should the Sender Pay?
GETV was present for the fancy & contentious EFF sponsored debate & fundraiser over the future of email. In the ring we have Danny O’Brien, EFF’s Activist Coordinator duking it out with Esther Dyson, internet luminary and editor of Release 1.0. This verbal smackdown is moderated by Mitch Kapor, EFF co-founder and well known supplier of the 80’s warez scene with its reddest meat, Lotus 1-2-3. We can’t reveal who walked away the winner, but Irina does get the scoop in her post-debate interviews with the players. Episode links: email: should the sender pay?, eff, mitch kapor, danny o’brien, esther dyson, soul of the internet, betsy, trish
on April 23rd, 2006 at 4:52 am
[…] of email. No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> […]
on December 29th, 2008 at 5:18 am
I think that this was an interesting debate.
on March 7th, 2009 at 3:17 am
To prejudge this approach before it can play out in the market — as in the DearAOL campaign letter — is a tactic more befitting the reactionary RIAA than the progressive EFF.
Without some novel and effective approaches, spam is killing email. Many alternatives — whitelist-only acceptance, star chamber blacklists, and often arbitrary content filters — can be far worse than a transparent, non-discriminatory delivery fee.
A spot in my inbox is not anyone else's entitlement, so a two-tiered Internet is *exactly* what I want: one cheap tier for small-volume mail from desired correspondents, and another costly tier for bulk and spam emailers.
I'd rather have my mailbox filled by the affluent than the effluent.