(no subject)

Date: 2012-08-28 05:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nancylebov.livejournal.com
I assume that the cost estimate is very low. What about all the missed communication because of filters, email that gets ignored because it has a vague subject line, etc.? If it weren't for spammers, we'd have email directories.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-08-28 07:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marlowe1.livejournal.com
So Spammers only make about 1% of the money that goes into the spam? Is that the figure?

Of course, looking at it another way, they foster a $20B/year industry.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-08-28 07:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] theweaselking.livejournal.com
More "spammers inflict $20B/yr damage on others to make their $200M income"

Of course, looking at it another way, they foster a $20B/year industry.

In the same sense that BP fosters a massive oil-spill-cleanup industry, sure.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-08-28 08:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ianhess.livejournal.com
A $20b/year drag on the economy?

(no subject)

Date: 2012-08-28 09:45 pm (UTC)
kjn: (KJN)
From: [personal profile] kjn
Finally a sector that's a bigger drag on the economy, at least relatively speaking, than the military.

(no subject)

Date: 2012-08-28 10:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lederhosen.livejournal.com
Note: the original paper (http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.26.3.87) indicates that the $20B/yr figure is only for American firms and consumers. Since the revenue figure of $200M is worldwide, the externalities are actually worse than the 100-1 ratio noted.

The Atlantic's coverage seems to have suffered from the common journalists' disease of assuming US total = world total.
Edited Date: 2012-08-28 10:15 pm (UTC)

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Mar. 31st, 2026 04:53 pm