zlacker

> But the value of low quality communication is not zero: it is actively harmful, because it eats your time.

But a non-zero cost of communication can obviously also have negative effects. It's interesting to think about where the sweet spot would be. But it's probably very context specific. I'm okay with close people engaging in "low quality" communication with me. I'd love, on the other hand, if politicians would stop communicating via Twitter.

>>Bewelg+(OP)
The idea is that sustained and recurring communication would have a cost that quickly drops to zero. But establishing a new line of communication would have a slight cost, but which would quickly drop to zero.

A poorly thought out hypothetical, just to illustrate: Make a connection at a dinner party? Sure, technically it costs 10¢ make that initial text message/phone call, then the next 5 messages are 1¢ each, but thereafter all the messages are free. Existing relationships: free. New relationships, extremely cheap. Spamming at scale: more expensive.

I have no idea if that's a good idea or not, but I think that's an ok representation of the idea.

>>leland+I2
Haha yea, I almost didn't post my comment since the original submission is about contributors where a one time "introduction fee" would solve these problems.

I was specifically thinking about general communication. Comparing the quality of communication in physical letters (from a time when that was the only affordable way to communicate) to messages we send each other nowadays.