

Flattr going social. - drewonstuff
http://blog.flattr.net/2012/03/a-taste-of-things-to-come-from-exploring-to-curation/

======
jashmenn
This is very good because it is going to be very hard (read expensive) to
spam. As was discussed here earlier this week, using links for ranking
websites incites spammers to create intricate link farms and, in a sense, the
web is rotting from it.

Typical behavior-driven ranking features (impression vs. click-through, length
of time a user is on the site, number of times visited) can be simulated with
clever enough bots, relatively inexpensively.

On the other hand, flattr has is not only a record of websites viewed, but an
actual amount of money must change hands and is a powerful feature for the
social proof of a website.

Granted, maybe there is a sense in which this makes it easier for spammers
(just throw a bunch of money at it via flattr and you'll rank higher!) and
they'll undoubtedly have to deal with spam like everyone else. But all in all
I think this is a clever move and no one (in my knowledge) has tied social
cash so directly to ranking.

------
brackin
Seems to be slightly inspired by kickstarter. Been in the same office as
Flattr, has a lot of potential but I don't think they're going about fixing
tips in the correct way yet.

------
paulhauggis
Why would I use a service that charges 10%: <http://flattr.com/support/faq>

This rate is way over nearly every service out there, including Paypal.

Peter Sunde Kolmisoppi claims to be a socialist on the page here:
<http://flattr.com/team> . I guess the outrageous fee that they charge
shouldn't come as a surprise...this is what socialist governments do.

~~~
Zirro
Flattr is still a very new concept. Once they have more users I am sure it
would be possible to lower the percentage. I wouldn't mind throwing in some
extra money to cover the 10%, because this has the potential to change how
content on the Internet gets paid for.

~~~
ecaradec
What I find annoying is that it's the incoming money that is taxed : if you
give this money again it get taxed again, so this is actually 10%+9%+8.1%
etc... It would be cleaner if the tax apply to withdrawed money or injected
money or anything else not cumulative. Disclaimer : that's not my observation,
I read it, but this is something that really kill the idea for me

