Your post advocates a
( ) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to "fixing" advertising. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't
work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may
have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law
(X) Advertisers will not stand for it
(X) The advertising industry will not go away anytime soon
(X) Unintrusive, legitimate advertising would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(X) It won't reach critical mass
( ) It will make things better for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Google will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from advertisers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many existing sites cannot afford to lose existing deals
(X) Users won't pay for it
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of a centrally controlling authority
( ) People who will ignore it
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of advertising
(X) Huge existing software investment in advertising
(X) All the other sites that will still have advertising
(X) Extreme profitability of regular advertising
(X) Trustworthiness of provider
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of webmasters
(X) Dishonesty on the part of webmasters themselves
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
(X) Paying for stuff sucks
( ) Not paying for stuff sucks
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with existing business models
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(X) I don't want a third-party tracking my site visits
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
All that said, my biggest concerns would be that it's a huge chicken-and-egg problem, plus the difficulty of getting users to pay for content they're used to getting for free.
Oh, and you come across sounding like a real asshole.
I make a point not to spend time around the pessimistic downer crowd, and it ticks me off when someone shoots down an idea offhandedly. I sincerely hope HN does not move in this direction.
Did you miss my post where I said it was a bad attempt at humor? Shame on you for trying to make me personally feel bad.
Shame on you for thinking that disparaging people is valid revenge for people who merely poke fun at ideas. Talk about making it personal.
There are a number of ways that you could have phrased your response that would have stimulated real discussion instead of "har har lolz anti-spam newbz"
I don't even have to look at this new scheme to know it won't work. It won't work because it relies on a critical mass, and until it gets that critical mass sites won't switch, and until they do users won't sign up, so there's no critical mass .. your classic chicken and egg problem. No-one is going to pay unless everyone else has to pay. There is nothing to force everyone to move at once. See: history of "penny stamp" email anti-spam ideas.
The form style helps ram these notions home; it's a welcome reality check in situations like these.
(updated to stay on topic)