FWIW, when potentially live saving content gets flagged on HN, effectively censoring it, I can't help but think there's a concerted effort by some actors (terrorist organizations, 3-letter agencies, foreign countries) to suppress information.
It's a big reason I avoid HN. I can imagine censoring free-speech being HN's downfall.
You're being a bit gratuitously negative, which is against HN rules, considering the magnitude of the potential impact of this work. Ivermectin won the Nobel Prize.
"First-in-the-World Ivermectin, Mebendazole and Fenbendazole Protocol in Cancer has been peer-reviewed and published on Sep.19, 2024!"
> That assumes the vendor runs a buy-back scheme. That would cost
What would it cost? The vendor runs software that sells tickets. The same software can buy tickets back, invalidate the ticket IDs, and issue new tickets with new IDs. This feature can be part of the software at no additional cost.
Not running a buy-back scheme possible costs more to customers because of today's scalpers.
> How do you distinguish between someone buying tickets as a gift and someone who sold them on in a manner you did not detect?
As the venue/band, you don't need to. Sell to anyone.
As the customer, when you're buying from a scalper you know you're buying at a higher price than the advertised price.
> what if the group of friends changes - who pays the admin fees?
I don't see what admin fees must exist for this. Software manages anything. Printing a new ticket is cheap.
> Many scalpers are rather experienced and organised.
So is law enforcement. Scalpers can't hide the fact that they're selling.
You don't permit ticket transfers. Instead you sell tickets back to the venue for the price they were bought. Your tennis buddies would better be ready to buy the ticket from the venue 1 second after you sold it back to the venue, else someone else might get it.
Use quadratic post fees. The larger the number of people who try to view a post, the larger the fee becomes or the post stops being viewable.
So the fee isn't a one-time fee, but an "open" fee that keeps increasing.
Another mechanism is to require a fee to view. If after viewing the content the user deems the content isn't valuable, they flag it in some way or they don't bookmark it, and this indicates the poster should pay the display fee.
This is easy to notice. You can't go around saying "I've got two front row" when the mere act of saying it gets you noticed. You can't post online you're selling tickets because it gets you noticed.
Only the venue/band sells. Only the venue/band buys back tickets, and they're required to buy them back at the price they were sold. Full refund of ticket price and bond.
If noticing scalpers is easy, the bond doesn't need to be silly high. Catch a scalper and you get 50% of their bond.
If you return the ticket to the venue/band, you get your money back, get the bond back, and you're not a scalper.
Charging the ticket buyer the price of the bond doesn't only harm the fans that want to see the show. It also harms the band that won't have fans come see the show. It's an incentive for the band to buy back unused tickets. Bands currently don't do that.
Fans demanding ticket buy backs puts pressure on bands to put an end to scalping. It's fans who pay the entire cost of scalping now, not bands.
An option I'd like to see implemented is to make the customer put down a bond. Besides charging the customer for the ticket, also charge them another higher amount that gets refunded x days after the concert. If the customer is found to be a scalper don't return the bond.
Scalpers can't pay high bond amounts at scale combined with the risk of not having the bond returned.
Have ad publishers pay users, instead of pay ad companies.
Instead of make an ad that already consumes the visitor's attention to also consume their cpu, and this to enrich the ad-tech company, consider making a website pay the visitor for having their attention consumed by the ad instead of pay the ad-tech company.
This would be open to abuse by visitors, where visitors reload a page over and over to get paid. To prevent this type of abuse, require visitors to submit money as collateral to the website. Users pay $x per month to be part of this "ad network". If users view and get paid for more pages than their submitted collateral, they keep the money the ad paid them but they don't get their collateral back. In a way this forces users to pick which pages to visit.
> well, the comparison is quite far off the track:
Might not be that far off the track.
A post on X says "US Military Intelligence leaders (MJ-12) didn't like this idea because it would antagonize the Extra Terrestrial Biological Entities who inhabited to the dark side of the moon."
You laughing your ass off triggers alarms.