you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 3 days ago (1 child)

I think you're jumping the gun a bit. They're just saying that requiring a phone number added a barrier against spammers and they want to be sure this change doesn't open the flood gates.

From the article:

"We gotta figure out some way to induce a cost for signing up without a phone number”, Kret said.

It’s unclear whether this means that registration without a phone number will become a paid feature.

However, “cost” does not necessarily mean a monetary fee; it could also refer to another barrier designed to prevent abuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    Even if it was a card, privacy.com for the win as it allows for any address and name to be used with their debit cards!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    For the low, low price of the transaction fee and all data about the transaction!

    Is there a system in the US that doesn’t need an overhaul at this point?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments