[jjeaff]

There is a common refrain in charitable organizations that are focused on helping the poor:

"Sometimes you have to feed the greedy to get to the truly needy."

In other words, the greedy will always take advantage, but that doesn't diminish the help you give to the needy. There is simply no way to totally filter for the greedy.

This doesn't really apply directly to your situation, but at least for every greedy company that benefits from free products like yours, there are a lot of jobs created and benefit to society as a whole when these companies create useful products.

[cortesoft]

I do find this aspect of human morality interesting... people get REALLY upset at freeloaders, to a degree that is not proportionate to the cost they add. We choose to spend a ton of resources to prevent freeloading, even when the amount we spend to stop them is more than we actually lose to the freeloaders.

I guess it kinda makes sense as social creatures, but it can be frustrating at times when you are trying to help people.

[petschge]

> We choose to spend a ton of resources to prevent freeloading, even when the amount we spend to stop them is more than we actually lose to the freeloaders.

Is it also more than what we would lose to freeloaders if we did nothing against them? If yes, then it's indeed not rational. But if no, then it's just indicative that what we are doing is working.

[cortesoft]

Yeah, that is part of why I said it was interesting… it is hard to figure out how important that behavior is for social stability.

[Aeolun]

I imagine if we stopped doing those things the number of freeloaders would increase.

So the net benefit is negative now, but it’s still better than the cost of not having the measures at all.

Also, yeah, it shouldn’t be easy to freeload. Make them work for it!

[sgc]

Your comment made me chuckle because it started "I imagine" and then reached a "so" as a "therefore".

Virtually every time you integrate anti-freeloading measures, everyone pays the price to catch a relatively small minority of people abusing the system. It does not at all follow without study that the suffering these measures cause are better than the alternative of allowing some level of growth in the abuse of the system to make everyone else's lives easier.

Every organization should do its own studies and reach conclusions based on what actually happens in its domain and location of operation. Anything else is likely harming people and more drum beating than solid work.

[AbrahamParangi]

The null hypothesis is that parasite load will increase until the organism can no longer bear it. Freeloading will increase to the point of institutional collapse. Both people and systems need immune systems to survive.

[cortesoft]

Wouldn't the null hypothesis be that nothing will happen if you allow free loaders, and the hypothesis be that freeloading will increase?

[Aeolun]

> Anything else is likely harming people and more drum beating than solid work.

I don’t necessarily disagree. But I think people are happier while being harmed by the measures than by the freeloaders.