Not necessarily.

I'm not advocating more spam, just saying if there was more we might get more serious about solving the problem (in the BWF story, people are advocating more broken windows).

The fact that we're not as affected as we could be doesn't make the job of spammers any less shameful (in the BWF story, the boy is hailed as a hero).

And I didn't say it would be good for the economy (unlike in the BWF story). I said we might be better off, I didn't say in what way(s). I can tell I'd be happier with life knowing spammers don't get rich spewing shit anymore.

If you implied I implied any of those things that's a bit insulting.

You said that we'd be better off if the problem became worse so that we'd be more motivated to solve it. How can that be read as other than advocating (in the short term) more spam? The point of the Broken Window parable is that even in the long term we do not end up better off, because the people who spent their time solving the spam problem could have put their energies into something else productive instead.

The improved sales figures at HP and Dell due to spam are representative of the broken window fallacy. Those numbers still look good on the GDP charts, even though they're essentially destructive.

No. He implied that if the boy broke enough windows the town will put up CCTV cameras and no windows will be broken further.

Still the same fallacy. We could put up the same CCTV cameras and get at least as good an outcome if the problem weren't as bad to begin with.

Hmmm... maybe - but I don't think so.

Firstly, the cost to each player is extremely small - so their incentive to "do something about it" is small. If a person receives only one email a year nothing will be done.

But if he receives his life's spam in a year he will do something about it.

Also note that most countries will not change their laws for a "small" problem. But if a problem is perceived to be large enough the law will be changed.