4 ms·

It would be useful, in so many ways, when there would be a way to prove that you are a unique human being without revealing too much of your identity. An interm

It would be useful, in so many ways, when there would be a way to prove that you are a unique human being without revealing too much of your identity. An intermediary NGO could provide that, if they in turn integrate with national identity registrations (many countries have these for tax, healthcare and social security registrations. As a policy, it should only provide proof of existence, nationality and “over 18” as data points. It can help to solve problems with bots, account theft, as well as accountability for hate speech/intimidation (the system should allow law enforcement to reveal identities over which they have jurisdiction).

ceeplusplus 4y ago
Then you would just get something like this [1]. As long as the rewards from spam outweigh the cost of spam, people will try to spam. What I don't understand is that Google solved spam detection 10 years ago, yet Twitter somehow can't solve it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-W0CBOGnnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-W0CBOGnnI
- jonathanstrange 4y ago
  I really wouldn't say that Google has solved spam detection. If you search for any kind of purchasable consumer product, the first page of results mostly contains spam blog entries of very low quality. Most of them are "10 best X" or, even more useless, "50 best X" lists with the advertised product(s) on top of the list. Some of them are clearly auto-generated and still often make it to the top 20 results. That's why many people including me nowadays search for "search term +reddit" when looking for product information. If you include Youtube under the label Google (i.e., Alphabet), it's even worse, there is tons of spam and deliberate political misinformation in the comment sections, although arguably most of these are probably generated by humans. For example, any TV report about Ukraine on Youtube is spammed with pro-Russian troll posts from St. Petersburg and likely hired posters from India. There is also lots of commercial spam in comments. So no, I don't think they've solved the problem. They're using captchas against bots and that's about it.
  - mike_hearn 4y ago
    Web spam is a separate problem to bot-driven spam posting on social media, despite using the same word. Spam is also not the same thing as posts you disagree with. I went to YouTube, searched for [ukraine war report] and picked the first result that came from TV news to try and check your claim [1]. The top comments are all clearly human, some are claiming to be Ukrainians, and are all anti-Russian. Regardless, your post is a good illustration of the problems with academic bot research. Although researchers claim to be researching spam bots, their methodologies are often defining any post they don't agree with politically as "spam" or from "bots". [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx-6Y00MrFo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx-6Y00MrFo
    - jonathanstrange 4y ago
      No, when I use the word "spam" I do not mean "posts I disagree with", I was referring to posts that are deliberately intended to misinform, are repetitive, or are intended to lure people somewhere else, and are posted by people who are paid to do that or by bots. It is false to assume that these type of posts and associated accounts cannot be detected or do not exist. I agree that spam by bots differs from spam by humans. However, they need to be dealt with in union because they usually go hand in hand, i.e., bot nets often support and amplify select human posts and the human origins of these networks can be mapped and traced back to particular actors and sources. I doubt anybody would disagree with your general claim that there can be methodological problems with detecting any kind of spam, whether by bots or by humans. Of course, that's difficult, especially for researchers with only limited or no access to sensitive account information such as creation date, post history, IP numbers. If it was easy, then the spam problem would have been solved already, but I have argued that Google hasn't solved it.
      - mike_hearn 4y ago
        "I was referring to posts that are deliberately intended to misinform" But how do you know they're misinformed/intending to misinform, unless you disagree with the post?

ceeplusplus 4y ago

Then you would just get something like this [1]. As long as the rewards from spam outweigh the cost of spam, people will try to spam. What I don't understand is that Google solved spam detection 10 years ago, yet Twitter somehow can't solve it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-W0CBOGnnI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-W0CBOGnnI

jonathanstrange 4y ago
I really wouldn't say that Google has solved spam detection. If you search for any kind of purchasable consumer product, the first page of results mostly contains spam blog entries of very low quality. Most of them are "10 best X" or, even more useless, "50 best X" lists with the advertised product(s) on top of the list. Some of them are clearly auto-generated and still often make it to the top 20 results. That's why many people including me nowadays search for "search term +reddit" when looking for product information. If you include Youtube under the label Google (i.e., Alphabet), it's even worse, there is tons of spam and deliberate political misinformation in the comment sections, although arguably most of these are probably generated by humans. For example, any TV report about Ukraine on Youtube is spammed with pro-Russian troll posts from St. Petersburg and likely hired posters from India. There is also lots of commercial spam in comments. So no, I don't think they've solved the problem. They're using captchas against bots and that's about it.
- mike_hearn 4y ago
  Web spam is a separate problem to bot-driven spam posting on social media, despite using the same word. Spam is also not the same thing as posts you disagree with. I went to YouTube, searched for [ukraine war report] and picked the first result that came from TV news to try and check your claim [1]. The top comments are all clearly human, some are claiming to be Ukrainians, and are all anti-Russian. Regardless, your post is a good illustration of the problems with academic bot research. Although researchers claim to be researching spam bots, their methodologies are often defining any post they don't agree with politically as "spam" or from "bots". [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx-6Y00MrFo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx-6Y00MrFo
  - jonathanstrange 4y ago
    No, when I use the word "spam" I do not mean "posts I disagree with", I was referring to posts that are deliberately intended to misinform, are repetitive, or are intended to lure people somewhere else, and are posted by people who are paid to do that or by bots. It is false to assume that these type of posts and associated accounts cannot be detected or do not exist. I agree that spam by bots differs from spam by humans. However, they need to be dealt with in union because they usually go hand in hand, i.e., bot nets often support and amplify select human posts and the human origins of these networks can be mapped and traced back to particular actors and sources. I doubt anybody would disagree with your general claim that there can be methodological problems with detecting any kind of spam, whether by bots or by humans. Of course, that's difficult, especially for researchers with only limited or no access to sensitive account information such as creation date, post history, IP numbers. If it was easy, then the spam problem would have been solved already, but I have argued that Google hasn't solved it.
    - mike_hearn 4y ago
      "I was referring to posts that are deliberately intended to misinform" But how do you know they're misinformed/intending to misinform, unless you disagree with the post?