Yes, telling spam (spam blogs, copy-pasted versions of Stackoverflow, etc) from real organic content is easy for a human, so I can only assume it would be prett

Yes, telling spam (spam blogs, copy-pasted versions of Stackoverflow, etc) from real organic content is easy for a human, so I can only assume it would be pretty easy for a computer too. At least until this becomes a practice that spam site makers have to consider and adapt. For example, given 10 similar articles where one has a well-known domain but few links and the others are all cross-linked only among a known spam-net, then just show the well known page (stackoverflow) and not the useless copycats. It seems doable for a computer to also navigate the page like a human and try to negotiate various cookiewalls and similar. If a page requires jumping through hoops to enter, rank it poorly. There should be a single decline/reject if there is a button at all, and the content ranked should be the content shown after rejecting. If it shows two buttons "Accept" and "Options" then just don't index that page.