3 ms·
I think it would do the opposite. The regular user posts 5 times per day, but the spammer has bought access to 65536 IP addresses and posts once from each, boos
by direwolf20 9mo ago
I think it would do the opposite. The regular user posts 5 times per day, but the spammer has bought access to 65536 IP addresses and posts once from each, boosting his posts 5x. And the town in South America with one CGNAT IP address to go around gets censored.
- otterdude 9mo agoThe 65K IP addresses cost 1.638M dollars, thats alot more than they would spend doing the exact same thing today. The idea is to accept bad actors but make it more expensive and also you can directly identify cliques by IP ect.
- direwolf20 9mo agoYou don't need to own them. You just need to rent the rights to send a spam message on a particular service using a proxy.
- otterdude 9mo agoIf you're sharing the IP that harms the credibility in the first place for an established system.
- smw 9mo agoYeah, but he's got a botnet of residential ips that he didn't pay for.
- otterdude 9mo agoYou're sharing the IP! That will severely harm the credibility of the poster for popular system at scale
- megolodan 9mo agoYou're not wrong that its easy to get relatively obscure IP addresses cheaply, however youll be sharing them with lots of folks potentially damaging reputation. At scale, say P2P-book becomes the largest social networking site, all bad actors will be focused on using it and they will likely be sharing IP's, comingiling their reputation. Sharing account ID's across IP would also be penalized. People who post consistently from the same IP / MAC would be boosted, those are real people. Of course before one is the biggest game in town you will simply not be on the radar, so using a captcha as well will be useful to prevent bots.