Well, what about the system I mentioned? Just have the up and down arrows be little bot detection boxes. My understanding is that all those “I am not a robot” check boxes detect mouse speed, precise click locations, hesitation times, etc. and do a quick calculation on the odds that your clicking behavior was human or robot. I’m probably underestimating what it takes to implement that but on the user side it’s just a click just like any other click.
I don’t know. Wouldn’t their motivation be to know exactly how many bots there are (so they could disclose the number if/when asked) but continue to let them proliferate?
They even blatantly tested out their AI on users a few years ago. They blasted it all over the homepage. “Come see if you can pick out the bot comment from the real comments!” Users would read through posts/comments and try to identify the fakes. You competed to see how good you were at it. You tried to beat the average user’s score. It was blatat t bot training and we all just ate it up because it presented as a fun little challenge.
Well that’s something at least. Individual instances blocking each other (working against other problematic instances) is at least better than the Reddit admins turning a blind eye because they have a fleet of their own bots out there behaving as bad as any others.
That’s disappointing. Screening new accounts only forces spammers to create the accounts with a human touch and then turn it over to their AI. What about a system to prevent bots from up/downvoting? Something like websites use to detect bots. Just by clicking in the little box that says “I am not a robot” the website can tell you’re not a bot. What if every single up and down arrow was formulated like that little box?
I mean, you are correct, it was not two fish. But is 64 fish some sort of good sample size?
Follow up question: does this type of thing accumulate in small fish and then concentrate in larger and larger fish?