Social media platforms like Twitter and Reddit are increasingly infested with bots and fake accounts, leading to significant manipulation of public discourse. These bots don’t just annoy users—they skew visibility through vote manipulation. Fake accounts and automated scripts systematically downvote posts opposing certain viewpoints, distorting the content that surfaces and amplifying specific agendas.

Before coming to Lemmy, I was systematically downvoted by bots on Reddit for completely normal comments that were relatively neutral and not controversial​ at all. Seemed to be no pattern in it… One time I commented that my favorite game was WoW, down voted -15 for no apparent reason.

For example, a bot on Twitter using an API call to GPT-4o ran out of funding and started posting their prompts and system information publicly.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/chatgpt-bot-x-russian-campaign-meme/

Example shown here

Bots like these are probably in the tens or hundreds of thousands. They did a huge ban wave of bots on Reddit, and some major top level subreddits were quiet for days because of it. Unbelievable…

How do we even fix this issue or prevent it from affecting Lemmy??

  • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 days ago

    Easy way to get around that with “virtual” addresses: https://ipostal1.com/virtual-address.php

    Just pay $10 for every account that you want to create… you may as well just go with the solution of charging everyone $10 to create an account. At least that way the instance owner is getting supported and it would have the same effect.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Just pay $10 for every account that you want to create

      So, making identities expensive helps. It’d probably filter out some. But, look at the bot in OP’s image. The bot’s operator clearly paid for a blue checkmark. That’s (checks) $8/mo, so the operator paid at least $8, and it clearly wasn’t enough to deter them. In fact, they chose the blue checkmark because the additional credibility was worth it; X doesn’t mandate that they get one.

      And it also will deter humans. I don’t personally really care about the $10 because I like this environment, but creating that kind of up-front barrier is going to make a lot of people not try a system. And a lot of times financial transactions come with privacy issues, because a lot of governments get really twitchy about money-laundering via anonymous transactions.

      • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        Yep, exactly this. It might deter some small time bot creators, but it won’t stop larger operations and may even help them to seem more legitimate.

        If anything, my favorite idea comes from this xkcd:

        https://xkcd.com/810/

    • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Hm… I’m not sure if this is enough to defeat the strategy.

      It looks like even with that service, you have to sign up for Form 1583.

      Even if they’re willing in incur the cost, there’s a real paper trail pointing back to a real person or organization. In other words, the bot operator can be identified.

      As you note, this is yet another additional cost. So, you’d have say … $2-3 for the card + an address for the account. If you require every unique address to have no more than 1 account … that’s $13 per bot plus a paper trail to set everything up.

      That certainly wouldn’t stop every bot out there … but the chances of a large scale bot farms operating seem like they would be significantly deterred, no?

      • QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        That’s a good point. I didn’t know about the USPS Form 1583 for virtual mailboxes… Although that is a U.S. specific thing, so finding a similar service in a country that doesn’t care so much might be the way to go about that.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          15 days ago

          True, though presumably users in those places would be stuck with the “less trustworthy” instances (and ideally, would be able to get their local laws changed to make themselves more trust worthy).

          It’s definitely not perfectly moral… but little in the world is and maybe it’s sufficient pragmatic.