How do i know that 'social media' accounts and posts... aren't mostly Bots? \ stacker news ~lightning

pull down to refresh

How do i know that 'social media' accounts and posts... aren't mostly Bots?

658 sats \ 37 comments \ @028559d218 13h lightning

Peruse Twitter, Facebook, Nostr, or even things like Youtube...

How do I know that the vast majority of posts and content aren't just bot-farms pushing some weird political or social agenda?

AI and its bot-equivalent are good enough to 'appear' real and persuasive, engaging and mostly authentic... so how do I tell the difference between what's real and what's not?

Take this post (Not by Elon, but 'retweeted' by Elon)

https://xcancel.com/cb_doge/status/1885647816464232618#m

And look at the comments: it's one big huge mess. It's short, value-less responses either supporting, or not, or just advertising some scam, rug-pull, or weird crypto-coin plus other agenda.

Is this what the internet was supposed to be about? Scams, social-engineering, manipulation, bots, and AI-generated filler? Because that's what 80% of Twitter looks like.

And it's about to get worse not better with increasingly-prevalent AI apps and tools...

HOW do we fix this?

Take Nostr. Go on it using your favorite 'browser' or app and just... scroll. And scroll. And scroll. And scroll.

How the fuck do I know that any of those posts (outside of a few well-known accounts) are actually real?

What's to keep bots from spinning up tens of thousands, even millions of just bullshit and nonsense on Nostr too? There's no cost to using Nostr... nothing to limit bandwidth or access, and absolutely nothing to restrict abuse with 'bot' posts other than... the relatively-limited use and knowledge of Nostr by the general public.

It's logical that once Nostr becomes better known and utilized... the whole thing will be swamped by bots and potentially misinformation and just weird agendas using the techniques of...

Endless AI spam and
Endless bot accounts, endless and low-quality pushing some weird agendas or just straight-up scams.

How do we prevent this?

I really liked Stacker News (especially before cowboy credits) because there was a cost to posting. A small fee to post that cannot be cheated or faked paid in Satoshis, smaller than any credit card can handle that's also more private and discreet which filters out -

Most of the bullshit and spam and
Low-effort copy-pasta and attention-simping

Each post in "Bitcoin" requires 100 sats so... a spammer trying to spam 100,000 posts (a very small number on Twitter) would require around 10 million sats. Or around 10k USD at today's exchange rate.

The vast majority of spammers aren't going to pay this and
To really spam social networks would require maybe 5-10x this much? So 50-100k USD for 500,000 to 1 million 'bot' posts - which we already see all over Twitter, Facebook, Youtube etc...
This is NOT outside the budget of a State Actor... but it would significantly reduce spam for a truly negligible cost for individuals who feel they have something important to say (100 sats - 10 cents).
And most of the spam by... Nigerian princes and pig-butcherers in Myanmar and social-media "influencers" (who are just bots) would be immediately priced-out and stop.
ONE post by a REAL user can be important and change the world. But 1,000,000 posts by spammers and bots and AI would be too cost-prohibitive and out-price most of the world's would-be Nigerian princes.

The 1000000th post saying "GM" on Nostr is, in my opinion, of basically zero value at present time. It is not unique and it requires zero effort or originality. And to the extent that people 'see it' and "GM" is easily replicated by bots...

How long until Nostr is taken over by Bots ALSO?
How many of the images today that appear on Nostr without any context or background are already AI or easily copy-pasta for AI?
And what in the world is going to stop Nostr from being, inevitably, a bot-infested ****hole?
The "algorithm'"? Wasn't Nostr not supposed to have 'an algorithm'? It was supposed to be censorship-resistant and free for all to use...

So how can something be censorship-resistant and retain its qualities, all the while having 'zero' cost to use or possibly abuse?

Bitcoin works because fees disincentive spam and result in a cost to use the Network. Even spam like NFTs and memecoins (get rich quick schemes) have a cost to embedding on the blockchain, and when there are no "buyers" of said spam the spammers stop.

Which we already see happening.

To the extent that Twitter is such a disaster in mitigating bots and AI, as is Facebook, even Youtube... how do we fix the internet? How do we 'validate' that information is TRUE and REAL, and that "real people" are who they say they are and that their posts and engagement isn't Bot-NonSense?

Maybe every website visited, every comment, every interaction, every account created, every 'link' every message sent (or initiated at least) needs to 'cost' a minuscule amount of sats or PoW for the prividelge...
It's like pay to post. But Pay to create. Pay to link. Pay to comment, Pay to Account create.

Because what is the alternative?

The internet without a "cost" to use, without friction to validate some authenticity, is a misinformation-bot-AI-infested manipulative non-real ****hole.

How do we make the Internet Better, and what are your thoughts?

view all related items

328 sats \ 5 replies \ @0xIlmari 12h

I don't think a "liveness" check is feasible in the long run. Projects that tried to invent a "Human ID" or "proof of humanity" all failed, demonstrating ways in which the system can be worked around or abused.

I don't think the real problem is that content is being created by bots. If you liked it, what difference does it make? The real issue is that it's too easy to take up your limited bandwidth with spam.

And what's the best way to combat spam? Introduce a cost. Proof of Work.

Pay to post should be the norm. It's the reason I ditched Reddit and only use SN. I wish posting and commenting here was more expensive.

E-mail should be extended in a way such that the recipient can request sats to receive the message (eCash is a great solution here with its bearer asset tokens). Other messaging platforms should have this option as well for PMs.

Phone calls? Operators should share the payment for a call with the recipient.

I leave more to your imagination.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 12h

Also, I think Nostr supports paid relays, so I imagine pay-to-publish is entirely possible and we might need to transition to such relays when spam becomes a problem.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @028559d218 OP 12h

"I don't think the real problem is that content is being created by bots. If you liked it, what difference does it make? The real issue is that it's too easy to take up your limited bandwidth with spam. And what's the best way to combat spam? Introduce a cost. Proof of Work."

100% Agree

"Pay to post should be the norm. It's the reason I ditched Reddit and only use SN. I wish posting and commenting here was more expensive. E-mail should be extended in a way such that the recipient can request sats to receive the message (eCash is a great solution here with its bearer asset tokens). Other messaging platforms should have this option as well for PMs."

100% Agree

Without PoW (which is the point of the article) the internet is a giant bot-show. Want to message me? Send a few sats. If I mark the email as 'valid' you get the sats back automatically.

Want to post? Pay a few sats. Bots won't do this.

Want to comment? Pay a few sats (again bots will rarely do this).

Create a new Twatter account? It will cost a few sats...

It just helps clean up the internet so much... While not requiring advertisers to collect everyone's data to such an extent... helping to preserve privacy and incentives in the long run.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @random_ 11h

Who's to say the bots will be subject to the same rules as humans? (how do you prove the post was paid for?)

And even if bots are subject to the same rules, they may still get preferential treatment by the algorithm. Or simply game the algorithm better than a human can.

There is no escape.

27 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 11h

The bots have to pay. A Nigerian Prince will need 100s of thousands... maybe millions of spam posts to find victims to scam.

And the % actually scammed by Nigerian Princes is incredibly small... meaning that Nigerian Prince scammers and spammers will need to pay lots of sats and I mean LOTS to continue spamming the internet.

Twatter has no pay-to-post anti-spam mechanisms and it is a disaster. Youtube too. Facebook also.

Reddit has 'moderation' which is different.

Only Stacker News really has the pay-to-post qualities derived from 'proof-of-work' and that alone makes it special IMO.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_ 9h

I'm not arguing whether the pay-to-post mechanism would work, I'm questioning how you prove a post was paid for?

Like, this comment could have been free for me to make because I have special privileges. How can you prove otherwise?

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @elvismercury 9h

If you could see me, you'd see a single tear running down my cheek that no one linked this.

62 sats \ 1 reply \ @random_ 12h

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Internet_theory

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @028559d218 OP 12h

It's no longer a theory in my opinion.

1 sat \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 12h

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @028559d218 OP 12h

I wish I could send you some Cowboy Credits <3 (already spent them all sorry tear)

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 12h

you can send sats. are instantly converted into CCs AND IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT seems that you still didn't get it how CCs works...

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 12h

"and is nothing wrong with that" Sorry, is that a statement or a question?

"there is nothing wrong with that" - statement

"is nothing wrong with that?" - This is a question

???

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 12h

a statement. yes is nothing wrong with using CC inside SN. In the end SN is pay to post and you pay with CCs

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 12m

I think as stackers we are starting to see the same trends.

0 sats \ 21 replies \ @k00b 13h

I really liked Stacker News (especially before cowboy credits) because there was a cost to posting.

Is there no longer a cost to posting now that there are cowboy credits? Each cowboy credit costs 1 sat to create and is only created when otherwise a value transfer wouldn't take place because of insufficient lightning setups, or because a stacker bought them because they don't want to bother with lightning. Do you imagine they work some other way?

100 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 12h

CCs are always converted almost instantly into posting value. You cannot stack them as many think. Those that think you can stack CCs is because they never post value on SN...

20 sats \ 19 replies \ @028559d218 OP 13h

In my opinion they dilute the use of PoW on the platform. I should be able to withdraw all the 'sats' I receive... and have those 'sats' be as valuable and universal as those I earn with my little Futurebit-Apollo-turned-Winter-heater.

Sats are derived from Proof-of-Work (which is the point of the article)... and Cowboy Credits are still a bit of a mystery to me honestly. When someone 'sends' sats and the sats cannot be received (for some reason) then the receiver gets cowboy credits instead. So SN has the 'original' sats that were sent... AND creates Cowboy Credits out of thin air for the receiver to get?

Except the receiver cannot withdraw them or use them otherwise they are for 'Stacker News' only? I believe I understand that correctly?

I understand the 'purpose' of Cowboy Credits (not be called a money transmitter) but in the process SN receives real sats and creates Cowboy Credits in the process and this isn't a great long-term solution.

108 sats \ 18 replies \ @k00b 12h

In my opinion they dilute the use of PoW on the platform. Sats are derived from Proof-of-Work (which is the point of the article)

CCs are derived from sats.

AND creates Cowboy Credits out of thin air for the receiver to get

They are created from sats. By the same logic the custodial sats you received before could be said to have been created out of thin air.

Except the receiver cannot withdraw them or use them otherwise they are for 'Stacker News' only?

When CCs are used they go into the rewards pool and territory revenue where 1 CC becomes 1 sat again.

It's maybe not your fault (as other people have exhibited this thinking too), but there's some double think here where somehow custodial bitcoin is "real" that you trust us to be honest about, yet you're certain we're doing something that "dilutes pow" with CCs.

We have no motive to dilute pow unless you think we introduced this kind of pow accidentally.

Cowboy Credits are still a bit of a mystery to me honestly this isn't a great long-term solution

The most you can make of a murky premise is a murky conclusion.

139 sats \ 1 reply \ @elvismercury 9h

The most you can make of a murky premise is a murky conclusion.

What does this remind me of ...

On two occasions I have been asked, —“Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?” In one case a member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

src

27 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 9h

As a junior engineer I asked my mentor, "well what if they send us the wrong values?" To which he replied, "garbage in - garbage out."

41 sats \ 13 replies \ @ruthless_stacker 12h

Good explanation. I wonder how many times you have explained what CCs are, LOL.

10 sats \ 12 replies \ @k00b 12h

Not enough times apparently. We need to make the explanation part of the experience.

0 sats \ 11 replies \ @ruthless_stacker 12h

Yeah, but I feel sad when some users leave after CC was introduced, but I'm happy that we have more new ones joining. I have a suggestion: you can add information about CCs on @saloon or make a permanently pinned post. I hate when someone says CCs are shitcoins.

view all 11 replies

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @028559d218 OP 12h

I always withdrew the 'custodial' sats I received. I withdrew them... and frequently zapped other users with those same sats.

So you're saying that... when I used 'cowboy credits' to send to another user (i zapped their post 100 CC) then they don't receive those very same cowboy credits?

Or they only receive part of them, and the 'rest' go into the 'general fund' for SN participants to receive in the form of sats?

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 12h

From this post where I go into detail:

Cowboy credits ARE rapidly decaying into reward sats and territory revenue every time they're spent - they have a half life of two zaps when zapped (only 70% of a CC survives each zap), and decay immediately into reward sats and territory revenue when spent on posts, comments, boosts, donations, or poll votes

30% of zaps go to reward sats and territory revenue as a sybil fee (more pow, proof of sacrifice stuff to make sure zaps are not bot'd either). 100% of the cost of posts, comments, boosts, donations, or poll votes go to reward sats and territory revenue.