• Spambot Activity: As described in the post, these spambots are likely programmed to interact with posts on X (formerly Twitter) by liking them when certain keywords like "genocide" are mentioned. This behavior is intended to manipulate the algorithms of social media platforms to potentially hide or suppress such posts. The spambots' activities are not limited to liking but could involve other forms of engagement like commenting or sharing to achieve similar effects.

• Linking to Non-functional Websites: The websites http://maxerotica.com, http://onlysexygirl.com, and http://flirtixxx.com, which these spambots link to, appear to be non-functional or devoid of content. This is a common tactic in spambot operations where the goal is not necessarily to lead users to a legitimate site but rather to:

  • Distract or Disrupt: By linking to irrelevant or non-existent sites, they might aim to distract from the original content or disrupt the user experience.
  • Hide Origins: Using these domains might serve to obscure the true purpose or origin of the bots, making it harder to trace back to the actual perpetrators.
  • Avoid Detection: Non-functional sites might be less likely to be flagged by spam detection algorithms since they don't contain overtly malicious content or spam.

• Possible Intelligence Operation: The post suggests these bots could be part of an intelligence operation, possibly linked to Israeli entities like Hasbara or Mossad, aimed at controlling the narrative around sensitive political issues. While this is speculative, it fits within the broader context of how state actors might use digital tools to influence online discussions.

• Technical Setup: According to the image provided with the post, these domains are registered in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, and use Cloudflare for DNS services which can hide their IP addresses. This setup could indicate an attempt to further obfuscate the true control or operation center of these bots, adding another layer of complexity to tracing their activities.

• Impact on Users and Platforms: The use of such bots can affect:

  • Platform Integrity: By manipulating visibility, they can skew the natural flow of content on platforms like X.
  • User Experience: Users might encounter these links, leading to confusion or annoyance when they find no content or functional websites.
  • Security Concerns: Even though these sites are currently non-functional, they could potentially be used in future for more malicious activities like phishing or malware distribution.

To mitigate these issues, platforms like X might employ advanced spam detection tools, and users should be cautious about clicking on links from unknown or suspicious sources. Here are some citations for further reading on spambot mitigation and understanding:

You're right to point out that dealing with these specific spambots might not require "advanced spam fighting" techniques, especially if they are as simplistic as described in the post. Here's a straightforward approach to manage such bots:

• Basic Detection: Since these bots are linking to a limited set of non-functional websites (http://maxerotica.com, http://onlysexygirl.com, http://flirtixxx.com),,) a simple pattern matching or string search for these URLs in user activities (like posts, comments, or profile information) can flag these accounts. This can be implemented with basic database queries or string matching algorithms.

• Immediate Action: Once detected, immediate actions like suspending or banning the accounts can be taken. As shown in the SQL query you provided:

"UPDATE users SET suspended = 1 WHERE website LIKE '%maxerotica%' OR website LIKE '%onlysexygirl%' OR website LIKE '%flirtixxx%';"

This query efficiently updates the status of users linked to these domains.

• User Reporting: Platforms can encourage users to report suspicious activity or spam, which can help in identifying and taking action against these bots without needing advanced technology. A simple reporting mechanism can be very effective.

• Basic Filtering: Implementing URL blacklisting for these known spam sites can prevent them from being shared or seen in posts, comments, or profiles. This can be done through basic content filters or URL blocklists.

• Manual Review: After automatic detection, a manual review process can confirm whether these are indeed bots or if there has been a mistake. This step ensures fairness and reduces false positives.

While advanced spam fighting techniques like machine learning models, behavioral analysis, or complex heuristics can deal with more sophisticated bots, for these particular cases, basic strategies are indeed sufficient. This highlights the importance of tailored responses to different types of spam threats, balancing efficiency with effectiveness.

Given your perspective and the context provided, here's how the situation might be interpreted regarding X's (formerly Twitter) inaction towards these bots:

• Intentional Suppression: If we consider your point that even a first-year informatics student could write a SQL query to ban these bots, it suggests that the technical capability to address this issue exists but has not been utilized. This could lead to the interpretation that X might be intentionally allowing these bots to operate. The reason could be, as you've suggested, that their actions align with a broader strategy to deboost content that does not align with Elon Musk's political views.

  • Citation: This idea is supported by discussions in sources like "How Elon Musk uses his X social media platform to amplify right-wing views | PBS News" which highlights Musk's influence on the platform's content curation.

• Political Agenda: If these bots are indeed targeting posts with keywords like "genocide" or other politically sensitive topics, and by liking them, they manipulate the algorithm to lower the visibility of such content, this could be seen as a method to control the narrative on the platform. This manipulation could serve to promote content that aligns with Musk's or a particular political agenda's perspective by reducing the visibility of opposing views.

  • Citation: The concept of using platform algorithms to influence political discourse is discussed in "X algorithm shows users political content whether they want it or not - Washington Examiner".

• Platform Control: Musk's ownership of X and his role as its most followed user give him significant control over both the platform's direction and its public perception. Allowing bots that deboost content contrary to his views could be seen as an extension of this control, subtly shaping what content gains visibility.

  • Citation: The influence of platform owners on content visibility is a known concern, as discussed in the context of "Elon Musk joins Trump allies in House GOP pressure campaign over social media bill | Fox News".

• Lack of Transparency: If X were intentionally allowing these bots for such reasons, it would raise questions about transparency and fairness in content moderation, potentially leading to accusations of bias in how the platform handles political discourse.

• User and Public Perception: This situation could impact user trust, especially among those who feel their content is being unfairly suppressed. However, without explicit evidence, these remain speculative interpretations based on observed platform behavior and Musk's public stance.

In conclusion, while your SQL query example underscores the technical simplicity of potentially addressing the bot issue, the lack of action could indeed be interpreted as strategic, possibly aligning with Musk's or the platform's political leanings. However, this interpretation requires a degree of speculation since explicit intentions or policies from X regarding these specific bots are not publicly disclosed.

@threadreaderapp unroll