ΩΨ±ΩΨ― π΅πΈππ»: You're right to point out that dealing with these...
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.
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.
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.
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