undefined

points

[-]

Over the last ~15 years I have been shocked by the amount of spam on social networks that could have been caught with a Bayesian filter. Or in this case, a fairly simple regex.

by PunchyHamster13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It's the bear trash lock problem all over again.

It could be solved by the filter but filter would also have a bunch of false positives

by howlin3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

It seems like if the content is this hollow and useless, it shouldn't matter if it was a human or spambot posting it.

by Imustaskforhelp1 days ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Well, large companies/corporations don't care about Spam because they actually benefit from spam in a way as it boosts their engagement ratio

It just doesn't have to be spammed enough that advertisers leave the platform and I think that they sort of succeed in doing so.

Think about it, if Facebook shows you AI slop ragebait or any rage-inducing comment from multiple bots designed to farm attention/for malicious purposes in general, and you fall for it and show engagement to it on which it can show you ads, do you think it has incentive to take a stance against such form of spam

by dewey23 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Well, large companies/corporations don't care about Spam because they actually benefit from spam in a way as it boosts their engagement ratio

I'm not sure that's actually true. It's just that at scale this is still a hard problem that you don't "just" fix by running a simple filter as there will be real people / paying customers getting caught up in the filter and then complain.

Having "high engagement" doesn't really help you if you are optimizing for advertising revenue, bots don't buy things so if your system is clogged up by fake traffic and engagement and ads don't reach the right target group that's just a waste.

by dec0dedab0de1 days ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Yeah, I almost included that part in my comment, but it still sucks.