Would you volunteer to be vetted first?
Comment on [deleted]
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 days agoSadly the fediverse might actually prove to be more susceptible to harmful bots and psyops because we don’t have a large centralized system through which to detect bots and botnets and sort out harmful actors. There might in the future be a sort of community maintained public blacklist with thorough vetting and forks for controversial additions, but at the moment that kind of effort, that amount of work, isn’t feasible.
M1ch431@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Anybody making posts and comments is opening themselves up to how those posts and comments are received. You think I’m some kind of bot? Who am I working for, the DNC?
M1ch431@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
You’re suggesting a public blacklist with thorough vetting, I just thought it’d be fair for you to step forward in such a hypothetical scenario. But you’re right, it’s not feasible - nobody can prove definitively they are an independent actor.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I think it’s plenty feasible. Look at things like post and comment content, reports, frequency, upvote and downvote behavior, site access duration, and IP addresses and you start to see certain patterns emerge from bots and bad actors. What isn’t feasible is getting enough people in on the effort to do the work.
Lfrith@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Blueskys blocklist people can subscribe too is a good approach. So people can find filters that meet their needs. So like bot filter that could be updated over time.
stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Honestly would love something like this for lemmy. On old reddit I had a enhancement suite script that tagged know bad actors so I could filter them out/add grains of salt. But instead of like on Bluesky where you subscribe to a list managed by someone else, I’d like a local filter that I can apply and won’t update until I update it.