Botspam apocalypse

> The only ones that can survive the robot apocalypse is large web services. Your reddits, and facebooks, and twitters, and SaaS-comment fields, and discords. They have the economies of scale to develop viable countermeasures, to hire teams of people to work on the problem full time and maybe at least keep up with the ever evolving bots.

This is not true at all. There are web forums that are not "web-scale" and don't spend all day fighting bot spam. The solution is real simple: it costs 10 bux to register an account, if you're a nuisance your account is banned and you pay 10bux to get back on.

Even the sites that don't require payment for explicit registration - often succeed by gating functionality or content behind paywalls. Requiring a "premium membership" to post in the classifieds forum is an extremely extremely common thing on small interest-based web-boards (photrio, pentaxforums, homebrewtalk, etc). That income supports the site and supports the anti-bot efforts as a whole. The customer isn't advertisers - it's the community itself, and you're providing the service of high-quality content and access to people with similar interests.

You need to bootstrap a community first, of course, but it doesn't need to be a large community, just a high-value one.

The twitters and facebooks of the world just don't like that solution because they value growth above all other considerations. They'd rather be kings of a billion user website with 200 million bots than a 1k-100k user forum with 100% organic membership and content. And they value engagement over content quality, which is the entire reason comment-tree/vote-based systems have been pushed heavily over web-1.0 threaded forum discussions as well.

This botpocalypse is the inevitable outcome of the systems that social-media giants have created, not inherent outcomes of the internet as a whole.

In the interest of practicality: There's a way to go the web3 route without being laden with transactions:

- Mint a fixed-cost non-transferrable NFT to an address, with ownership limit of 1 per address. - Use SIWE (sign-in with Ethereum) to verify ownership of address & therefore NFT. - If malicious behaviour is detected, mark the NFT as belonging to a malicious actor at the server's end & block the account. - Require non-malicious-marked NFTs in order to use the site/app.

At most, the user only had to perform 1 transaction (minting the non-transferrable NFT) on any blockchain network where the contract resides, & the costs to do so can be made cheaply with Layer 2 networks. (Polygon PoS, Arbtirum, Optimism, zkSync 2.0, etc)

Can this be done entirely without web3? Yes, but the added friction imposed onto malicious actors to generate new addresses & mint new non-transferrable NFTs increases the costs for them considerably.

> If anyone could go ahead and find a solution to this mess, that would be great, because it's absolutely suffocating the internet, and it's painful to think about all the wonderful little projects that get cancelled or abandoned when faced with the reality of having to deal with such an egregiously hostile digital ecosystem.

In all honesty, there's no perfect solution, just hard-to-make tradeoffs: The prevention of botspam inherently requires tracking in some form to resolve said issue, as there's no immediately-recognizable stateless solution for botspam tracking. Someone has to do the tracking to prevent botspam, which inherently involves in state being changed in order to mark an actor as malicious.

Do you mint one NFT per address? If blocking only applies to the one site, a malicious operator can just spam the next site using that address - after all, they own tons of addresses and have many sites to spam, and they can surely spam for at least a bit before getting caught (per site and per address).

If blocking is a public operation that gets you banned everywhere, well now one callous server owner can now disable your address’s ability to access anything.

I fail to see how Web3 NFTs solve any of these problems…