These companies not being able to handle bot attacks without hamstringing major parts of their platforms is a canary in the coal mine for the Dead Internet.
What do you mean by ‘Dead internet’? Are you referring to established platforms like Meta and Twitter?
Salix is right that it alludes to the Dead Internet Theory.
I don’t actually subscribe to the full theory that the internet is already dead and we only talk to bots, but I do think bot activity may become advanced and pervasive enough to create a “Dead Internet” like scenario (or at least fundamentally alter platforms away from what we currently know as the internet experience)
Spam’s been a HUGE Instagram problem for years that Meta just didn’t want to deal with. Every post gets littered with spam comments immediately from bots. All those bot accounts probably hopped over to Threads to keep on keeping on.
Wow. So they leeched their own users off instagram, didn’t keep their attention with its sterile environment causing usage to drop 20% after the first week, and now this? lmao
Usage of a new platform always drops after the initial wave… That’s not something I’d put against them.
Do they not get that is why people moved away from Twitter in the first place ?
If you join a social network that *Mark owns, you get what you deserve, and he gets all your correspondence to mine and sell forever and ever and ever, tying it into all the other data the web has “anonymously” collected about you, even using different usernames, vpn’s, and email addresses. ta dah!
Which would be way funnier if Meta’s terms of service didn’t purposefully include third party users in their collection:
Information From Third Party Services and Users:
We collect information about the Third Party Services and Third Party Users who interact with Threads. If you interact with Threads through a Third Party Service (such as by following Threads users, interacting with Threads content, or by allowing Threads users to follow you or interact with your content), we collect information about your third-party account and profile (such as your username, profile picture, IP address, and the name of the Third Party Service on which you are registered), your content (such as when you allow Threads users to follow, like, reshare, or have mentions in your posts), and your interactions (such as when you follow, like, reshare, or have mentions in Threads posts).
i.e., if I remain as literate as I think I am, it seems to me that the only ways for users on the fediverse to avoid giving over everything and the kitchen sink to the clutches of the dubiously human overlord are to:
1. Defederate any and all Threads instances forever, no take backs.
2. Not have a fediverse account.
They are hardly copying Twitter in this regard. Twitter is doing it for fuck knows why, trying to get more money from a dieing platform or something. But Threads:
“Spam attacks have picked up,” requiring new rate limit changes.
Are mitigating spam. That is reasonable and any sane platform will have rate limits in place to stop abuse. They only question is if the rates are low enough to affect normal users or not.
So just because two companies do the same thing does not mean they are strictly copying each other, here they have different reasons as far as I can see.
If you are going to complain about something, do it for reasons that make sense. Don’t make shit up.
This is a comically pathetic article, and I really would have expected people here to engage in a modicum of critical thinking, though I’ve been learning to temper my expectations here. “Meta bad” really has been making people completely turn their brains off.
I would imagine Lemmy also has some sane rate limits to prevent you from making 1000 in a second. Cue the outrage, I guess.
Twitter did it for the same reasons - that and bots scraping data from the platform for use in datasets.
They set daily read limits that were comically low. Read limits obviously don’t help with spam. They do help with scraping but it’s again so low, it seems like it would pretty much just disable scraping rather than control it. 600 tweets A DAY?
Twitter did it to get a new revenue stream charging for higher rates. The bots, who have been around for over a decade, are just an excuse.
This article is such garbage clickbait, but of course the Lemmy audience eats it up because it validates their anti-facebook circlejerk.
