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?
It’s a conspiracy theory regarding the bot filled internet
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)
One of the things I wonder is if an automated internet would cause people to place more value on physical real life interactions. In an internet where all activities, even videos and audio could be the product of advanced machines, perhaps people will prioritize the only thing left they can be sure actually came from a human, physical interactions. Maybe not, but it’s interesting to think about.
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?
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.
I’d be willing to bet that Lemmy’s traffic also dropped off after the initial wave of Reddit users checking it out died down. This is normal. A drop of 20% would be more than a good outcome, given how many Instagram users never even had Twitter to begin with and would have just been idly checking in on the hype.
I know people want Threads to fail, and I won’t pretend to have any huge love for Meta, but I’d really like to see discussions here be at least loosely based in reality rather than devolving into mindless screeching.
Do they not get that is why people moved away from Twitter in the first place ?
