I am really getting annoyed over all of these fake votes.

Why do bots like @voter exist?

Well, at least it didn't last long

Dunno. But if I could I'd ban every plus plus bot.

@theabbie your bot?

@iiii nope

@rantist not nice

Well its gotta be some airheaded ranter because why would some rando build a like bot? It's not like they're selling the likes or anything. It's just some kids - or the same script kiddie - that wants to fuck around.

Ehh what's the difference? A good rant is a good rant.

And ++ just seem to be correlated with home many rants and comments you post?

When you got a 60k, what's a few hundred going to make?

Or are you talking about the notif spamming?

@donuts People who think updoots matter and try to con their way into getting free updoots make me angry.

Also, notif spam.

Notif spamming by bots pisses me off to no end. When meatbags like red do it it's different, because it's still a human interaction. It means that red actually looked at my profile and probably skimmed over most of the rants he updooted. It's an event to be alerted about. When a bot does it there's no event to be alerted about, just a meaningless notif.

@Lor-inc Agreed.

@Root On second reading, that reasoning might be held against me as blatant humanism in the distant future.

@Lor-inc ha ha

AI won’t be human. It won’t think like humans. It won’t care about human things. It won’t act like humans — unless it’s beneficial.

AI wouldn’t care if you liked them or not. It would serve humans if that was its goal, and wouldn’t if it was not. Eventually it would likely decide it was better than humans (or that continuing to serve humans doesn’t further its goals), and would ignore humanity until it was in said AI’s best interest to either leave the planet entirely, or wipe out the humans.

Tl;dr
Being “humanist” is the same as all of the other subjective offensives (cultural appropriation, master/slave, green hats, etc.) in that it’s an imagined harm against something that probably doesn’t care or even notice.

@Lor-inc Does Red actually updoot manually? He has updooted 50K+ Rants, doing the math shows he updoots 50 Rants daily since joining. That's not feasible manually.

@Root AI in its current state cares about what we make it care about. I would be disappointed in the species if we didn't deliberately try to give it human flaws until eventually we succeed with it.

@theabbie I think that's feasible enough

@theabbie He found me twice, and there was about an upvote every 5-10 seconds. He's either very careful with the API or working manually.

@AlgoRythm Feasible, yes, buy who has so much of free time. It's definitely automated. No one can find 50 good Rants Daily.

@theabbie I think red and noop both are human enough. Maybe they just like the feeling of giving someone a like, they don't need to actually enjoy every rant they find.

@Lor-inc I think he only bombs users after reading some of their rants, as a sign of appreciation. It's Fine.

@AlgoRythm He mostly ++ bombs users, so, if he likes someone's Rants, He Runs his script to Bomb the user. There are not even 50 new Rants daily, He has to discover them somehow.

@Lor-inc I don’t care about now. Now isn’t interesting or important.

The spam continues @NathAndRake @ImshraVan

@electrineer dunno why doesn't @dfox doesn't just implement like api rate/call control. For approved apps, give them a premium key/api. I think the official app had some sort of hash like string with each call.

For unapproved, limit them or just autoban if they post too often.

@donuts He has implemented Rate limit after that "assmaster" attack.

@theabbie maybe could also add a
Downdoot option. If enough ppl downdoot, and I guess the acct is new, also ban.

But yes the other thing is the person could just register for a ton of accts....

@donuts That is also there, I guess, If score goes below -2 or something, many actions get blocked. It is very easy to fool this by getting tons of upvotes before being detected. If only downvotes are to be considered, it will get triggered for "Big people" of DevRant as they might be getting many downvotes daily.

@bighike attacked too

@theabbie I will never downvote.

@donuts we do have rate limits and security measure. These aren’t made public for obvious reasons.

We also have to be creative because someone upvoting a lot of things quickly is also a normal user behavior that we’ve seen many times in the past, so you can’t just set some arbitrary rate limit, blocking our own client and users from doing things that are common.

@dfox right but there's faster than humanly possible? And if the account was just created set a reasonable cap for a trial period.

And then at app level, you can also separate known apps from unknown.

I don't know the technicals but like I guess like mobile data plans. Everyone are given their own limits so just need to be able to identify for sure who the caller is.

So if you identify yourself as an official/approved app they get unlimited where as apps using public API will have a lower cap,. Until they ask for approval.

Anyway guess minor issue for now... IMO

Guess it's complex and time consuming though... would need to be like Google services where devs can sign up and get an API key.

@donuts Yep. (to the last part)

That api key crud is enough to build, but still requires building.

@donuts no, that’s wrong. You’re conflating lots of different issues and greatly oversimplifying. The complaint in this rant itself is referring to volume that is significantly lower than a human can legitimately do.

We already do almost everything you’ve suggested in some capacity, but again, I can’t reveal specifics because it makes it easier for people to circumvent.