You must log in or register to comment.

Fetlocks_Glistening t1_j2n03y8 wrote

But if 75% of all traffic is porn, it means the 15% overlap is bot-on-bot depravity?


popsickle_in_one t1_j2n51xj wrote

I, for one, am waiting for the inevitable AI art porn revolution.


Sulgoth t1_j2nyhe8 wrote

It'll be a great time until someone rich and or famous is added to booty bashers 4.


OakParkCemetary t1_j2mxdqh wrote

knocks on door

"Bender, why are you spending so much time in the bathroom? Are you jacking on in there?!"


onewobblywheel t1_j2n4w7g wrote

They drive about 99% of all online-dating traffic if my experience is typical.

Just middle-aged man stuff I guess.


AnthillOmbudsman t1_j2nm90u wrote

Speaking as someone who hasn't been in the dating pool for years, I'm constantly glad to not have to deal with dating these days. You have to compete with thousands of bots and swinging dicks clogging up the dating sites, and it's clearly gotten weirder these days to try to hook up with people outside online sites, work, school, or shitty dance clubs.


IFrickinLovePorn t1_j2o388y wrote

Last time I tried hooking up with someone I met at the grocery store I got hired into human resources.. I wasn't remotely qualified!


Busy-Okra-7732 t1_j2oqzxs wrote

With dating my advice is you have to go old school. No apps, no clubs, no bars. Go friend of a friend status. If you don't have friends you have to expand that circle. Intramural leagues, group events that kind of stuff put yourself out there to make friends and let them know you're single but not trying to just hook up with everyone all the time. Your friends will connect you.


FandomMenace t1_j2p2a0u wrote

This is the (safe) way. Friends WANT to see you connected.


Busy-Okra-7732 t1_j2vjihg wrote

Plus friends can vouch for you which is a lot safer way to meet people and removes some of the awkwardness of meeting a stranger.


FandomMenace t1_j2vo27b wrote

They will also be able to clue you in on aberrant behavior before you find out the hard way on a stranger.


intellifone t1_j2p9bp7 wrote

If you’re female, I have no advice. In my experience, women use dating apps the way the apps intend and swipe honestly which is what the algorithms expect.

Speaking as a dude, dudes use dating apps wrong and ruin it for everyone. Dating apps are fine if you use them right. I went 6 years without a single date from a dating app to 3 a week almost overnight just by changing my strategy for swiping. Not literally overnight but in like 2 weeks I barely got matches to the point that when I showed one of my single female friends she was shocked that I didn’t get any matches.

I happened across this article explaining the algorithms and decided to try and see if I can play to the algorithm. What did I have to lose. I can’t get fewer matches. And I wasn’t meeting girls at bars. I’m chubby, fairly introverted, and don’t have great fashion. I am tall but I look like Arnold from “Master of None”. Except I’m not that funny.

You have to tell the algorithm exactly what you like by being super picky and swiping yes ONLY on the profiles that you’re, like, itching to talk to. That even introverted me wouldn’t be afraid to approach in a bar. You can’t swipe yes until you know exactly how you’re starting the conversation. If it takes longer than a minute to come up with anything then swipe No. Your ratio should be 50 Nos to 1 Yes.

Once you do that, the algorithm has a really precise idea of what you’re into and WILL show you profiles likely to match and have a conversation.

If you don’t do this. If you’re not super honest with yourself and the algorithm, you’re going to get shown a lot of bots because the algorithm can’t tell the difference between you and a bot.


Ok_Magician7814 t1_j2pa2z8 wrote

You have it wrong. It’s the opposite. Guys swipe/are much less picky than women in their swiping leading to most of the matches being distorted. If both genders were not very picky things would balance out more.


intellifone t1_j2pbnqn wrote

I think we said the same thing. Guys currently say “yes” way too much. Guys need to swipe “no” a lot more than they do. Women already are swiping “no” the majority of the time. That’s what both should do to maximize high quality matches.


Ok_Magician7814 t1_j2pl0k0 wrote

High quality matches based on what? I don’t know guys profiles but I’m familiar with girls profiles where over 80% are not descriptive at all and based purely on looks. So how should a guy be more meaningfully discerning?


intellifone t1_j2pqfen wrote

I’m trying not to be condescending here but the math here is very simple.

If 80% of women’s profiles are missing descriptions and you’re supposed to say no to 49/50 profiles, then you still have 9 remaining profiles with details to say No to before you still get to the one single Yes.

That means of the 20% of “good” profiles, the ones that aren’t bots or aren’t trying to sling an OnlyFans, the ones with genuine photos and good descriptions in their profiles, you’re still supposed to say No to 1 in 10.

Say No to 95% of all profiles. The same way you would in real life if you went to a random bar. You’re not approaching 50% of the women in that bar even if 100% are guaranteed single. Not even 25%. You might say something to 1 or 2.


DeengisKhan t1_j2rnfid wrote

I’m a super middle of the road white male. I’m have some of the favored traits in that I’m 6ft tall on the dot, and classically masculine looking, but I’m also pretty fat, and a total nerd. Like 100’s of days on RuneScape plays dnd once a week kind of nerd. I have no problem with dating sites. My only “gimmick” is I know how to cook and make that somewhat focal on my profiles. That’s the whole formula though. I put dumpy ass photos of myself being myself as my profile pics so as to make sure that if we do get to in person meeting that I always look better than my photos, and then only swipe on people I see myself attempting to actually go on a date with. I spent about 2 weeks on hinge a year ago, and have been with the person I met ever since and we live together now. I have met all but one girlfriend in this way over the course of about 8 years of relationships ending and beginning. It’s totally doable my friends I promise.


ZylonBane t1_j2n3fv5 wrote

TIL that Reddit allows emojis in headlines, and doesn't auto-ban people for doing so.


DrifterInKorea t1_j2n60xb wrote

It should be more than 50% by now and it will keep growing for multiple reasons :

  • more SaaS and more servers talking to apis to get or post data.
  • AIs and other statistical tools require lots and lots of data from the web, hence more crawling.
  • There is more and more motivations for crawling the web and we go up in layers which means web pages will be crawled way more to present data in a different format.
  • AIs are most likely going to start building tools for us (and for itself) and those tools will require way more data (a lot more) than what they use today.

Reason 3 & 4 are basically extensions of reasons 1 & 2.


Anopanda t1_j2psm0a wrote

The 2022 report tells its 27%


DrifterInKorea t1_j2px16p wrote

If true it means there is something wrong with their detection.

It makes no sense to have less bots crawling the web when automation is getting bigger and bigger in every field.
Also when you see social medias' bot generated contents explosion during the pandemic and not really slowing down it is going in the opposite direction.


UnknownQTY t1_j2qni13 wrote

Yeah and that what makes using the term “bot” a bit of a misleading term here. When the average person hears “bot” online, they equate this with an account pretending to be human.

The technical definition of bot used here is basically any automated process, most of which don’t even interact with real users, other than passive consumption of user data.

That’s not really a bot to most people.


DrifterInKorea t1_j2qotpn wrote

Yes and it's hard to detect true bots (I mean automated processes that do not just follow links like wget) because even a simple curl call can spoof its signature and become "human" from an external observer.

So its both ways :

  • on one side you have users that may interact with tools that will cause the traffic to be labelled as "bot".
  • on the other side even simple scripts (bots) can alter their behavior to make it look like they are humans (added noise and delays to mouse cursor position, randomizing ips, using various user agents, etc...) and be labelled "human".

Uuugggg t1_j2nnqdt wrote

TIL that bots 🤖 drive 🚗 ~40% 4️⃣0️⃣ of all internet 🌐 traffic 🚦


Landlubber77 t1_j2mx6ue wrote

No we don--ahh I mean what makes you...what makes you say that?


wrextnight t1_j2mxlso wrote

How are you this fine 02/01/23, fellow kind human being?


Landlubber77 t1_j2my9zw wrote

Scanning subject -- subject clear, poses no threat

I am well, feelings of gratitude for your expressed concern. I wish you good fortune in the wars to come.


TheJunklest t1_j2mz0tr wrote

...but I'm going to need you clothes and your motorcycle.


Landlubber77 t1_j2mz4dx wrote

You forgot my boots.


Ezmankong t1_j2n0duy wrote



TheJunklest t1_j2n0e90 wrote

My firmware has been upgraded with a passive-agression function. Confirm that your offer of footwear was unsolicited. I accept.


morreo t1_j2o47sf wrote

I'm just a normal, functioning member of the human race, and there's no way anyone can prove otherwise.


LynnyLlama t1_j2o3dc6 wrote

I work for the company where this data came from and the data is still accurate. The majority of the bots are now considered advanced and evasive, which means that traditional security tools can’t detect them and specialized bot detection products are needed. Best advice I can give is do not repeat passwords across websites. I’ve seen huge million bot attacks hitting sites trying to test if leaked credentials are valid on their sites


jagnew78 t1_j2r50wn wrote

There was a sci-fi short story I read a while back. I think it was called something along the lines of "When Sys Admins ruled the world" The premise being a global viral or chemical attack or something shuts down the whole world and the only people left alive are the various staff and sys admins who happened to be working in various envirionmentally regulated data centers.

Anyway, one of the funny/sad running lines through the story is the sysadmins using the internet to talk to each other and being affraid to go outside over the internet. And the main character keeps seeing bot traffic over the internet, less and less, but even as the world ends bots are still driving traffic on the internet.


DaCrazyJamez t1_j2nw4v1 wrote

That number feels really low to me...


09232022 t1_j2pt6ob wrote

Same. I imagine search engine crawlers alone probably click on more links in an hour than I have clicked on in my whole life.


JasonVanJason t1_j2nhxva wrote

Dead Internet Theory is still interesting to think about


TroutComplex t1_j2nqrvy wrote

Conservatives don’t want it to be taught in school.


JasonVanJason t1_j2nr3j3 wrote

Well yeah, teaching things in school that are not factual or have enough support to be considered factual is likely not a good idea, cue the liberals woke bullshit.


Delini t1_j2ntvy0 wrote

Yeah, conservatives really do hate thinking for themselves.

Just let someone else sort out the facts and distribute it in bumper sticker format.


AUWarEagle82 t1_j2n0j0t wrote

Slobovian bot-farmers will own the world!


NetDork t1_j2nx4ov wrote

And the rest is streaming video?


Chelzor t1_j2o3ec4 wrote

The repost bots on Reddit really get on my nerves sometimes. I’ll be petty and comment the post they stole from, it’s just pointless though


DeNoodle t1_j2oy2zs wrote

To be fair, most people on the internet might as well be bots, to.


CurmudgeonTherapist t1_j2od6fd wrote

Go open one of your old email addresses. I have an old yahoo email I haven't used in in a really long time. I opened it some time last year and there were about 10k unread messages.


ikesmith t1_j2ohauv wrote

This explains a lot of youtube comments, especially comments under YT shorts.


Beautiful-Star t1_j2oqgop wrote

Hello: I am not technologically-minded but I would like to understand more about this. If someone could tell me based on this information, about what percentage of Reddit accounts are bots? I was considering buying Reddit Premium but I honestly think I may want to step away from the internet more than I have (I have no social media) if all I’m doing is talking to bots.

Would someone mind filling an old woman in? I read the article and didn’t quite understand it all. I appreciate it.


Programmdude t1_j2qkltt wrote

Bots also have a different meaning to just those that are fake accounts. On Reddit, it would also be the auto bot accounts that reply to people (like the auto mod stuff).

But by bot traffic, they'll also be including any server to server communication. This will be Google's Web crawling/caching bot. Or when a website asks another website (web service) for some information. It probably also includes when automatic backups are uploading data to Google drive or OneDrive.


Beautiful-Star t1_j2rfg23 wrote

I never knew any of that. I was concerned about Reddit because I didn’t want to spend money on awards to give out if I was giving them out to bots.

Another poster helped me with looking at usernames for word/number combinations and I’ve just learned to look through people’s post histories to find some basic signs of an automatic “karma-farming account”.

You’ve helped me today and I thank you for it.


GeorgeOlduvai t1_j2q8rj9 wrote

The overall percentage was roughly 40 in 2019. It's likely increased since then. Reddit specifically? Probably about that same 40%. Have a look at the usernames and you may see a pattern to a large number of them. Those are the likely bots.


GeorgeOlduvai t1_j2q7wzz wrote

Have a look at the usernames on reddit or twitter and it becomes fairly obvious which ones are bots. They all have a particular style to the names.


JA_LT99 t1_j2n5604 wrote

No, no Internet polls are literally the voice of God.


Sapatilhas t1_j2o7qjo wrote

They should be paying for social security


mrspaznout t1_j2p9qtc wrote

01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01110011 01100001 01111001


ArmyMP84 t1_j2pyzyq wrote

I, too, have played RuneScape before.


patrickd42 t1_j2q258c wrote

The article is from 2019. It must be 60% by now


Neurocor t1_j2q413v wrote

Type in Ukr@1n3, 3Lon Tusk, W@kinSkY, or F@Vid, and watch the bots swarm


TwiD_BBT t1_j2q5t8p wrote

This is from 2019. Old data.


res30stupid t1_j2qfq3j wrote

Optimus, are you really that bored?


sameguyontheweb t1_j2rfh2v wrote

Have you heard about the Fake Internet Theory?

It's a shitty theory but entertaining.


[deleted] t1_j2z4izs wrote

Twitter comes to mind. A wasteland of bots and gibberish.


TheVaxIsPoison t1_j2my5kd wrote

Elon is working hard to get rid of bots on twitter.

Edit: Downvotes to reality are evidence of being brainwashed.


Landlubber77 t1_j2n1jzc wrote

Can't wait til his alternative energy source, Klear comes out. It's gonna blow people's minds. A true work of art.


WalkerBRiley t1_j2nzj71 wrote

I mean, if anything everything he's done has only increased the number of bots.


TheVaxIsPoison t1_j2ofiqh wrote

Vast armies of bots have been eliminated.

As he develops more sophisticated tests, even more will disappear.

MOST of Twitter follows were bought and paid for -- from bot farms in China, Russa, and other poor regions.