博客帖子回复中的隐蔽垃圾信息
Spam in conversational replies to blog posts

原始链接: https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2026/04/sneaky-spam-in-conversational-replies-to-blog-posts/

博主们 постоянно 与垃圾邮件作斗争,即使有像 Antispam Bee 这样的工具。 这篇文章详细介绍了一种特别狡猾的垃圾邮件策略:一系列三个看似真实的评论,旨在呈现为自然的对话。 垃圾邮件发送者使用了独特的电子邮件地址,并模仿了典型的评论模式——包括对文章内容的表面参与——以绕过初始过滤器。 第二条评论中嵌入了一个指向可疑赌场的隐藏链接,通过缺少“https://”来伪装。 作者强调,这种多评论方法,间隔精确三分钟,并且可能由人工智能生成,利用了对合法回复的期望。 最终,这些评论被追溯到单个 IP 地址并被阻止。 文章总结说,仅靠技术解决方案是不够的;过于严格的评论系统可能会阻止真正的参与,而垃圾邮件发送者会不断适应。

## 垃圾信息和机器人:日益严重的网络问题 最近的讨论强调了协同垃圾信息激增,尤其是在YouTube、Reddit甚至Hacker News等平台的评论区。这种策略涉及机器人网络创建看似对话的帖子——通常与投资机会相关——以推广诈骗或产品。 用户报告称,机器人之间存在相互回复的模式,伪装成真实的互动以建立信任。随着人工智能工具的进步,这些机器人变得更加复杂且难以检测,人们的担忧也在增加。虽然平台试图缓解这种情况,但有人认为目前的方法不足够,并且像身份验证这样的解决方案会引发隐私问题。 这个问题超出了金融领域,也出现在书籍推广和精神内容等领域。一些人认为平台可能对此视而不见,甚至可能从增加的活动中获益。核心问题在于,封禁账户对于可以轻松创建新账户的垃圾邮件发送者来说无效,而日益逼真的人工智能生成内容使得检测变得困难。讨论表明,未来真实的在线互动可能会因机器人活动而受到严重损害。
相关文章

原文

I'm grateful that my blog posts attract lots of engaged, funny, and challenging comments. But any popular post also attracts spammers. I use Antispam Bee to automatically eradicate a couple of hundred crappy comments per day.

Graph showing 272 comments blocked in a single day.

Nevertheless, some get through. Here's a particularly pernicious one - it appeared as three comments ostensibly in reply to each other.

First "I read that article about why it’s so hard to passively track friends’ locations, and it actually makes sense. It talks about wanting automatic alerts when friends are nearby, but no app really does it well because of privacy and social awkwardness." Second "Yeah, and even if the tech exists, people don’t always want to share their location 24/7. It’s like checking promos on spam domain promotions you might see potential, but there’s always uncertainty behind it. You’re kind of taking a chance on incomplete info." Third "Exactly. Most location features are opt-in for a reason. Apps require consent because constantly tracking someone without them knowing would feel invasive, even if the intention is harmless."

At first glance these look like normal comments. They each address the content of the blog post albeit somewhat superficially. The first comment looks like it was from a social media post sharing my link - I get a lot of those as pingbacks, so it initially didn't trigger any suspicions from me.

The second is ostensibly a reply to the first and continues the conversation. Again, a bit shallow, but seems to be engaging in good faith.

The third looks like yet another reply. They all have unique email addresses, none of them have set their username to anything overly odd, and none of the users have filled out their URl.

But notice, in the second one, there's a link to a dodgy casino! There's no https:// so it didn't jump out as a link.

All three came from the same IP address in the Philippines, so easy to block for now.

Each reply is spaced exactly 3 minutes apart which, in retrospect, looks a little odd.

Re-reading them carefully, they all look like AI slop. A plausible sounding summary, written in a casual style, but with very little semantic content. Seeing them as replies to each other primed me to think they were genuine because I'm used to spam coming in individual replies. Having the spam in the middle comment made it easy to glaze over.

Remember, there are no technological solutions to social problems. Sticking more and more barriers in the way of commenting only discourages genuine replies while the profit motive incentivises spammers to work around them.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com