111
Beyond CAPTCHAs: How do we keep human‑pretending bots out of the fediverse? (programming.dev)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/fediverse@lemmy.world
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

CAPTCHAs and sign‑up quizzes annoy real people and barely slow down determined bots. As the fediverse grows, we need smarter, more humane defences, ones that don’t push away genuine newcomers. What creative, non‑intrusive ideas do you have? Trust‑based vouching, proof‑of‑humanity protocols, behavioural signals... what feels both effective and aligned with the open social web? I’m building a social media platform and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 1 month ago (5 children)

It'd be nice to see public libraries take over this sort of thing. They can do community-based physical verification, without cost. They can assert that someone is legit, without revealing any private info. They'd have to be low-drama, boring infrastructure, in that they merely assert "This person is real", without getting into "This person is good".

It's not sexy like a new protocol or blockchain or whatever, but IMO it's one of the few ways to really handle the problem, and also is a good way to help build local community.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    They would have to do so without keeping records of anyone, which might be difficult. Otherwise, this could be subpoenaed by an authoritarian government.

    Any verification system must be created with that in mind, these days.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    It would be doable, and libraries have been amenable to this sort of thing, like not handing over records about checking out books. This is even easier than checking out books, since you don't actually need to record who is attached to the account. Libraries could obfuscate information that could lead to invasion of privacy. And because it's distributed and local, it's much harder to abuse. If someone tried creating 100 accounts, the librarians would start remembering them and refusing to give them more. Going around to 100 libraries would also be much harder than spamming a new account page on some website.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

    That's a step away from showing ID. It's not okay because your local (government owned) library does it. Even wirhout much info, it still becomes easier to dox if you have the person's location.

    It would also be insanely complicated. How many libraries would need to be contacted and taught how to use some kind of software for this. It would be a mess.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    becomes easier to dox if you have the person’s location

    Yeah, I guess "take over" is too strong vs "provide the option of". It shouldn't be the only way, but would be one very good option. They don't need to actually keep any records of who they gave an account to, and can take steps to obfuscate any privacy-violating processes. Historically, they've been very amenable to this, such as not handing over records about who checked out books.

    How many libraries

    That'd be a great thing IMO. More skills like that should be distributed and federated. Libraries should be community centers of learning, including learning how to run servers. Information isn't just books anymore, and libraries need to adapt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Even wirhout much info, it still becomes easier to dox if you have the person’s location.

    I mean they could travel to some other library, it doesn't need to be the one closest to where they live (though ofc it would still locate the general region/city).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent