|
|
|
|
|
|
by Nextgrid
997 days ago
|
|
|
I think it very much could help. As it stands there is a minimal cost per bot account, if it gets banned you try again. With a monthly subscription you'd be out of pocket for a month, even if your bot is banned the next day. That's terrible ROI for a spammer. Furthermore getting a supply of "plausible" cards (corresponding to the account's/IPs location) that would pass fraud checks is not as cheap as phone numbers either. It will be effective. Large state-sponsored actors will no doubt get through it, but it still shrinks the amount of spam significantly. |
|
|
First, I don't think there ever will be a limitation of 1 (or even small n) account per card. This excludes big corporate clients, media networks, etc. who have legitimate reason to have more than one account but would still pay from the same account. I'd bet a buck these are the accounts that most likely to actually pay for X. It would be unwise to gate them out.
Second, if detecting bots would've been as easy as taking only a day (even a few days) worth of posting then there would never be a need to paywall the whole of X. I believe it's because it's hard (either objectively hard, or just expensive for X) to detect bots Musk considers such a disruptive measure.
Third, cards are probably not a good verification mechanism. More so if there's not card-to-account limitation. Stolen cards don't have to be used directly. Money can be laundered elsewhere and then used with a good card. It is an obstacle but probably only for small/ad-hoc operations. Big bot nets will hardly be impacted by this.