Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Post History
In my opinion, there is a single appropriate response to any incident of obvious, commercial, off-topic spam: an immediate, unconditional, one-strike-and-you're-out, permanent ban of the user and t...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
InfiniteDissent
·
2025-03-14T09:55:00Z (17 days ago)
Clarify first paragraphs refer to obvious/off-topic/commercial spam
In my opinion, there is a single appropriate response to any incident of spam: an immediate, unconditional, one-strike-and-you're-out, permanent ban of the user and the deletion of all their content.- There is no logic in trying to change the user's behaviour with warnings, temporary suspensions or words of advice, because they are not actually a user to begin with. They are either an AI bot or a human operator, paid by a commercial entity to spread as many spam links as possible, on whatever sites they can gain access to. They are not posting spam by accident or because they are unfamiliar with the rules; they are intentionally ignoring the rules in order to carry out their single, unchanging purpose of posting spam links.
- If you warn spammers, they will ignore the warning. If you temporarily ban them, they will most likely move on to another site, but if they do return, it will just be to post more spam. In no case will they start participating in good faith, because that was never what they were here to do. Any non-spam "content" they appear to have posted should be assumed to be AI-generated or plagiarised, and posted for the sole purpose of making them seem like a genuine user for long enough to get a chance to post a spam link.
There may be borderline cases where a actual programmer posts a link to their own tool or service because they genuinely believe it will help answer someone's question. In this case, a warning about self-promotion and a request that they properly disclose their affiliation would be appropriate. But if they are posting links to porn or gambling sites, there is a 0% chance that they are a bona fide user, and they should be deleted immediately.
- In my opinion, there is a single appropriate response to any incident of obvious, commercial, off-topic spam: an immediate, unconditional, one-strike-and-you're-out, permanent ban of the user and the deletion of all their content.
- There is no logic in trying to change the user's behaviour with warnings, temporary suspensions or words of advice, because they are not actually a user to begin with. They are either an AI bot or a human operator, paid by a commercial entity to spread as many spam links as possible, on whatever sites they can gain access to. They are not posting spam by accident or because they are unfamiliar with the rules; they are intentionally ignoring the rules in order to carry out their single, unchanging purpose of posting spam links.
- If you warn spammers, they will ignore the warning. If you temporarily ban them, they will most likely move on to another site, but if they do return, it will just be to post more spam. In no case will they start participating in good faith, because that was never what they were here to do. Any non-spam "content" they appear to have posted should be assumed to be AI-generated or plagiarised, and posted for the sole purpose of making them seem like a genuine user for long enough to get a chance to post a spam link.
- There may be borderline cases where a actual contributor posts a link to their own tool or service because they genuinely believe it will help answer someone's question. In this case, a warning about self-promotion and a request that they properly disclose their affiliation would be appropriate. But if they are posting links to porn or gambling sites, there is a 0% chance that they are a bona fide user, and they should be deleted immediately.
#1: Initial revision
by
InfiniteDissent
·
2025-03-12T14:21:56Z (18 days ago)
In my opinion, there is a single appropriate response to any incident of spam: an immediate, unconditional, one-strike-and-you're-out, permanent ban of the user and the deletion of all their content. There is no logic in trying to change the user's behaviour with warnings, temporary suspensions or words of advice, because they are not actually a user to begin with. They are either an AI bot or a human operator, paid by a commercial entity to spread as many spam links as possible, on whatever sites they can gain access to. They are not posting spam by accident or because they are unfamiliar with the rules; they are intentionally ignoring the rules in order to carry out their single, unchanging purpose of posting spam links. If you warn spammers, they will ignore the warning. If you temporarily ban them, they will most likely move on to another site, but if they do return, it will just be to post more spam. In no case will they start participating in good faith, because that was never what they were here to do. Any non-spam "content" they appear to have posted should be assumed to be AI-generated or plagiarised, and posted for the sole purpose of making them seem like a genuine user for long enough to get a chance to post a spam link. There may be borderline cases where a actual programmer posts a link to their own tool or service because they genuinely believe it will help answer someone's question. In this case, a warning about self-promotion and a request that they properly disclose their affiliation would be appropriate. But if they are posting links to porn or gambling sites, there is a 0% chance that they are a bona fide user, and they should be deleted immediately.