Hacker News

>I dunno... it feels like the same approach as those people who tell you gleeful stories of how they kept a phone spammer on a call for 45 minutes: "That'll teach 'em, ha ha!" Do these types of techniques really work? I’m not convinced

If you are automating it, I don't see why not. Kitboga, a you-tuber kept scam callers in AI call-center loops tying up there resources so they cant use them on unsuspecting victims.[0]

That's a guerilla tactic, similar in warfare, when you steal resources from an enemy, you get stronger and they get weaker, its pretty effective.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDpo_o7dR8c

> it feels like the same approach as those people who tell you gleeful stories of how they kept a phone spammer on a call for 45 minutes: "That'll teach 'em, ha ha!" Do these types of techniques really work? I’m not convinced.

In 2000s there was some company in Russia selling English courses. It spammed so much, that people were really pissed off. To make long story short, the company disappeared from a public space when Golden Telecom joined the party of retaliatory "spam" calls and make computer to call the company using Golden Telecom modem pool.

So, yeah, you kinda can achieve something in this way, but to make sure you should lease a modem pool for that.

> gleeful stories of how they kept a phone spammer on a call for 45 minutes: "That'll teach 'em, ha ha!" Do these types of techniques really work? I’m not convinced.

It’s one of the best time investments I’ve ever made. They just don’t call me anymore.

I think they have two lists: the “do not call” list, and the “unprofitable to call” list. You want to be on the latter list.

> I’m not convinced.

Is this how low we've sunk - that even below taking a single personal anecdote and generalizing it to everything - now we're taking zero experience and dismissing things based on vibes?

I've seen lots of LLM-slop-lovers doing the same thing. Maybe it's a pattern.

One would assume legit spiders obey robots.txt.

I really don't get it. Wouldn't you be wasting a lot of resources feeding the bots like this?

Also, inserting hidden or misleading links is specifically a no-no for Google Search [0]

Depending on your goals, this may be a pro or a con. I, personally, would like to see a return of "small web" human-centric communities. If there were tools that include anti-scraping, anti-Google (and other large search crawlers) as well as a small web search index for humans to find these sites, this idea becomes a real possibility.

yes it work.

phone scammers have a very high personel cost, hence why some resort for human traffic.

if everyone picked up the phone and wasted a few seconds, it would be enough to make their whole enterprise worthless. but since most people who would not fail shutdown right away, they have the best ROI of any industry. they don't even pay the call for first seconds.

Who TF cares about google? This is mostly for personal tech stuff (just the stuff AI steals for training). Id say its pretty welcome that it is not shown in google results.

The problem I have, is they hammer my site so hard they take it down.

The content is for everyone. They can have it. Just don't also take it away from everybody else.

> nothing but thieves! cool band btw

I agree theft isn't a good analogy, but there is something similar going on. I put my words out into the world as a form of sharing. I enjoy reading things others write and share freely, so I write so others might enjoy the things I write. But now the things I write and share freely are being used to put money in the bank accounts of the worst people on the planet. They are using my work in a way I don't want it to be used. It makes me not want to share anymore.

If someone hands out cookies in the supermarket, are you allowed to grab everything and leave?

> the cracker would then have fun cracking it.

I wonder if you could've won by making the cracking boring. No new techniques, bare minimum changes to require compiling a new crack, and just enough to make it difficult to automate. I.e. turn the cracking into a job.

But in reality, there are other community-driven motivations to put out cracks.

So many problems could be solved by letting go.

Unfortunately social media and snowballing copyright maximalism has inflated egos to the point where more and more people think they need to control everything.

To be clear, I mean AI is going to be the downfall of ad supported content. But let's face it. We have link farms and spam factories as a result of the ad supported content market. I think this is going to eventually do justice for users because it puts a premium on content quality that someone will want to pay a direct licensing fee to scrape for your AI bots as opposed to tricking somebody into clicking on a link and looking at an impression for something they won't buy.

> This is ultimately just going to give them training material for how to avoid this crap.

> The arms race just took another step, and if you're spending money creating or hosting this kind of content, it's not going to make up for the money you're losing by your other content getting scraped.

So we should all just do nothing and accept the inevitable?

So, if at the end of the day instead of clicking EVERY single link in the repository they just check it out and parse locally...... I would consider it a win.

Tech is just a series of arms races

If you do that and don't follow robots.txt, you are blocked. If you do that and follow robots.txt, fine. That's all we wanted you to do anyway. Just follow the instructions that well-behaved scrapers are meant to follow.

Just have the link visible, but css it so that its either small as hell, or just off screen. Google / bots will follow it, real peopple will never see it.

It might work against people just use their Mini Mac with OpenClaw to summarize news every morning, but it certainly won't work against Google.

More centralized web ftw.

Even it did work, I just can't bring myself to care enough. It doesn't feel like anything I could do on my site would make any material difference. I'm tired.

About two years ago, I made up reference to a nonexistent python library and put code "using" it in just 5 GitHub repos. Several months later the free ChatGPT picked it up. So IMO it works.

The search engine crawlers are sophisticated enough, but Meta's are not. Neither is Anthropic's Claude crawler. Source: personal experience trying garbage generators on Yandex, Blexbot, Meta's and Anthropics crawlers.

I'm completely uncertain that the unsophisticated garbage I generated makes any difference, much less "poisons" the LLMs. A fellow can dream, can't he?

There are hundreds of bots using residential proxies. That is not free. Make them pay.

it won't work, especially on gemini. Googlebot is very experienced when it comes to crawling. It might work for OpenAI and others maybe.

What kind of migitations? How would you detect the poison fountain?

It does work, on two levels:

1. Simple, cheap, easy-to-detect bots will scrape the poison, and feed links to expensive-to-run browser-based bots that you can't detect in any other way.

2. Once you see a browser visit a bullshit link, you insta-ban it, as you can now see that it is a bot because it has been poisoned with the bullshit data.

My personal preference is using iocaine for this purpose though, in order to protect the entire server as opposed to a single site.

This is literally what HTTP 402 is for -- there's a whole buncha work going on ... but please, please, please don't let Cloudflare become another bloody gatekeeper. Please.

Accessing the shop by going through the wall with a tank is not the same as walking in the door. Hosting costs money. These botnets should be charged for the costs they incur

You didn't 'give the spiders what they seem to want.' You exploited a naive ranking algorithm to inject garbage into search results that real people were trying to use. That you rationalized it at the time is human. That you're still rationalizing it decades later is something else.

You do raise an interesting point. The poison fountains would probably be more effective if their outputs more closely resembled whatever the most popular problem spaces are at any given point.

"disobeys robots.txt" is more of a feature

Miasma is bad or poisonous air. It's a Greek word.

Why not simply blacklist or rate limit those bot IP’s ?

Many bots cycle through short DHCP leases on LTE wifi devices. One would have to accept blocking all cell phones which I have done for my personal hobby crap but most businesses will not do this. Another big swath of bots come from Amazon EC2 and GoogleCloud which I will also happily block on my hobby crap but most businesses will not.

Some bots are easier to block as they do not use real web clients and are missing some TCP/IP headers making them ultra easy to block. Some also do not spoof user-agent and are easy to block. Some will attempt to access URL's not visible to real humans thus blocking themselves. Many bots can not do HTTP/2.0 so they are also trivial to block. Pretty much anything not using headless Chrome is easy to block.

If you have real traffic and bot traffic, you still need to identify which is which. On top of that, bots very likely don’t reuse the same IPs over and over again. I assume if we knew all the IPs used only by bots ahead of time, then yeah it would be simple to blacklist them. But although it’s simple in theory, the practice of identifying what to blacklist in the first place is the part that isn’t as simple

Because punishment for breaking the robots.txt rules is a social good.

Point is to kill or at least hinder AI progress

The AI companies are using virtually unlimited "clean" residential IPs so this is not a valid strategy.

There are way too many to do that

For the lulz

Yep, they are already working on de-anonymizing the internet.

Well-behaved agents will obey robots.txt and not fall into the trap.

Because of bots that don't respect ROBOTS.txt .

If you want an AI bot to crawl your website while you pay for that bandwidth then you wont use the tool.

search crawlers used to bring people TO your site llm boots are used to keep people OUT of your site, because knowledge is indexed and distributed by corporations.

Web crawlers didn’t routinely take down public resources or use the scraped info to generate facsimiles that people are still having ethical debates over. Its presence didn’t even register and it was indexing that helped them. It isn’t remotely the same thing.

https://www.libraryjournal.com/story/ai-bots-swarm-library-c...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory

Seems a clever and fitting name to me. A poison pit would probably smell bad. And at the same time, the theory that this tool would actually cause “illness” (bad training data) in AI is not proven.

If you're constantly being harassed by someone and despite your best efforts, nothing is being done to help you, quite the opposite in fact, tons of people cheer your assailant on in the name of profit and progress, it's only natural that you lash out.

It's not all that productive, it's an act of desperation. If you can't stop the enemy, at least you can make their action more costly.

One positive outcome I could see it AI companies becoming more critical of their training data.

What "content of character" do you ascribe to a web scraper?

You’re gonna have to try harder to sneak in the a priori assumption that LLMs have any character beyond which corporation deployed them.