For those blindly downvoting that, here's what Paul Graham said:
"Either (a) Twitter is terribly bad at detecting spam or (b) there's something about Twitter that makes detecting spam difficult or (c) they don't care.
Based on my experience detecting spam, I'd guess (c)."
"Twitter engineering: If you're going to do such a bad job of catching spam, how about at least giving us a one-click way to report a tweet as spam and block the account, like email providers do? It may even help you get better at filtering, since more reports = more signal."
They’re likely downvoting my somewhat dubious claim of being able to singlehandedly make a big dent in crypto spam tweets.
I appreciate your gesture, but I don’t mind the downvotes. Bold claims warrant skepticism. And talking about votes makes the conversation less interesting for the audience.
But you’re right to point out that the problem isn’t nearly as intractable as it seems. There are many ways to deter crypto spammers.
Think of it this way: suppose Twitter’s stock price was inversely proportional to the amount of crypto spam (without accidentally removing genuine tweets). Does anyone believe the stock price would go down?
It’s why I suspect Twitter simply hasn’t made it a priority.
I remember reading several times that the enormous number of bots on Twitter inflates their "active users" stats and therefore their stock price, which is why they aren't fighting it.
"Either (a) Twitter is terribly bad at detecting spam or (b) there's something about Twitter that makes detecting spam difficult or (c) they don't care.
Based on my experience detecting spam, I'd guess (c)."
"Twitter engineering: If you're going to do such a bad job of catching spam, how about at least giving us a one-click way to report a tweet as spam and block the account, like email providers do? It may even help you get better at filtering, since more reports = more signal."