They’re selectively asking for verification to do it. That’s mixed, because:
They’ll only ask to verify “suspicious” accounts. So all the bots that “behave” are going to stay, which is what the bots will now optimize for.
Verification will become another form of selective enforcement. Say the wrong then, and you get either verify or get banned.
As for the methods, see for yourself:
When confirming that there is a human behind an account, we prefer third-party tools that keep a distance between verification and Reddit itself. Any system we use will not expose your real-world identity to Reddit nor your Reddit username or activity to any third party. There are a handful of ways to do this, and I’m sure there will be more. Each have their tradeoffs:
Passkeys (which are well supported by Apple, Google, YubiKey, and various password managers) - These are lightweight, require a human to do something, and don’t require your ID. The tradeoff is that there is no proof of individuality or anything other than “a human probably did something.” Nevertheless, it’s a great starting point.
Third-party biometric services - For example, World ID (yes, the Orb company, though they have non-Orb solutions as well). This technology unlocks proof-of-individual without requiring your name, government ID, or a centralized database. I think the internet needs verification solutions like this, where your account information, usage data, and identity never mix.
Third-party government ID services - In some countries, such as the UK and Australia, governments require us to use these. These are the least secure, least private, and least preferred. When we are forced to do this, we design the integrations so that we never actually see your ID information, so your Reddit data cannot be tied to you.
Draw your own conclusion.
But my take? It’s the worst of everything: Only the most primitive, obvious bots get banned. “Transparent,” sycophantic bots will all stay on Reddit, and get even stealthier. Rebellious human users will get hit with verification, at the whim of whatever opaque algorithm determines they’re “bot-like,” which is a fantastic recipe for censorship without the appearance of doing so.
And this is all if you take Spez at his word. There’s a lot of history suggesting you should not.
Can someone explain? Isn’t removing bots actually a good thing?
They’re selectively asking for verification to do it. That’s mixed, because:
They’ll only ask to verify “suspicious” accounts. So all the bots that “behave” are going to stay, which is what the bots will now optimize for.
Verification will become another form of selective enforcement. Say the wrong then, and you get either verify or get banned.
As for the methods, see for yourself:
Draw your own conclusion.
But my take? It’s the worst of everything: Only the most primitive, obvious bots get banned. “Transparent,” sycophantic bots will all stay on Reddit, and get even stealthier. Rebellious human users will get hit with verification, at the whim of whatever opaque algorithm determines they’re “bot-like,” which is a fantastic recipe for censorship without the appearance of doing so.
And this is all if you take Spez at his word. There’s a lot of history suggesting you should not.
Passkeys? I don’t understand how that verifies anything
Presumably because one needs a phone app or physical hardware (like a Yubikey) to use them.
I dunno. Shrug
Bitwarden supports them and you can use as many as you want