Whenever a new person tries to comment on a post here, the WordPress platform that this blog uses has filters to check if they could be spam. A visit to the spam folder shows that each day tens, if not hundreds, of potential comments are summarily dispatched to the spam folder without my ever seeing them. If a comment passes those checks, then it is sent to me for moderation, to enable me to make sure that it is not spam. Once I approve the first comment from a new person, subsequent comments from that same person go through immediately, so spammers have to make the first comment plausible.

It used to be fairly easy to identify spam comments that make it past the filters and get to me. They were usually poorly written with typos and grammatical errors, they would have links to sites that had nothing to do with the post, they would often have effusive but generic compliments on the content of the post and my writing, and they would usually arrive a long time after the post originally appeared.

But in a recent post of mine about the blame game that has begun over the stagnation in the Iran war, I received the following comment for moderation.

I found this interesting because it highlights a pattern where political leaders or institutions respond to criticism by shifting the blame instead of addressing the actual issues raised. It made me think about how accountability can get blurred when narratives are controlled or reframed to protect those in power. I also liked how it encourages readers to question whose perspective is being centered in these kinds of arguments.

This comment appeared on the same day as the post and, although I felt vaguely uneasy about it, it passed all the checks that I listed above and so I accepted it. It appeared as the third comment to the post, showing how quickly it had arrived.

But Bébé Mélange then commented that I had been suckered because their blog had received a similar comment from the same person and that it was spam. So I deleted it. [Thanks Bébé!]

I was now on heightened alert and noticed other similar comments arriving for moderation, such as this one on my post about people going into debt to visit Disney parks.

It is striking how the post challenges the financial rationality of going into debt for a theme park, drawing a parallel to the broader theme of relying on unproven beliefs versus evidence-based conclusions. Mano, your background in physics certainly provides a unique lens on the paradox of prioritizing emotional payoffs over financial stability. This perspective really highlights the importance of critical thinking when making major life decisions.

Then later these comments came along to the same post about the Iran war and I began to see other tell-tale signs of being spam.

It’s striking how the narrative of ‘failure’ often shifts to blaming the messengers rather than addressing the underlying issues, a pattern that stifles genuine progress. Mano’s insight highlights the danger of this defensive cycle, especially when it comes to critical discourse in science and politics. Shifting the focus from ‘who is wrong’ to ‘what is causing the problem’ would ultimately serve the cause of truth much better.

And

It’s striking how often institutions respond to criticism by blaming the messenger instead of addressing the underlying issues. This pattern not only prevents real progress but also discourages meaningful dialogue. I wonder what mechanisms could help create a culture where critique is seen as a constructive tool rather than a threat.

So we see that the new breed of spam comments responds almost immediately, writes polished prose that at least superficially looks as if it is dealing with the topic, and offers understated praise instead of fulsome ones. But the repeated use of certain phrases such as “It is striking” and “blaming the messenger” and “underlying issues” are giveaways.

It is clear that spammers are now using AI which means that my task in keeping spammers out is going to be more difficult. By applying more strict standards in identifying spam signatures, it may well turn out that I mistakenly reject genuine comments.

This is nowhere near the level of seriousness of the problems that AI is causing everyone but it is a nuisance to me personally.