We’ve all had that uncanny moment when we realize we’ve been talking to “someone” online when we realize it’s a robot responding. Long before the release of ChatGPT mainstreamed the act of talking to “bots” on the internet, non-human accounts were all over the web. MIT computer scientists invented ELIZA in 1966, to simulate conversations with a real human being. Microsoft users met “Clippy” almost exactly three decades later. Despite some users’ unlikely vitriol for the anthropomorphic paper clip, much more malicious bots became obvious to users in the years to come on social media, especially on Twitter in the chaotic election season of 2016.
But the bots are still with us. Officially defined as software applications that run automated, repetitive tasks, bots are still swimming in the digital ether, and they’re a key aspect of the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution that is threatening to undo the internet as it’s been known since the mid-1990s.
The catch is that the surge in bot activity is not just disrupting web traffic—it may also be inflating the internet economy by distorting the very metrics that drive tech company valuations. Automated bots now make up more than half of global internet traffic. Bots surpassed human-generated activity for the first time in 2024, according to Imperva, a subsidiary of cybersecurity giant Thales. Imperva, which issues a “Bad Bot report,” found that almost 50% of internet traffic comes from non-human sources, with 20% of that being so-called “bad bots,” prone to a host of malicious activities.
For example, bots generate fake pageviews, clicks, impressions, and user sessions, all of which inflate top-line web analytics data. This distortion directly impacts metrics including conversion rates, average session duration, and the like. Cybersecurity firms, which admittedly may be talking their book to some extent, claim that ad fraud bots also click on pay-per-click ads or simulate user activity, causing companies to pay for traffic and conversions that never represent real humans. They put the damage at hundreds of billions of dollars per year around the global internet.
Also, consider the startups that showcase “vanity metrics” such as raw user sign-ups or app downloads, many of which can be (and often are) pumped up by bot traffic. These statistics are sometimes self-reported and rarely audited independently. Investors rely on all of these metrics—and more—to assess company value, so fake or inflated data can misrepresent underlying business strength.
Consider the investors that are pumping money into bot-boosted business models, and then consider the wisdom of Torsten Slok, the widely read chief economist for Apollo Global Management, who is known for shaking the financial community with his brief charticles in his “Daily Spark.” He recently posted an eye-popping chart, based off his calculations that “the difference between the IT bubble in the 1990s and the AI bubble today is that the top 10 companies in the S&P 500 today are more overvalued than they were in the 1990s.” In other words, if the AI trade is a bubble, it’s a bigger bubble than the one that popped in the days of the “dotcom crash,” leading to a nasty recession. Slok didn’t address the bot question, but it lends further seriousness to the debate: what if the current AI boom is built on the backs of bots?
This bot-driven inflation may be feeding into a broader tech and AI investment bubble. As companies report rapid user growth and engagement, investors chase the next big thing, and result is a market environment reminiscent of the dot-com era, where hype and inflated metrics risk overshadowing real business fundamentals.
Consider the story of the unicorns: Silicon Valley’s term for private firms with $1 billion-plus valuations. From just a few dozen in 2013, when venture capitalist Aileen Lee coined the term to stress their rarity, unicorns have become anything but. The numbered over 1,200 by 2025, according to Founders Forum, an organization committed to connecting entrepreneurs. Surges in unicorn formation accompanied the “easy money” era of 2018 and 2021, when the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates to nearly unprecedented levels and venture capital money chased risky investments, seeking yield. The money in VC has since largely gravitated to AI, a deeply ironic turn of events.
History suggests that markets eventually correct when reality catches up to inflated expectations. Several factors point to a similar reckoning for AI and the bot problem. Recognition of fake metrics is one. As awareness grows about the scale of bot-driven inflation, investors and analysts could grow more skeptical of headline user numbers and engagement stats. New regulations are beginning to address the economic incentives behind bot-driven manipulation.
Regulating bots on the internet has become a critical focus for governments in response to their growing presence in commerce, social media, and consumer interactions. Bots can be used for both legitimate and malicious purposes: assisting with customer service, but also spreading misinformation, generating fake reviews, scalping tickets, or manipulating public opinion. The U.S. government mainly does this through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
What the government is trying to do about it
The FTC is the leading federal agency addressing deception and unfair practices involving bots, especially those affecting consumers and commerce. In 2024, the FTC issued a final rule prohibiting fake and AI-generated consumer reviews and testimonials, which applies to both traditional and AI-powered bots that generate misleading content or endorsements online.
Businesses can also face civil penalties for buying, selling, or disseminating fake reviews or endorsements, whether authored by bots or humans. The rule aims to ensure transparency in online marketplaces and curb deceptive practices.
From Congress, there’s the BOTS Act (Better Online Ticket Sales Act), enacted in 2016 and strengthened by executive order in 2025, that specifically targets the use of automated bots to circumvent controls on ticket purchases for concerts and events, often used by scalpers. The FTC enforces this law, which makes it illegal to use bots to bypass security or purchasing limits when acquiring event tickets. This could be thought of as the “Taylor Swift” law, as fans found, to their displeasure, during her record-setting Eras Tour when new tickets disappeared in seconds, gobbled up by bots.
The FTC also regularly issues business guidance calling for transparency and accuracy about AI chatbots and avatar services, warning against misleading consumers through these technologies. The agency advises companies to clearly disclose when users are interacting with bots, ensure bots do not misrepresent capabilities, and avoid using bots to manipulate or deceive consumers.
Some states, such as California, have passed laws requiring bots to identify themselves when attempting to influence a voter or consumer. Other states have introduced similar bills modeled after California’s “Bolstering Online Transparency Act,” though federal preemption and cross-border challenges remain.
What to watch for
As bot-driven metrics are exposed, companies with inflated user numbers may see their valuations fall, especially if they can’t demonstrate real, sustainable growth. The market may consolidate around companies with proven, human-driven engagement and revenue, while those reliant on artificial metrics struggle or fail. Expect increased demand for third-party verification of user and engagement data, as well as more robust bot-detection and filtering in analytics.
Then again, bots have been a feature of computing for over half-a-century and they’ve just grown more and more plentiful over time. Bot-driven inflation of internet statistics may just become an inevitable part of digital life.
For this story, Fortune used generative AI to help with an initial draft. An editor verified the accuracy of the information before publishing.
SpaceX is preparing to sell insider shares in a transaction that would value Elon Musk’s rocket and satellite maker at as much as $800 billion, people familiar with the matter said, reclaiming the title of the world’s most valuable private company.
The details, discussed by SpaceX’s board of directors on Thursday at its Starbase hub in Texas, could change based on interest from insider sellers and buyers or other factors, said some of the people, who asked not to be identified as the information isn’t public. SpaceX is also exploring a possible initial public offering as soon as late next year, one of the people said.
Another person briefed on the matter said that the price under discussion for the sale of some employees and investors’ shares is higher than $400 apiece, which would value SpaceX at between $750 billion and $800 billion. The company wouldn’t raise any funds though this planned sale, though a successful offering at such levels would catapult it past the record of $500 billion valuation achieved by OpenAI in October.
Elon Musk on Saturday denied that SpaceX is raising money at a $800 billion valuation without addressing Bloomberg’s reporting on the planned offering of insiders’ shares.
“SpaceX has been cash flow positive for many years and does periodic stock buybacks twice a year to provide liquidity for employees and investors,” Musk said in a post on his social media platform X.
The share sale price under discussion would be a substantial increase from the $212 a share set in July, when the company raised money and sold shares at a valuation of $400 billion. The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times earlier reported the $800 billion valuation target.
News of SpaceX’s valuation sent shares of EchoStar Corp., a satellite TV and wireless company, up as much as 18%. Last month, EchoStar had agreed to sell spectrum licenses to SpaceX for $2.6 billion, adding to an earlier agreement to sell about $17 billion in wireless spectrum to Musk’s company.
The world’s most prolific rocket launcher, SpaceX dominates the space industry with its Falcon 9 rocket that lifts satellites and people to orbit.
SpaceX is also the industry leader in providing internet services from low-Earth orbit through Starlink, a system of more than 9,000 satellites that is far ahead of competitors including Amazon.com Inc.’s Amazon Leo.
Elite Group
SpaceX is among an elite group of companies that have the ability to raise funds at $100 billion-plus valuations while delaying or denying they have any plan to go public.
An IPO of the company at an $800 billion value would vault SpaceX into another rarefied group — the 20 largest public companies, a few notches below Musk’s Tesla Inc.
If SpaceX sold 5% of the company at that valuation, it would have to sell $40 billion of stock — making it the biggest IPO of all time, well above Saudi Aramco’s $29 billion listing in 2019. The firm sold just 1.5% of the company in that offering, a much smaller slice than the majority of publicly traded firms make available.
A listing would also subject SpaceX to the volatility of being a public company, versus private firms whose valuations are closely guarded secrets. Space and defense company IPOs have had a mixed reception in 2025. Karman Holdings Inc.’s stock has nearly tripled since its debut, while Firefly Aerospace Inc. and Voyager Technologies Inc. have plunged by double-digit percentages since their debuts.
SpaceX executives have repeatedly floated the idea of spinning off SpaceX’s Starlink business into a separate, publicly traded company — a concept President Gwynne Shotwell first suggested in 2020.
However, Musk cast doubt on the prospect publicly over the years and Chief Financial Officer Bret Johnsen said in 2024 that a Starlink IPO would be something that would take place more likely “in the years to come.”
The Information, citing people familiar with the discussions, separately reported on Friday that SpaceX has told investors and financial institution representatives that it’s aiming for an IPO of the entire company in the second half of next year.
A so-called tender or secondary offering, through which employees and some early shareholders can sell shares, provides investors in closely held companies such as SpaceX a way to generate liquidity.
SpaceX is working to develop its new Starship vehicle, advertised as the most powerful rocket ever developed to loft huge numbers of Starlink satellites as well as carry cargo and people to moon and, eventually, Mars.
The National Park Service will offer free admission to U.S. residents on President Donald Trump’s birthday next year — which also happens to be Flag Day — but is eliminating the benefit for Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth.
The new list of free admission days for Americans is the latest example of the Trump administration downplaying America’s civil rights history while also promoting the president’s image, name and legacy.
Last year, the list of free days included Martin Luther King Jr Day and Juneteenth — which is June 19 — but not June 14, Trump’s birthday.
The new free-admission policy takes effect Jan. 1 and was one of several changes announced by the Park Service late last month, including higher admission fees for international visitors.
The other days of free park admission in 2026 are Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Constitution Day, Veterans Day, President Theodore Roosevelt’s birthday (Oct. 27) and the anniversary of the creation of the Park Service (Aug. 25).
Eliminating Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth, which commemorates the day in 1865 when the last enslaved Americans were emancipated, removes two of the nation’s most prominent civil rights holidays.
Some civil rights leaders voiced opposition to the change after news about it began spreading over the weekend.
“The raw & rank racism here stinks to high heaven,” Harvard Kennedy School professor Cornell William Brooks, a former president of the NAACP, wrote on social media about the new policy.
Kristen Brengel, a spokesperson for the National Parks Conservation Association, said that while presidential administrations have tweaked the free days in the past, the elimination of Martin Luther King Jr. Day is particularly concerning. For one, the day has become a popular day of service for community groups that use the free day to perform volunteer projects at parks.
That will now be much more expensive, said Brengel, whose organization is a nonprofit that advocates for the park system.
“Not only does it recognize an American hero, it’s also a day when people go into parks to clean them up,” Brengel said. “Martin Luther King Jr. deserves a day of recognition … For some reason, Black history has repeatedly been targeted by this administration, and it shouldn’t be.”
Some Democratic lawmakers also weighed in to object to the new policy.
“The President didn’t just add his own birthday to the list, he removed both of these holidays that mark Black Americans’ struggle for civil rights and freedom,” said Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada. “Our country deserves better.”
A spokesperson for the National Park Service did not immediately respond to questions on Saturday seeking information about the reasons behind the changes.
JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon called out slow bureaucracy in Europe in a warning that a “weak” continent poses a major economic risk to the US.
“Europe has a real problem,” Dimon said Saturday at the Reagan National Defense Forum. “They do some wonderful things on their safety nets. But they’ve driven business out, they’ve driven investment out, they’ve driven innovation out. It’s kind of coming back.”
While he praised some European leaders who he said were aware of the issues, he cautioned politics is “really hard.”
Dimon, leader of the biggest US bank, has long said that the risk of a fragmented Europe is among the major challenges facing the world. In his letter to shareholders released earlier this year, he said that Europe has “some serious issues to fix.”
On Saturday, he praised the creation of the euro and Europe’s push for peace. But he warned that a reduction in military efforts and challenges trying to reach agreement within the European Union are threatening the continent.
“If they fragment, then you can say that America first will not be around anymore,” Dimon said. “It will hurt us more than anybody else because they are a major ally in every single way, including common values, which are really important.”
He said the US should help.
“We need a long-term strategy to help them become strong,” Dimon said. “A weak Europe is bad for us.”
The administration of President Donald Trump issued a new national security strategy that directed US interests toward the Western Hemisphere and protection of the homeland while dismissing Europe as a continent headed toward “civilizational erasure.”
JPMorgan has been ramping up its push to spur more investments in the national defense sector. In October, the bank announced that it would funnel $1.5 trillion into industries that bolster US economic security and resiliency over the next 10 years — as much as $500 billion more than what it would’ve provided anyway.
Dimon said in the statement that it’s “painfully clear that the United States has allowed itself to become too reliant on unreliable sources of critical minerals, products and manufacturing.”
Investment banker Jay Horine oversees the effort, which Dimon called “100% commercial.” It will focus on four areas: supply chain and advanced manufacturing; defense and aerospace; energy independence and resilience; and frontier and strategic technologies.
The bank will also invest as much as $10 billion of its own capital to help certain companies expand, innovate or accelerate strategic manufacturing.
Separately on Saturday, Dimon praised Trump for finding ways to roll back bureaucracy in the government.
“There is no question that this administration is trying to bring an axe to some of the bureaucracy that held back America,” Dimon said. “That is a good thing and we can do it and still keep the world safe, for safe food and safe banks and all the stuff like that.”
Politics8 years ago