Live data from Hacker News

California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

newyorker.com

11–20 of 278 posts

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#11

That will be a fun one to interpret. So if I use autocorrect, am I a bot? What if the device makes next word suggestions and I use them? What if the device suggests the entire post, but I manually approve it? What if it suggests five separate posts and I approve them all at once?

I wouldn’t classify that as a bot as there’s still human interaction required.

So a bot farm is fine as long as you have a human intern there rubber stamping whatever content it generates?

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#12
post #8

> Violators could face fines under state statutes related to unfair competition. I doubt that anyone running bots, and who is technically competent, will be identifiable or findable. I mean, I could do it, and I'm just a random anonymous coward.

Depends. At some point, you're creating fake humans that are so deep under cover that nobody can tell them apart from real humans. When you achieve that, are they still bots?

I've also often thought that the cheap bots are easily identifiable (tweeting every 3 minutes, 24/7/365) and that a better bot shouldn't be that hard to build, but then again, I've figured somebody to be a bot that actually wasn't, he was just very invested in the topic and had plenty of time on his hands.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#13
post #8

> Violators could face fines under state statutes related to unfair competition. I doubt that anyone running bots, and who is technically competent, will be identifiable or findable. I mean, I could do it, and I'm just a random anonymous coward.

Does this mean you will continue to do so knowing you will be breaking the law?

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#14
post #8

> Violators could face fines under state statutes related to unfair competition. I doubt that anyone running bots, and who is technically competent, will be identifiable or findable. I mean, I could do it, and I'm just a random anonymous coward.

Follow the money.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t classify that as a bot as there’s still human interaction required.

So a bot farm is fine as long as you have a human intern there rubber stamping whatever content it generates?

As long as it is fully disclosed that your bots are bots.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t classify that as a bot as there’s still human interaction required.

So a bot farm is fine as long as you have a human intern there rubber stamping whatever content it generates?

I think this is generally how election texting campaigns work, in terms of human interaction required when I once tried it, due to laws against robocampains. A real human has to press a button for each text sent and then receive any replies.

Probably for online, similarly one post would be allowed for each individual human approval, unless you ad the bot disclaimer.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#17

That will be a fun one to interpret. So if I use autocorrect, am I a bot? What if the device makes next word suggestions and I use them? What if the device suggests the entire post, but I manually approve it? What if it suggests five separate posts and I approve them all at once?

1) No, proofreading is not authorship.

2,3,4) A judge could reasonably find that you were attempting to circumvent the law and declare all of these as “bot”.

The judicial system will not specify in writing complete coverage for every loophole. Judges can, regardless, find you guilty.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#18

That will be a fun one to interpret. So if I use autocorrect, am I a bot? What if the device makes next word suggestions and I use them? What if the device suggests the entire post, but I manually approve it? What if it suggests five separate posts and I approve them all at once?

I wouldn’t classify that as a bot as there’s still human interaction required.

Reminds me of those election SMS messages. /Technically/ a human presses send on every single message so it doesn't meet the definition of SMS spam, but for all practical purposes it is.

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#19

That will be a fun one to interpret. So if I use autocorrect, am I a bot? What if the device makes next word suggestions and I use them? What if the device suggests the entire post, but I manually approve it? What if it suggests five separate posts and I approve them all at once?

1) No, proofreading is not authorship. 2,3,4) A judge could reasonably find that you were attempting to circumvent the law and declare all of these as “bot”. The judicial system will not specify in writing complete coverage for every loophole. Judges can, regardless, find you guilty.

Related: The TCPA[0] disallows automated text messages, but using software[1] to help you text individual people more rapidly is legal[2].

[0] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-tcpa-protection-...

[1] https://www.hustle.com/

[2] https://abc7news.com/politics/campaigns-are-texting-voters-o...

Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure

#20
post #8

> Violators could face fines under state statutes related to unfair competition. I doubt that anyone running bots, and who is technically competent, will be identifiable or findable. I mean, I could do it, and I'm just a random anonymous coward.

I feel the same way. It seems like this is likely to catch playful bots and not truly nefarious bots, because in the latter case the owner / author will sufficiently cover their tracks (and will probably not be in the state of California?)

I'm excited to see legislation in this direction but I wish they'd focus on forcing Twitter, Facebook, etc. (which /are/ in California and can be governed) to display / disclose when they are aware a user is likely a bot, and employ some half-decent detection methods.

Post reply on HN