Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 278 posts

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

#181

Post by wickedlogic »

Bots are going to be the way we interact with the web (and really all systems) heading forward, this 'real people' at just 'browsers' is quite a misunderstanding of what a 'user-agent' really means in this day and age.

If I launch a new tab in the background and tell it go establish some set of factors for me, or locate price points and details for me, or buy something for me (and right now as me)... or just have it let me browser and interactively direct it but have it block ads as I go.

I know the law, and lawmakers, are looking at this from a fraudulent content perspective, but they are going to be hard pressed to do anything in long run to quell this.

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

#183

Post by ryandrake »

MrGilbert wrote: post #99
dorgo wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wonder why HN always has comments like these It's a work related disease. A coder must consider all corner cases in advance. There is no judge to decipher the spirit of a program.

slight-OT: Yes, it is. Which is frustrating in itself. In general, I've developed a strategy: Me: "So, what should the program do when XYZ occurs?" Marketing: "Uhm... Dunno, haven't thought about it. I'd decide by, you know, gut instinct. We haven't thought about that yet." Me: implements a virtual coin-flip using Random.Next() Once you've done that, it's easier.

Or, file a bug for each corner case, mark it release-blocking, and assign to whoever is responsible for the requirements.

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

#185

Post by r00fus »

novok wrote: post #103
hajhatten wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> see the Samsung ad which they're currently being hauled over the coals for in Australia. For people not in the know, apparently Samsung is marketing its latest phones as water proof with ads showing surfers and people fully clothed under water. ACCC does not approve of this, as the phones aren't IP rated for use in salt water. https://www.techradar.com/news/samsung-is-getting-sued-in-au...

Samsung isn’t the only one. Apple is similar too in its carve outs for water damage in it’s warranty. Im guessing samsung weasels out of it by saying water ‘resistance’ vs proof, but still marketing it with surfers and such? My water resistant series 3 apple watch screen died after swimming in a pool the next day to give a personal example.

My Apple Watch series 0 (a watch that wasn't marketed as waterproof) had a dozen+ days in the ocean and 50+ dunks in a pool and suffered no malfunction. You must have had a bad quality item.

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

#187

Post by r00fus »

jlangenauer wrote: post #69

I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…

In the US, at the core of that problem is the deception that corporations are "people" at a fundamental level. That fundamental untruth allows and essentially permits all the others.

Bots? Just a manifestation of the above.

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

#188

Post by daveFNbuck »

r00fus wrote: post #187
jlangenauer wrote: post #69

I am reminded of Thoreau's quote: "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." The root of the problem is not that we have bots, but that we have normalised lying and deception as part of everyday business. We allow companies to pretend that bots are human beings, and allow call-center employees in third-world countries to pretend (even sometimes though elaborate lying) t…

In the US, at the core of that problem is the deception that corporations are "people" at a fundamental level. That fundamental untruth allows and essentially permits all the others. Bots? Just a manifestation of the above.

I'm having trouble seeing the connection between these two issues. If we didn't treat corporations as people, how would that stop companies from using bots?

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

#189

Post by FigletNewton »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #60

California is setting a dangerous precident. If individual states each enact individual laws governing the internet, then only large companies will have the resources to follow them. We'll see a balkanization of the web wherein it's no longer very world wide. Small internet businesses will become harder and harder to start. Big monopolies will become entrenched. It's not pretty.

If you know how to create a bot, then you know how to make it tell you that it is a bot.

I accept the general premise of your point, but this particular law isn't asking anything onerous. The societal benefits that come from limiting the ways in which political and commercial bots can decieve the public are just too great to claim this is a bad thing.

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

#190

Post by ajflores1604 »

Does anyone have any insight if this would affect market trading algorithms and bots? The article says the law is "requiring that they reveal their “artificial identity” when they are used to sell a product", but I'm not sure how broad of a definition they want for the word "selling".
Post reply on HN