California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by angel_j » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:48 PM UTC

anon1m0us wrote: post #216

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…

The real problem then, is that corporations have unchecked power. No one acting behind them is personally liable for their illegal behavior. Corporations can't go to jail. They only pay fines that are a fraction of their profits from the illegal behavior, which is a mathematical incentive for them to break the law before their competitors. Even in silicon valley, we laud AirBNB, Uber, Facebook, Google, et al. Do you…

How hard would it be to write laws that punish companies in ways that will shape their behavior, like we do with people? All you have to do is take away their ability to business in your jurisdiction. That's corporate jail.

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

#232

Post by ETHisso2017 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:49 PM UTC

anon1m0us wrote: post #216

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…

The real problem then, is that corporations have unchecked power. No one acting behind them is personally liable for their illegal behavior. Corporations can't go to jail. They only pay fines that are a fraction of their profits from the illegal behavior, which is a mathematical incentive for them to break the law before their competitors. Even in silicon valley, we laud AirBNB, Uber, Facebook, Google, et al. Do you…

Corporations can, however, have sanctions imposed on them, like Huawei or ZTE. Perhaps we ought to explore placing companies that routinely lie to consumers on the BIS Entity List, and bar other American companies from doing business with them until they change their ways.

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

#233

Post by logfromblammo » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

hajhatten wrote: post #78

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…

> 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...

They can claim it all they want. When I go to a water-involved activity, my phone goes into a zipper-lock plastic bag that is ostensibly for pills, but is exactly the size required for my phone. Then that bag goes opening-end first into another zippered plastic bag. A capacitative touch screen still works through two layers of plastic water resistance. It's usually the direct sunlight that makes it unusable.

Even if I wasn't worried about the water, what about beach sand?

If an advertisement told me my phone was bulletproof, and showed a video of one getting shot, I would take extra precautions to ensure that it never came into contact with loose bullets, and to store it well away from ammunition or containers that previously held ammunition. That is how much I proactively mistrust ad content.

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

#234

Post by msh317 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

This is a horrible idea, California doesn't have the ability to enforce such a law, and hackers would simple operate from outside California

Bad idea

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

#235

Post by hedora » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 7:18 PM UTC

anon1m0us wrote: post #216

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…

The real problem then, is that corporations have unchecked power. No one acting behind them is personally liable for their illegal behavior. Corporations can't go to jail. They only pay fines that are a fraction of their profits from the illegal behavior, which is a mathematical incentive for them to break the law before their competitors. Even in silicon valley, we laud AirBNB, Uber, Facebook, Google, et al. Do you…

I’m a fan of forcing corporations to issue shares to the victims.

Do something minor? 10% dilution. Do something worthy of the corporate death penalty? Issue 100 shares for every share outstanding.

Of course, the issued shares would have as many votes as the maximum currently issued share (so if the founders get 10 votes per share that is what the victims get too).

Note that you can set precedents based on percentage ownership, so this naturally scales to large (and small) companies.

If this were common practice, I guarantee you that companies would be a lot more careful to obey the law: The ceo, founders, and investors all would have a bigger personal financial incentive to obey the law than to break it.

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

#236

Post by jdsully » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 7:32 PM UTC

svachalek wrote: post #215

daveFNbuck wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Citizens have a right to free speech. Corporations do not, unless they also happen to be people.

Do groups of people have a right to free speech or just individuals acting alone?

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

#237

Post by arendtio » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

m1sta_ wrote: post #100

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #9

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 know this is going to sound disingenuous, but are you right-leaning politically?

How do you come to that conclusion?

Actually, he is just asking what the exact definition of a bot is (something every scientist should ask in this context).

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

#238

Post by calibas » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

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…

I agree, and I believe things like massive boycotts, worker-owned cooperatives, and stronger unions are the answer, along with an independent news media.

I know the normal reaction is more fines and regulation, but then you're using bureaucracy and court cases to fight people who are masters of bureaucracy and court cases.

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

#239

Post by arendtio » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

arunbahl wrote: post #51

What are the implications of this on the Turing Test?

IANAL, but AFAIK no machine living in or interacting with someone in California can complete the Turing Test without breaking the law.

A simple question like 'Who should I vote for?' would cause the machine to either answer with the compliant 'Please note, I am not a human being...' or with some illegal comment about the democratic process.

Maybe that law requires an additional paragraph, stating that humans participating in a Turing Test should also identify themselves as bots ;-)

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

#240

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Jul 05, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #209

scarface74 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawmakers are purposefully vague because judges can decipher what the spirit of the law is and fine corporations or condone specific use cases when they are brought up in court. That leads to the judicial branch actually making the law and not having a consistent set of rules depending on who the judge is.

Precedent is foundational to western law. The first judge to make a decision based on a law sets a precedent that informs how that law is interpreted in the future. This is a feature, not a bug because real world situations are messy, complicated, and dynamic. Trying to enumerate every legal interpretation and eventuality based on today's conditions and technology results in a law that won't be meaningful 5 years fro…

You really have that much faith in the US justice system that you don’t believe that partisan judges make judgements all of the time based on their belief system?

Do you want to build a business based on the whims of a judge when you thought that you were following the law?