Seems to be down.
It’s probably struggling. I first got an error, then got the correct content after trying it a couple times
California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
21–30 of 186 posts
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#22I wish this legislation would also apply to AI generated emails, sales outreach, and LinkedIn messages.
Also, political SMS messages and the messages you get from some other random number acknowledging the "STOP" message you just sent. (Especially if it were in a machine readable form.)
I don’t think those are actually bots, unfortunately. There’s a law preventing automated text messages, but there’s a loophole if the message is sent by an actual human being. So campaigns and PACs just get teams of volunteers to send out messages, likely with some software that lets them send messages to a list of numbers with a single click.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#23Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#24The requirement doesn't kick in until 10 million monthly US users. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to smaller businesses.
Contrarianly, startups should have a little maneuverability to be naughty. Any slight edge against incumbents is directionally sound policy, imho.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#25A decade ago, when chat bots were a lot less useful, a common piece of etiquette was that it's fine for a bot to pretend to be a human or God or whatever, but if you directly ask it if it's a bot it has to confirm that. Basically of the bot version of that myth about undercover cops.
I don't see a downside in requiring public-facing bots to do that
Not sure if that's what the proposal is about though, it's currently down
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#26How do I know if I'm a bot?
The simulation hypothesis says we're all bots.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, political SMS messages and the messages you get from some other random number acknowledging the "STOP" message you just sent. (Especially if it were in a machine readable form.)
For political stuff you need a human to press send. So it's a semi automated system. I've volunteered before, and at least in CA, you basically have a gui that prepolutes messages and guides you through each number one by one. Its really weird
Interesting! Does the same interface expose you to people’s responses, if any? That is, if I receive one of your campaign texts, am I indeed “texting with a person” both directions? Or does that route to a call center somewhere?
I note in TFA that it:
> expands current law, which only mandates disclosure when bots aim to influence commercial transactions or voting behavior.
I wonder if your campaign does it that way because of a rule that applies to particular type of actors, or just because voters viscerally hate robo-whatever.
The best-intentioned of regulations…
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#28Archive link to the overview: https://archive.ph/U7q9u
And full text here: https://archive.ph/AYnoR
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#29The requirement doesn't kick in until 10 million monthly US users. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to smaller businesses.
Run 10 subsidiaries via a chain of shell companies, each carefully staying under, say, 8M monthly users, all relaying approximately the same messages, both by pure coincidence, and by admittedly blatant imitation of each other!
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#30Who wants to bet this ends up in prop-65-like list of disclaimers about алл тхе automation tools used for every message, which will make the messages bigger but won't make them any less frequent?