This is clearly undisclosed promotion for vetto.app. alexd127's only other account activity is on this thread [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901553 ] for the exact same bill.
Better website:
California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
71–80 of 186 posts
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#72A 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…
[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#73Earlier 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.)
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.
surprisingly, I've been registered for 15+ years and I don't get too much political spam via text. Tons through mail, but not my phone (I never changed my phone number either).
Now regular spam... I'm pretty sure I got 6 calls today alone. Help.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#74This is clearly undisclosed promotion for vetto.app. alexd127's only other account activity is on this thread [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901553 ] for the exact same bill.
is that against the hn guidelines or something?
No but still good to know in this case specially as the website is broken and I had to refresh a few times.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#75A 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…
[flagged]
The Luddites were activists defending humanity against the harms of mechanization, yes.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#76Wait... What? There is already a law for this exact purpose in California. It's called the BOT Act from 2019
https://dailyjournal.com/articles/379909-california-s-bolste...
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#77Should PUBG mobile players be told they are winning against bots? Should psychics tell you they cannot really speak for the dead?
>Should PUBG mobile players be told they are winning against bots?
They don't already? Games tend to be one of the better platforms of informing of an AI opponent vs. a Human one.
>Should psychics tell you they cannot really speak for the dead
We have to prove they are robots first.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#78I wish this legislation would also apply to AI generated emails, sales outreach, and LinkedIn messages.
Have you been to LinkedIn recently. It is the "dead internet theory" in practice. Every single post, every single comment. I do not understand what's the point of it.
I miss when it was about job/candidate search and that's it.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#79Interesting. I’m afraid this won’t really go anywhere, but it’s a good conversation to have On one hand, judging by the comments, there’s quite a bit of interest on disclosure On the other hand, corporations and big advertisers (spammers?) might not really want it. Or is there a positive aspect in disclosure for them?
>I’m afraid this won’t really go anywhere
California tends to be pretty good (well, "good". relative to federal and other states) at getting consumer friendly bills passed. They don't always work, but the intent for many bills feel focused on the people.
>On the other hand, corporations and big advertisers (spammers?) might not really want it.
Of course they don't. I would love one day seeing how many bots there truly are on Reddit and seeing how close to Dead Internet we are.
I don't think HN hits the 10m threshold to require disclosure. But I also doubt many bots are on here.
Re: California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots
#80I wish this legislation would also apply to AI generated emails, sales outreach, and LinkedIn messages.
LinkedIn would be in shambles if this became law.
It would become much better website to be honest if only thing you can post is if you are recruiting or if you are searching for a job. The slop is just ruining the experience and diluting the purpose of the website.