So this disclosure will now be required with all robocall spam calls?
California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure
131–140 of 278 posts
Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure
#132I 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…
Strongly agreed. I didn't want to post yet another "reason #651235 why I loathe adtech" comment, but that's really it. Bots pretending to be people wouldn't be of interest at this level if it was just criminals trying to scam people - it would be just another type of crime. This is a problem because of the almost-fraud tactics of sales and marketing that, for some reason, happen to be on the right side of the legal l…
Ad: It does EVERYTHING!!!!
2pt font on page 14: Except this page of exclusions, and conflicting exclusions, and the fact the company can add any of their choosing at any time without notice.
Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that this is a widespread problem in many areas but I do think there’s a strong argument that bots are worth singling out in the context of social networking, where the bots are often used to steer public opinion in non-obvious ways with no clear ownership. It’s one thing if Samsung’s support chat-bot is misleading but that at least is obviously linked to the company in question whereas, say, the fake Twitter…
The other issue with bots is whether a company's support is bot-only or human. Free choice and all, but without disclosure ( pre -purchase) a company shouldn't be able to "cost manage" their support function by using an algorithm fronted by chatbots.
Should they have to disclose that their phone system has an IVR before every purchase as well? That they use a third-party logistics provider to handle returns?
Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure
#134Welcome to the Fifth Annual Californian Turing Test Chatbot Hackathon!
This time we've had to introduce some changes to abide by new state legislature.
Messages entered into the chat console must be followed immediately by the string " [I am a bot]", whether you are a bot or a human, but especially if you are a human.
Good luck and have fun!
Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. If you have a personal website with analytics (even your own), suddenly you need to display some cookie warning. If you allow comments all of a sudden you need to follow GDPR. Understanding it may require more time that you were willing to spend on share your ideas with the world. So if you really want to share you move to some big platform that handles it all for you. The law is already so complex that e…
> If you have a personal website with analytics (even your own), suddenly you need to display some cookie warning. If you allow comments all of a sudden you need to follow GDPR. Not having both of those is a good thing, so I see no downside.
Not having comments on anything personal is a good thing with zero downside?
Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure
#136So this disclosure will now be required with all robocall spam calls?
Aren't those already illegal, but just a nightmare to track down for enforcement?
Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure
#137what about people pretending to be bots?
Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure
#138They're not banning bots from pretending, bots don't have a mind of their own.
They are disallowing people from running unlabeled public-facing bots.
Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure
#139Earlier 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 water resistant series 3 apple watch screen died after swimming in a pool the next day to give a personal example.
That's... surprising. To be clear, I'm not saying I don't believe you. But I'm definitely surprised - I've got a Series 2 which I get wet every day and even use while swimming and I haven't had any issues. My mother has a Series 2 or 3 which she also regularly uses while swimming.
Per Apple's documentation[0]
> Apple Watch Series 2, Apple Watch Series 3, and Apple Watch Series 4 may be used for shallow water activities like swimming in a pool or ocean.
Re: California law banning bots from pretending to be real people without disclosure
#140Earlier 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.
Apple is pretty clear about its water performance: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205000
Sorry to hear about your watch. I’ve been lucky enough to have it in the water plenty and never have a problem. Maybe go to an Apple store?