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

Fake girlfriend, revisited

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#51

Post by xg15 »

lmm wrote: post #17
ilkkao wrote: post #6

If the boyfriend/girlfriend ratio is 60/40, they could almost just connect these people together.

I used to work in the phone industry. If you're allowing users to message each other you need human moderators, otherwise you'll get death threats and bizarre fantasies carefully worded to get around any automated filter. If you're going to pay a human to read every message you might as well pay them to write them, it takes a similar amount of time and usually means better service.

No question that this holds if humans know that they are talking to other humans. But do you think the same is true for humans who think they talk to bots?

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#52

Post by _0ffh »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #49
_0ffh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems a bit counterproductive to me! Why would you choose to not have information about the other party, when you are trying to evaluate them?

Because you don't want to disclose your information.

So you are saying that I would want to use a "moderated dating" platform if I needed a very strict etiquette in order to conceal that I was a dick?

Sounds like an attractive place to me!

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#53

Post by mirimir »

DanBC wrote: post #48
mirimir wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. But the thing is that they're going after everything. Add some hot key words. Back in the day, we used sigs for our Usenet posts that were loaded with hot keywords. Anyway, this would cost real money, for sure. But the labor supply for fake friends is huge, especially if you don't care about proficiency in English. Edit: For example, one could generate numerous fake Russian acquaintances of Edward Snowden, and…

When someone suggests rolling their own crypto a bunch of people pop up to point out the considerable risks. We need the same for these "wheat / chaff" steganographic noise generation schemes. Steganography is probably secure, but people tend to vastly underestimate the amount of cover material needed. Considerable money and time has been devoted to "finding the real signal". The Usenet keyword triggers were triviall…

I'm not suggesting that this would, by itself, hide anything. But if enough people did it, it could have an overall pro-privacy impact.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#54

Post by icoder »

dnate wrote: post #43
geon wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a Swedish summer hit song with basically this premisse a few years ago. "Anna, the bot".

Boten Anna! such a classic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYQUsp-jxDQ

Haha, was that about this? 'Boten' sounds like 'boat' (and the Dutch equivalent, 'boot'), and so we had a cover in our language about someone who had a 'really beautiful boat' called Anna.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#55

Post by JonnieCache »

geon wrote: post #39
Scarblac wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's romantic comedy stuff. Both sides believe they've hired a bot but have been secretly matched and are just talking to each other, to save costs. They are really happy with the "relationship" they have with the "bot". When they find out, they are outraged and sue the company...

There was a Swedish summer hit song with basically this premisse a few years ago. "Anna, the bot".

Isn't that song about their IRC bot and how they love her because she kicks all the lamers from their channel and protects it from takeovers?

Here's a video with english subs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7iU0GGVco8

EDIT: oh yeah at the end it does turn out that she's really a human girl.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#56

Post by philh »

_0ffh wrote: post #40
guard-of-terra wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Moderated dating" is an interesting idea by itself. Where both sides have to conform to a very strict etiquette (platform rules), until they both decide to move their relationship to next level anyway. I can see how it can appeal to some people.

Seems a bit counterproductive to me! Why would you choose to not have information about the other party, when you are trying to evaluate them?

If you don't trust your evaluation function to be optimizing for your actual values.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#57

Post by lmm »

_0ffh wrote: post #40
guard-of-terra wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Moderated dating" is an interesting idea by itself. Where both sides have to conform to a very strict etiquette (platform rules), until they both decide to move their relationship to next level anyway. I can see how it can appeal to some people.

Seems a bit counterproductive to me! Why would you choose to not have information about the other party, when you are trying to evaluate them?

I remember an interesting piece on the OKCupid blog where they said that they'd blanked out profile pictures for a special event (so people had to just look at what each other had written), and people who went on dates during that event rated their dates much higher.

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#58

Post by restalis »

Scarblac wrote: post #13
ilkkao wrote: post #6

If the boyfriend/girlfriend ratio is 60/40, they could almost just connect these people together.

That's romantic comedy stuff. Both sides believe they've hired a bot but have been secretly matched and are just talking to each other, to save costs. They are really happy with the "relationship" they have with the "bot". When they find out, they are outraged and sue the company...

"When they find out, they are outraged and sue the company..."

So knowing this possibility, write a disclaimer first! A generic one of course, that won't rise awareness in (the unlikely) case your clients actually bother to read something before signing up!

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#59

Post by restalis »

xg15 wrote: post #51
lmm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work in the phone industry. If you're allowing users to message each other you need human moderators, otherwise you'll get death threats and bizarre fantasies carefully worded to get around any automated filter. If you're going to pay a human to read every message you might as well pay them to write them, it takes a similar amount of time and usually means better service.

No question that this holds if humans know that they are talking to other humans. But do you think the same is true for humans who think they talk to bots?

This will make a wonderful Turing Test, won't it?

Re: Fake girlfriend, revisited

#60

Post by Jtsummers »

_0ffh wrote: post #52
guard-of-terra wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you don't want to disclose your information.

So you are saying that I would want to use a "moderated dating" platform if I needed a very strict etiquette in order to conceal that I was a dick? Sounds like an attractive place to me!

All dating sites are moderated, to some degree. At least the mainstream ones. I can't think of one where you start by posting your home phone and address and full name.

You start by sending messages, establish a relationship. Then you elevate it to messaging/calling via other platforms or real world meetings at your own pace.

It's not for concealing that you're a dick (well, it could be), it's more for protecting you from who knows how many people with who knows what intentions. It's not a guarantee, but it's a filter that works fairly well.

Post reply on HN