State Senator Wants A Law Forcing Bots To Admit They're Not Human (brisbanetimes.com.au)

An anonymous reader writes: Several commentators are calling for a law that requires bots to admit they are not human. There is a bill in California that would do just that. A new paper argues that these laws may look Constitutional but actually raise First Amendment issues.
The New York Times reports: Bots are easy to make and widely employed, and social media companies are under no legal obligation to get rid of them. A law that discourages their use could help, but experts aren't sure how the one [state senator Robert] Hertzberg is trying to push through, in California, might work. For starters, would bots be forced to identify themselves in every Facebook post? In their Instagram bios? In their Twitter handles? The measure, SB-1001, a version of which has already left the senate floor and is working its way through the state's Assembly, also doesn't mandate that tech companies enforce the regulation. And it's unclear how a bill that is specific only to California would apply to a global internet...

All parties agree that the bill illustrates the difficulty that lawmakers have in crafting legislation that effectively addresses the problems constituents confront online. As the pace of technological development has raced ahead of government, the laws that exist on the books -- not to mention some lawmakers' understandings of technology -- have remained comparatively stagnant.
The Times seems to question whether the law should be targeted at the creators of bots instead of the platforms that host them, pointing out that tech companies like Twitter "have the power to change dynamics on their platforms directly and at the scale that those problems require."

Comments

Blade Runner

[Tablizer]

The discrimination starts

More false-positive banning

[Okian Warrior]

Note the line in the OP:

The measure, SB-1001 [...] also doesn't mandate that tech companies enforce the regulation.

This is a ridiculous proposal, along the lines of DMCA requests where there is no penalty for filing a false claim.

Rather than have senators note a problem and legislate the first thing that pops into their head, how about we get one or two of the big players on board, get several proposed solutions, identify a method to measure success, and try each of those solutions?

Specifically on the subject of bots, note that CAPTCHAS have evolved over the years with several rounds of implementation. The original implementation ("enter the letters shown") can now be cracked by programs at the human level - so much so that making it more difficult than the algorithms can handle makes it more difficult than *humans* can handle.

The proposed law will only lead to more false-positive banning of real humans, which can be a) tuned to a political ideology, and b) for the human to give up privacy to regain their account. ("Send us a copy of your ID and we'll reinstate your account", or "Send us your phone number and we'll make you more secure.")

California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.

Re:More false-positive banning

[Kohath]

California needs to stop making laws on a whim, and start making laws based on study and evaluation of results.

California voters are very shallow and very self-involved. "Study and evidence" are from outside a voters' individual emotional conception of himself/herself. Politicians won't care about facts or evidence or thought or reason until voters do.

Re:More false-positive banning

[Anne Thwacks]

Dimocracy is government of the dim, for the dim, by the dim. Dunning Kruger explains how all democracies will go that way. (People often assume that half the people are of below average intelligence - no - there are a few very bright sparks, and the rest are dim or very dim).

Be a grownup instead

[Kohath]

Don't you guys get tired of government trying to be your mom? Do you really need your government mom to protect you from the nasty bots?

Be a grownup and make grownup choices. Then you won't need a government mommy watching out for you.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Kohath]

The job of the government is to protect it's people from threats.

The job of government is to do things collectively that can't reasonably be done individually, like provide for a national defense or build a sewer system.

Being a grownup is something you can do individually. You don't need a government mom to keep you safe from bots.

Do you really need your government mom to protect you from the nasty bots?

I don't need them to protect me from bots per se but I need them to protect everyone, especially our less "savvy" individuals from being misled.

Step 1: Assume you are above everyone else. By implication, others are like children. You are not. Your superiority is affirmed.
Step 2: Assert your protective benevolence over the lesser beings. They need your help because they are incapable.
Step 3: Because you are above the lesser individuals, and because you are benevolent enough to want to protect them, your power over them is righteous. They owe you their obedience.

Re:Be a grownup instead

[Gravis Zero]

The job of government is to do things collectively that can't reasonably be done individually, like provide for a national defense or build a sewer system.

So another nation is running a disinformation campaign using our own systems and you don't think that qualifies as "national defense"? Stop being a nitwit.

Being a grownup is something you can do individually. You don't need a government mom to keep you safe from bots.

By that logic, we don't need nutrition labels, laws against false advertising, laws against all forms of fraud or even the FDA. I told you to stop being a nitwit!

Step 1: Assume you are above everyone else. By implication, others are like children. You are not. Your superiority is affirmed.

I do not and have never used invasive social media platforms like Facebook to obtain information therefore I do not need to be protected from bot posts on social media. However, not everyone is playing at the same level as some people are smarter and more informed than others, especially when it comes to technology. Why won't you stop being a nitwit?!

Re:Not a first amendment issue

[_Sharp'r_]

Except of course, this law doesn't actually protect anyone against anything bad. The vast majority of the Internet isn't bound by CA law, so the only real result would be that anyone who is in business to create "bad" automated online postings will avoid having their business based in CA. Even if this silly idea spreads, there will always be some jurisdictions where someone can run a bot online without being in one, so all the serious fraudsters/crooks/criminals will just run their operations elsewhere.

No, the people who are most likely to be actually affected by this are small time folks who use a bot for convenience and not for any nefarious purpose. For example, almost every author or minor celebrity who has a reasonable social media presences uses a bot to pre-schedule tweets/posts/etc... so they (or their assistant if they're big enough) can do their social media work in a couple of hours each week, then let it get posted at a reasonable timing. Those are the kinds of people who will have to choose between posting "as a bot" because they use some convenient automation, or else giving up their social media marketing because they just don't have time to make it worthwhile anymore, or start paying cash to someone who lives outside CA to post stuff for them.

It's all these sorts of little frictions imposed by clowns like Hertzberg who think "There ought to be a law!" to solve every little problem which cause people to not be able to start a small business, or try to survive as an artist, or whatever freedom they want to exercise this week, but can't because the regulatory burden for stupid stuff is just piled on and on in places like CA.

Re:Trump will die in Federal Prison either way

[datavirtue]

Republicans are against Putin. You are going off script again Nancy.

But, what if they IDENTIFY as human?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know some SJW will make that claim.