[oregontim]

This is not about free speech; this is commerce. People are paying platforms for this. This stuff on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter is advertising, not free speech.

And furthermore, misinformation about Covid-19 is a public health issue. The "fire in the theater" analogy applies. Obviously.

What's happened here IMO is that technology has overtaken the ability of our institutions to manage it. And that might explain it, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous.

[oregontim]

This is not about free speech; this is commerce. People are paying platforms for this. This stuff on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter is advertising, not free speech.

And furthermore, misinformation about Covid-19 is a public health issue. The "fire in the theater" analogy applies. Obviously.

What's happened here IMO is that technology has overtaken the ability of our institutions to manage it. And that might explain it, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous.

[ChicagoCard]

I appreciated many of the interesting comments, especially the less dogmatic ones. And sorry to the OP for the partial thread hijack. For one reason or another youtube is now allowing the video in question. They published a fresh interview today with an Oxford epidemiologist. She questioned among other things why case counts are even a thing given the inconsistencies in testing.

[ChicagoCard]

I appreciated many of the interesting comments, especially the less dogmatic ones. And sorry to the OP for the partial thread hijack. For one reason or another youtube is now allowing the video in question. They published a fresh interview today with an Oxford epidemiologist. She questioned among other things why case counts are even a thing given the inconsistencies in testing.

[76lsjumb]

This is not about free speech; this is commerce. People are paying platforms for this. This stuff on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter is advertising, not free speech.

And furthermore, misinformation about Covid-19 is a public health issue. The "fire in the theater" analogy applies. Obviously.

What's happened here IMO is that technology has overtaken the ability of our institutions to manage it. And that might explain it, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous.

Pretty sure I'm going to regret this, because, in an echo chamber, the last thing one should do is not be part of the echo.  But, briefly, here goes...

The "fire in the theater" analogy doesn't apply.  Obviously.  The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.  If the government started trying to eliminate all "Covid-19 misinformation" on the grounds that it is a "public health issue,"  the First Amendment would be gone [and we'd all be living in a country like the one that apparently cannot be named in this context, according to Sen. Harris].

Now, FWIW, and before anyone wastes time on one anticipated rebuttal, please understand that I am in the camp that agrees entirely with the proposition, expressed elsewhere in this thread, that whatever YouTube decides to do or not do, post or not post, is NOT a First Amendment issue.

[76lsjumb]

This is not about free speech; this is commerce. People are paying platforms for this. This stuff on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter is advertising, not free speech.

And furthermore, misinformation about Covid-19 is a public health issue. The "fire in the theater" analogy applies. Obviously.

What's happened here IMO is that technology has overtaken the ability of our institutions to manage it. And that might explain it, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous.

Pretty sure I'm going to regret this, because, in an echo chamber, the last thing one should do is not be part of the echo.  But, briefly, here goes...

The "fire in the theater" analogy doesn't apply.  Obviously.  The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.  If the government started trying to eliminate all "Covid-19 misinformation" on the grounds that it is a "public health issue,"  the First Amendment would be gone [and we'd all be living in a country like the one that apparently cannot be named in this context, according to Sen. Harris].

Now, FWIW, and before anyone wastes time on one anticipated rebuttal, please understand that I am in the camp that agrees entirely with the proposition, expressed elsewhere in this thread, that whatever YouTube decides to do or not do, post or not post, is NOT a First Amendment issue.

[oregontim]

This is not about free speech; this is commerce. People are paying platforms for this. This stuff on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter is advertising, not free speech.



And furthermore, misinformation about Covid-19 is a public health issue. The "fire in the theater" analogy applies. Obviously.



What's happened here IMO is that technology has overtaken the ability of our institutions to manage it. And that might explain it, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous.

Pretty sure I'm going to regret this, because, in an echo chamber, the last thing one should do is not be part of the echo.  But, briefly, here goes...



The "fire in the theater" analogy doesn't apply.  Obviously.  The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.  If the government started trying to eliminate all "Covid-19 misinformation" on the grounds that it is a "public health issue,"  the First Amendment would be gone [and we'd all be living in a country like the one that apparently cannot be named in this context, according to Sen. Harris].

No, please don't regret it. You make an excellent point. I'm glad you added it. Rebuttals are fine with me when they have substance, like this one does.

---

Meanwhile, back to the post that started this thread, a post in today's Business Insider quotes that same Carnegie Mellon study but with a slightly different spin:

Roughly half of the Twitter accounts pushing to 'reopen America' are bots, researchers found

So it's not just a lot of bots on the topic, but rather a lot of bots taking one side — reopen America — on the topic.

From the BI Story:

The researchers said they found that among tweets about "reopening America," 66% came from accounts that were possibly humans using bot assistants to spread their tweets more widely, while 34% came from bots.

There are a few possible explanations for the surge in bot activity. People may have more time to set up elaborate bot networks during stay-at-home orders, and the availability of botnets for hire has exploded recently. Carley also said that the global nature of the pandemic meant that countries and interest groups were using it to advance political agendas.

[oregontim]

This is not about free speech; this is commerce. People are paying platforms for this. This stuff on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter is advertising, not free speech.



And furthermore, misinformation about Covid-19 is a public health issue. The "fire in the theater" analogy applies. Obviously.



What's happened here IMO is that technology has overtaken the ability of our institutions to manage it. And that might explain it, but it doesn't make it any less dangerous.

Pretty sure I'm going to regret this, because, in an echo chamber, the last thing one should do is not be part of the echo.  But, briefly, here goes...



The "fire in the theater" analogy doesn't apply.  Obviously.  The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.  If the government started trying to eliminate all "Covid-19 misinformation" on the grounds that it is a "public health issue,"  the First Amendment would be gone [and we'd all be living in a country like the one that apparently cannot be named in this context, according to Sen. Harris].

No, please don't regret it. You make an excellent point. I'm glad you added it. Rebuttals are fine with me when they have substance, like this one does.

---

Meanwhile, back to the post that started this thread, a post in today's Business Insider quotes that same Carnegie Mellon study but with a slightly different spin:

Roughly half of the Twitter accounts pushing to 'reopen America' are bots, researchers found

So it's not just a lot of bots on the topic, but rather a lot of bots taking one side — reopen America — on the topic.

From the BI Story:

The researchers said they found that among tweets about "reopening America," 66% came from accounts that were possibly humans using bot assistants to spread their tweets more widely, while 34% came from bots.

There are a few possible explanations for the surge in bot activity. People may have more time to set up elaborate bot networks during stay-at-home orders, and the availability of botnets for hire has exploded recently. Carley also said that the global nature of the pandemic meant that countries and interest groups were using it to advance political agendas.

[oldalum]

The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.

my interpretation of this is slightly different from a legal standpoint. It is speech, and the content of the speech is the key, but it is not protected by the first amendment because it causes an imminent danger of violent harm. If the speaker is subjected to a criminal or civil action as a result of his speech, he or she cannot get off by claiming the speech is protected by the first amendment.  (BTW, the phrase is more properly falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.) But YMMV, that's why we have lawyers who charge high fees to debate each other.

[oldalum]

The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.

my interpretation of this is slightly different from a legal standpoint. It is speech, and the content of the speech is the key, but it is not protected by the first amendment because it causes an imminent danger of violent harm. If the speaker is subjected to a criminal or civil action as a result of his speech, he or she cannot get off by claiming the speech is protected by the first amendment.  (BTW, the phrase is more properly falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.) But YMMV, that's why we have lawyers who charge high fees to debate each other.

[Genuine Realist]

The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.

my interpretation of this is slightly different from a legal standpoint. It is speech, and the content of the speech is the key, but it is not protected by the first amendment because it causes an imminent danger of violent harm. If the speaker is subjected to a criminal or civil action as a result of his speech, he or she cannot get off by claiming the speech is protected by the first amendment.  (BTW, the phrase is more properly falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.) But YMMV, that's why we have lawyers who charge high fees to debate each other.

It''s worth reminding some posters where the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' analogy comes from. It was coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenk v. United States, in an opinion upholding the conviction of radical passing out anti-draft literature in front of military offices because that sort of speech was considered just too dangerous. 

I think the public can handle dangerous speech. Much more dangerous is someone deciding what is or is not dangerous.

[Genuine Realist]

The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.

my interpretation of this is slightly different from a legal standpoint. It is speech, and the content of the speech is the key, but it is not protected by the first amendment because it causes an imminent danger of violent harm. If the speaker is subjected to a criminal or civil action as a result of his speech, he or she cannot get off by claiming the speech is protected by the first amendment.  (BTW, the phrase is more properly falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.) But YMMV, that's why we have lawyers who charge high fees to debate each other.

It''s worth reminding some posters where the 'yelling fire in a crowded theater' analogy comes from. It was coined by Oliver Wendell Holmes in Schenk v. United States, in an opinion upholding the conviction of radical passing out anti-draft literature in front of military offices because that sort of speech was considered just too dangerous. 

I think the public can handle dangerous speech. Much more dangerous is someone deciding what is or is not dangerous.

[76lsjumb]

The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.

my interpretation of this is slightly different from a legal standpoint. It is speech, and the content of the speech is the key, but it is not protected by the first amendment because it causes an imminent danger of violent harm. If the speaker is subjected to a criminal or civil action as a result of his speech, he or she cannot get off by claiming the speech is protected by the first amendment.  (BTW, the phrase is more properly falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.) But YMMV, that's why we have lawyers who charge high fees to debate each other.

I have no quibble with any of this, and it is probably a more technically accurate interpretation.  I wrote my post half-asleep at 11:15 pm ... and didn't make much of an effort to edit.  I save that for briefs I write during the day [for which I get paid...although not particularly high fees.]

[76lsjumb]

The problem with yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is that it isn't so much speech as an action  that causes people to react NOT to the content of the speech but to the exigency of the moment, without any time to consider the truth or accuracy of the content, the identity of the speaker, the existence of opposing views, and a variety of other factors that are plainly NOT present in considering online comments.

my interpretation of this is slightly different from a legal standpoint. It is speech, and the content of the speech is the key, but it is not protected by the first amendment because it causes an imminent danger of violent harm. If the speaker is subjected to a criminal or civil action as a result of his speech, he or she cannot get off by claiming the speech is protected by the first amendment.  (BTW, the phrase is more properly falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater.) But YMMV, that's why we have lawyers who charge high fees to debate each other.

I have no quibble with any of this, and it is probably a more technically accurate interpretation.  I wrote my post half-asleep at 11:15 pm ... and didn't make much of an effort to edit.  I save that for briefs I write during the day [for which I get paid...although not particularly high fees.]

[fullmetal]

Tangent -- are bots an element of free speech?  Are the tweets of bots protected by the 1st Am?  I suspect they should/are not...

[fullmetal]

Tangent -- are bots an element of free speech?  Are the tweets of bots protected by the 1st Am?  I suspect they should/are not...

[oregontim]

Tangent -- are bots an element of free speech?  Are the tweets of bots protected by the 1st Am?  I suspect they should/are not...

Is that really a tangent? I think you're right on. I also suspect they should/are not. Also, paid advertising on Facebook and
Twitter that greatly magnifies the reach of what looks like a personal post/tweet ... isn't that commerce?

[oregontim]

Tangent -- are bots an element of free speech?  Are the tweets of bots protected by the 1st Am?  I suspect they should/are not...

Is that really a tangent? I think you're right on. I also suspect they should/are not. Also, paid advertising on Facebook and
Twitter that greatly magnifies the reach of what looks like a personal post/tweet ... isn't that commerce?

[BostonCard]

Well, the USPTO determined that artificial intelligences could not own patents, though I don't think this has been settled.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-an-ai-s...1570801500

In August, the U.S. patent office sent a letter stating that the applications wouldn’t be considered unless the applicants listed the inventors involved by their legal names. Later that month, Dr. Abbott and his team filed a response requesting that the office recognize Dabus as the inventor because there was no human inventor. It also asked that Mr. Thaler be granted ownership rights to the inventions.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, the USPTO determined that artificial intelligences could not own patents, though I don't think this has been settled.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-an-ai-s...1570801500

In August, the U.S. patent office sent a letter stating that the applications wouldn’t be considered unless the applicants listed the inventors involved by their legal names. Later that month, Dr. Abbott and his team filed a response requesting that the office recognize Dabus as the inventor because there was no human inventor. It also asked that Mr. Thaler be granted ownership rights to the inventions.

BC

[g1313]

A "bot" is just a tool, like a loudspeaker - there is a real person or persons behind them. 

Tangent -- are bots an element of free speech?  Are the tweets of bots protected by the 1st Am?  I suspect they should/are not...

Is that really a tangent? I think you're right on. I also suspect they should/are not. Also, paid advertising on Facebook and
Twitter that greatly magnifies the reach of what looks like a personal post/tweet ... isn't that commerce?

[g1313]

A "bot" is just a tool, like a loudspeaker - there is a real person or persons behind them. 

Tangent -- are bots an element of free speech?  Are the tweets of bots protected by the 1st Am?  I suspect they should/are not...

Is that really a tangent? I think you're right on. I also suspect they should/are not. Also, paid advertising on Facebook and
Twitter that greatly magnifies the reach of what looks like a personal post/tweet ... isn't that commerce?

[76lsjumb]

Tangent -- are bots an element of free speech?  Are the tweets of bots protected by the 1st Am?  I suspect they should/are not...

Is that really a tangent? I think you're right on. I also suspect they should/are not. Also, paid advertising on Facebook and
Twitter that greatly magnifies the reach of what looks like a personal post/tweet ... isn't that commerce?

Are all those printed sheets of paper so widely distributed by The NY Times corporation (or Jeff Bezos’ company, for that matter) protected by the First Amendment?

I’ll bet you suspect they should/are... and I would agree with you. So why not bots?

[76lsjumb]

Tangent -- are bots an element of free speech?  Are the tweets of bots protected by the 1st Am?  I suspect they should/are not...

Is that really a tangent? I think you're right on. I also suspect they should/are not. Also, paid advertising on Facebook and
Twitter that greatly magnifies the reach of what looks like a personal post/tweet ... isn't that commerce?

Are all those printed sheets of paper so widely distributed by The NY Times corporation (or Jeff Bezos’ company, for that matter) protected by the First Amendment?

I’ll bet you suspect they should/are... and I would agree with you. So why not bots?

[oregontim]

Are all those printed sheets of paper so widely distributed by The NY Times corporation (or Jeff Bezos’ company, for that matter) protected by the First Amendment?



I’ll bet you suspect they should/are... and I would agree with you. So why not bots?

Interesting point, that one. Yes I suspect they should/are. I'd make two distinctions on bots vs. newspaper

1. And the advertisements that newspapers print are subject to regulation, not protected by the first amendment.
   
2. Bots are ads disguised as people. They ought to be subject to the same rules that require newspapers to clearly label and set aside ads that are designed to look like news content. They have to have "Advertisement" printed above and below, so we know. There's a reason for that ... and it applies to Bots as well.
   

---

A "bot" is just a tool, like a loudspeaker - there is a real person or persons behind them.

Tools get regulated. Noise limitations, for example. There are real people behind those parties that disregard neighborhood noise rules. There are decibel limits in a lot of places. Air horns, loud exhausts, etc.

And most communities distinguish between a loudspeaker in a public gathering vs. a loudspeaker as advertising. Bots are commerce.

[oregontim]

Are all those printed sheets of paper so widely distributed by The NY Times corporation (or Jeff Bezos’ company, for that matter) protected by the First Amendment?



I’ll bet you suspect they should/are... and I would agree with you. So why not bots?

Interesting point, that one. Yes I suspect they should/are. I'd make two distinctions on bots vs. newspaper

1. And the advertisements that newspapers print are subject to regulation, not protected by the first amendment.
   
2. Bots are ads disguised as people. They ought to be subject to the same rules that require newspapers to clearly label and set aside ads that are designed to look like news content. They have to have "Advertisement" printed above and below, so we know. There's a reason for that ... and it applies to Bots as well.
   

---

A "bot" is just a tool, like a loudspeaker - there is a real person or persons behind them.

Tools get regulated. Noise limitations, for example. There are real people behind those parties that disregard neighborhood noise rules. There are decibel limits in a lot of places. Air horns, loud exhausts, etc.

And most communities distinguish between a loudspeaker in a public gathering vs. a loudspeaker as advertising. Bots are commerce.

[M T]

One can think of "bots" as the message they promote (or suppress in the case of a denial of service attack), or as the service that provides the mechanism of promoting that message (perhaps for a price, or for a particular purpose).

As a message, bots aren't just commerce.  They can be used for purposes for/against your most loved/despised ideal or government.

As a service, bots aren't always just commerce.  For instance, it is alleged that some nation-states maintain or support bot nets.

I do agree that one of the dangers of bots is the anonymous, or even forged, multiple identities.   Democracy is built upon each person having a vote.  A misrepresentation of the number of supporters/detractors for a position has a potential to subvert the democratic process.

I do not consider bots to be like megaphones.  A megaphone has one person speaking into it.  Nor do I consider them like the pages of the NYT, which is also attributed to a particular entity.

[M T]

One can think of "bots" as the message they promote (or suppress in the case of a denial of service attack), or as the service that provides the mechanism of promoting that message (perhaps for a price, or for a particular purpose).

As a message, bots aren't just commerce.  They can be used for purposes for/against your most loved/despised ideal or government.

As a service, bots aren't always just commerce.  For instance, it is alleged that some nation-states maintain or support bot nets.

I do agree that one of the dangers of bots is the anonymous, or even forged, multiple identities.   Democracy is built upon each person having a vote.  A misrepresentation of the number of supporters/detractors for a position has a potential to subvert the democratic process.

I do not consider bots to be like megaphones.  A megaphone has one person speaking into it.  Nor do I consider them like the pages of the NYT, which is also attributed to a particular entity.

[Genuine Realist]

One can think of "bots" as the message they promote (or suppress in the case of a denial of service attack), or as the service that provides the mechanism of promoting that message (perhaps for a price, or for a particular purpose).

As a message, bots aren't just commerce.  They can be used for purposes for/against your most loved/despised ideal or government.

As a service, bots aren't always just commerce.  For instance, it is alleged that some nation-states maintain or support bot nets.

I do agree that one of the dangers of bots is the anonymous, or even forged, multiple identities.   Democracy is built upon each person having a vote.  A misrepresentation of the number of supporters/detractors for a position has a potential to subvert the democratic process.

I do not consider bots to be like megaphones.  A megaphone has one person speaking into it.  Nor do I consider them like the pages of the NYT, which is also attributed to a particular entity.

Commercial speech does have some First Amendment protections. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...ial-speech

Query, however, whether expressions of opinion in the form of tweets are in any sense instances of commercial speech. 

More to the point is whether Twitter is subject to government regulation of that type. It's going to be (in my opinion)  over the course of time. But probably not yet.

[Genuine Realist]

One can think of "bots" as the message they promote (or suppress in the case of a denial of service attack), or as the service that provides the mechanism of promoting that message (perhaps for a price, or for a particular purpose).

As a message, bots aren't just commerce.  They can be used for purposes for/against your most loved/despised ideal or government.

As a service, bots aren't always just commerce.  For instance, it is alleged that some nation-states maintain or support bot nets.

I do agree that one of the dangers of bots is the anonymous, or even forged, multiple identities.   Democracy is built upon each person having a vote.  A misrepresentation of the number of supporters/detractors for a position has a potential to subvert the democratic process.

I do not consider bots to be like megaphones.  A megaphone has one person speaking into it.  Nor do I consider them like the pages of the NYT, which is also attributed to a particular entity.

Commercial speech does have some First Amendment protections. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...ial-speech

Query, however, whether expressions of opinion in the form of tweets are in any sense instances of commercial speech. 

More to the point is whether Twitter is subject to government regulation of that type. It's going to be (in my opinion)  over the course of time. But probably not yet.

[82 Card]

A "bot" is just a tool, like a loudspeaker - there is a real person or persons behind them. 

I you are holding a demonstration in the street, regulations can prohibit use of loudspeakers. I don't see why the same can't be done with bots.

[82 Card]

A "bot" is just a tool, like a loudspeaker - there is a real person or persons behind them. 

I you are holding a demonstration in the street, regulations can prohibit use of loudspeakers. I don't see why the same can't be done with bots.

[Mick]

[*]Bots are ads disguised as people. They ought to be subject to the same rules that require newspapers to clearly label and set aside ads that are designed to look like news content. They have to have "Advertisement" printed above and below, so we know. There's a reason for that ... and it applies to Bots as well.

Sounds like Bots are advertorials.

[Mick]

[*]Bots are ads disguised as people. They ought to be subject to the same rules that require newspapers to clearly label and set aside ads that are designed to look like news content. They have to have "Advertisement" printed above and below, so we know. There's a reason for that ... and it applies to Bots as well.

Sounds like Bots are advertorials.

[BostonCard]

Here's one bot that I like:

https://twitter.com/NYT_first_said

Basically, the bot tweets every time the New York Times publishes a word that has appeared in the Times for the first time.

For example, the most recent one was "freeballing" (no idea of the context).  It's not an ad.  It's not misinformation.  It's just a little side project that someone made that parses every edition of the NY Times and compares each word in it to a list of words that have appeared in the past, and if it's not in that list, will tweet out the new word.  My favorite from a few days ago was "doomscrolling", a nice portmanteau that describes a behavior a lot of us have engaged in, by going through social media looking for bad news.

Here's another bot:
https://twitter.com/infinite_scream

Basically, the bot responds automatically when tagged in a tweet with an "AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH".  That's basically all it does.  Again, it's not an ad.  It's not misinformation.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here's one bot that I like:

https://twitter.com/NYT_first_said

Basically, the bot tweets every time the New York Times publishes a word that has appeared in the Times for the first time.

For example, the most recent one was "freeballing" (no idea of the context).  It's not an ad.  It's not misinformation.  It's just a little side project that someone made that parses every edition of the NY Times and compares each word in it to a list of words that have appeared in the past, and if it's not in that list, will tweet out the new word.  My favorite from a few days ago was "doomscrolling", a nice portmanteau that describes a behavior a lot of us have engaged in, by going through social media looking for bad news.

Here's another bot:
https://twitter.com/infinite_scream

Basically, the bot responds automatically when tagged in a tweet with an "AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH".  That's basically all it does.  Again, it's not an ad.  It's not misinformation.

BC

[oregontim]

Here's one bot that I like:

https://twitter.com/NYT_first_said

Basically, the bot tweets every time the New York Times publishes a word that has appeared in the Times for the first time.

For example, the most recent one was "freeballing" (no idea of the context).  It's not an ad.  It's not misinformation.  It's just a little side project that someone made that parses every edition of the NY Times and compares each word in it to a list of words that have appeared in the past, and if it's not in that list, will tweet out the new word.  My favorite from a few days ago was "doomscrolling", a nice portmanteau that describes a behavior a lot of us have engaged in, by going through social media looking for bad news.

Here's another bot:
https://twitter.com/infinite_scream

Basically, the bot responds automatically when tagged in a tweet with an "AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH".  That's basically all it does.  Again, it's not an ad.  It's not misinformation.

BC

Agreed. Scripts are bots and bots are scripts, small pieces of code, not necessarily evil, not the real problem. I use bots myself to post my blog posts to Twitter and LinkedIn automatically.

The problem that started this thread is that bots are being used to create what feels to most of the world as public opinion. Bots disguised as normal humans. And the specific Covid-19-relevant research that turned up last week, millions of bots sent into social media to mess with our collective heads related to SIP and masks and such. It's like a lynch mob shouting outside the jail, in which most of the people are cardboard cutouts and just a view voices are amplified to scare the hell out of the sheriff.

I don't have a solution. I agree with what GR pointed out earlier in this thread, that every solution ends up with somebody deciding, which is too much power. Think about what happened to DOJ, EPA, etc. since 2017. Seems like Facebook and Twitter could label or even color everything coming from a bot — but that would really cut into their revenue, by reducing the incentives to pay them. Difficult times.

[oregontim]

Here's one bot that I like:

https://twitter.com/NYT_first_said

Basically, the bot tweets every time the New York Times publishes a word that has appeared in the Times for the first time.

For example, the most recent one was "freeballing" (no idea of the context).  It's not an ad.  It's not misinformation.  It's just a little side project that someone made that parses every edition of the NY Times and compares each word in it to a list of words that have appeared in the past, and if it's not in that list, will tweet out the new word.  My favorite from a few days ago was "doomscrolling", a nice portmanteau that describes a behavior a lot of us have engaged in, by going through social media looking for bad news.

Here's another bot:
https://twitter.com/infinite_scream

Basically, the bot responds automatically when tagged in a tweet with an "AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH".  That's basically all it does.  Again, it's not an ad.  It's not misinformation.

BC

Agreed. Scripts are bots and bots are scripts, small pieces of code, not necessarily evil, not the real problem. I use bots myself to post my blog posts to Twitter and LinkedIn automatically.

The problem that started this thread is that bots are being used to create what feels to most of the world as public opinion. Bots disguised as normal humans. And the specific Covid-19-relevant research that turned up last week, millions of bots sent into social media to mess with our collective heads related to SIP and masks and such. It's like a lynch mob shouting outside the jail, in which most of the people are cardboard cutouts and just a view voices are amplified to scare the hell out of the sheriff.

I don't have a solution. I agree with what GR pointed out earlier in this thread, that every solution ends up with somebody deciding, which is too much power. Think about what happened to DOJ, EPA, etc. since 2017. Seems like Facebook and Twitter could label or even color everything coming from a bot — but that would really cut into their revenue, by reducing the incentives to pay them. Difficult times.

[fullmetal]

Well, according to the Twitter terms of service:

Authenticity
Platform manipulation and spam: You may not use Twitter’s services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter. Learn more.
Election integrity: You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress voter turnout or mislead people about when, where, or how to vote. Learn more.
Impersonation: You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is intended to or does mislead, confuse, or deceive others. Learn more.
Synthetic and manipulated media: You may not deceptively share synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm. In addition, we may label Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media to help people understand their authenticity and to provide additional context. Learn more.

[fullmetal]

Well, according to the Twitter terms of service:

Authenticity
Platform manipulation and spam: You may not use Twitter’s services in a manner intended to artificially amplify or suppress information or engage in behavior that manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter. Learn more.
Election integrity: You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress voter turnout or mislead people about when, where, or how to vote. Learn more.
Impersonation: You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is intended to or does mislead, confuse, or deceive others. Learn more.
Synthetic and manipulated media: You may not deceptively share synthetic or manipulated media that are likely to cause harm. In addition, we may label Tweets containing synthetic and manipulated media to help people understand their authenticity and to provide additional context. Learn more.