4 ms·

The natural next step is to require bot labels for bots. Suddenly machine learning models that detect and bans bots without a label will be feasible. THAT will

The natural next step is to require bot labels for bots. Suddenly machine learning models that detect and bans bots without a label will be feasible. THAT will have a big impact on "healthy conversations" which seems to be their goal.

rebuilder 5y ago
This move seems designed specifically to forestall calls for that requirement. Consider: Twitter are first pointing out that bots can be good, IOW "we're not banning them outright". Then they're introducing this non-mandatory bot label, which makes it seem like they're aware of bots and working on ensuring they can keep doing all the good things they do. Of course, none of this addresses malicious bots in any way. In effect, this is Twitter showing they're aware of their bot problem, but unwilling or unable to do anything about it, and are therefore doing a misdirection as a PR effort.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rPlayer6554 5y ago
To me (who doesn't use Twitter) this seems like a fair solution. If you are running a legitimate bot I don't see what you have to hide. It's only people trying to be intentionally deceptive that have to worry.
- capableweb 5y ago
  You seem to be anonymous here on HN, why don't you use your full name instead if you have nothing to hide and you're not intentionally deceptive? No, privacy doesn't work like that. Even people who are not trying to deceive others are deserving of privacy as well. Most of my accounts (except one) on the internet are anonymous, as I don't want people to tie anything I do for fun on the internet to my real-life persona. It doesn't mean that I want to deceive people, only that I want my meatspace life to be something else than my online life.
  - doubleunplussed 5y ago
    Your bot could be anonymous, the only thing you'd be forced to reveal is that it was a bot. just a [bot] marker of some kind next to the tweets that were posted by a bot. That's it. Still anonymous. I could tell you this comment was posted by a bot, that would reveal nothing about me.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    Anonymity is fine, they were saying that bots should be labeled as bots.
  - afarrell 5y ago
    > privacy doesn't work like that Except we aren't discussing private conversations. We are discussing broadcast conversations on twitter.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    Without tying your anonymity to something else (whether it’s another anonymous account or a real world identity) it’s impossible to determine whether you want to deceive or not, no? In any case real identities have been a failure anyway
  - Vinnl 5y ago
    There's plenty you could have to hide as a user on HN. But what reason does a bot have to hide the fact that it's a bot?
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    You people and your absolutes. Nobody is saying that every anon is deceitful and untrustworthy- just that you need to make sure your BS detector is working.
  - dharmab 5y ago
    I don't see how "I am a bot, beep boop" is a privacy issue.
  - rPlayer6554 5y ago
    But a bot isn't a person. And you don't have to reveal who made the bot, just that it's a bot. Can you give me a good use case for a bot that is not some kind of manipulation and would still benifit from humans not knowing it's a bot? Usually you want people to know so they aren't confused why the account acts werid i.e. unhuman.
- equality_1138 5y ago
  Twitter makes its money as a marketing engine. Who can say what marketing is deemed intentionally deceptive? I'm not a Twitter user either but it seems to me an obvious question.
  - freeone3000 5y ago
    Most bots aren't marketing bots, they're sort of... Goofs, or utilities, or projects. Like @MyDudes_, which posts a picture of a frog every Wednesday. Or alttextbot, which if you follow it, DMs you when you've posted a picture without alt text. Or wwiiInRealTime. Or wintbot_neo, which is inexplicable outside of twitter but serves only comedic purpose.
    - sigstoat 5y ago
      > Most bots aren't marketing bots, wouldn't you need to know how many marketing bots there are to determine that? making statements about goodbots/(goodbots+badbots) is difficult when the good bots already make it clear they're bots, and the bad bots are misleading.
    - CharlesW 5y ago
      > Most bots aren't marketing bots, they're sort of... Goofs, or utilities, or projects. In my experience those kinds of boutique/indie bots appear to make up a tiny percentage of total bots. If you have data that shows otherwise, I'd appreciate if you could share it.
      - freeone3000 5y ago
        They're the kind people engage with. There's obviously a lot more astroturfing and disinformation, but most corporate marketing on twitter is done by humans. Steak-Umm, Oreo, Microsoft, Wendy's, even indie game publishers have a human running their accounts.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
theshrike79 5y ago
This is what Discord does. A bot looks exactly like a normal user, except for a [BOT] label after the name. Works like a charm.
wink 5y ago
Only on Twitter is 'bot' now a loaded term the masses understand. In every other medium you could already (and many did) let some software post automatic posts (most benign example: "Here's my new blog post: xxxx") or scripts on irc. Where is the line? Technically scheduled tweets are automatic, and so, by some definition, bots.
somehnacct3757 5y ago
This is how I see it too. Twitter is boiling the frog on malicious bot accounts. Bots that want you to think they're human will end up with "bot verified" badges that undermine the strength of their opinion, or they will be banned.
HyperLinear 5y ago
AFAIK the Fediverse requires this (on mastodon instances).
- drewzero1 5y ago
  I really appreciate that some masto/fedi clients have the option to indicate bot accounts. Tusky adds a little robot icon to the profile pic of bot accounts, which helps when deciding whether/how to interact.
CharlesW 5y ago
> The natural next step is to require bot labels for bots. Great! This would convince me to use Twitter again.
ryantgtg 5y ago
But on Twitter, bots aren’t only bots. For example, I have bot accounts that auto-tweet things, but then I can log in to those accounts and manually tweet. Because of that I’d think the label would have to be applied to individual tweets and not to the profile.

rebuilder 5y ago

This move seems designed specifically to forestall calls for that requirement. Consider: Twitter are first pointing out that bots can be good, IOW "we're not banning them outright". Then they're introducing this non-mandatory bot label, which makes it seem like they're aware of bots and working on ensuring they can keep doing all the good things they do. Of course, none of this addresses malicious bots in any way. In effect, this is Twitter showing they're aware of their bot problem, but unwilling or unable to do anything about it, and are therefore doing a misdirection as a PR effort.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

rPlayer6554 5y ago

To me (who doesn't use Twitter) this seems like a fair solution. If you are running a legitimate bot I don't see what you have to hide. It's only people trying to be intentionally deceptive that have to worry.

capableweb 5y ago
You seem to be anonymous here on HN, why don't you use your full name instead if you have nothing to hide and you're not intentionally deceptive? No, privacy doesn't work like that. Even people who are not trying to deceive others are deserving of privacy as well. Most of my accounts (except one) on the internet are anonymous, as I don't want people to tie anything I do for fun on the internet to my real-life persona. It doesn't mean that I want to deceive people, only that I want my meatspace life to be something else than my online life.
- doubleunplussed 5y ago
  Your bot could be anonymous, the only thing you'd be forced to reveal is that it was a bot. just a [bot] marker of some kind next to the tweets that were posted by a bot. That's it. Still anonymous. I could tell you this comment was posted by a bot, that would reveal nothing about me.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  Anonymity is fine, they were saying that bots should be labeled as bots.
- afarrell 5y ago
  > privacy doesn't work like that Except we aren't discussing private conversations. We are discussing broadcast conversations on twitter.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  Without tying your anonymity to something else (whether it’s another anonymous account or a real world identity) it’s impossible to determine whether you want to deceive or not, no? In any case real identities have been a failure anyway
- Vinnl 5y ago
  There's plenty you could have to hide as a user on HN. But what reason does a bot have to hide the fact that it's a bot?
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  You people and your absolutes. Nobody is saying that every anon is deceitful and untrustworthy- just that you need to make sure your BS detector is working.
- dharmab 5y ago
  I don't see how "I am a bot, beep boop" is a privacy issue.
- rPlayer6554 5y ago
  But a bot isn't a person. And you don't have to reveal who made the bot, just that it's a bot. Can you give me a good use case for a bot that is not some kind of manipulation and would still benifit from humans not knowing it's a bot? Usually you want people to know so they aren't confused why the account acts werid i.e. unhuman.
equality_1138 5y ago
Twitter makes its money as a marketing engine. Who can say what marketing is deemed intentionally deceptive? I'm not a Twitter user either but it seems to me an obvious question.
- freeone3000 5y ago
  Most bots aren't marketing bots, they're sort of... Goofs, or utilities, or projects. Like @MyDudes_, which posts a picture of a frog every Wednesday. Or alttextbot, which if you follow it, DMs you when you've posted a picture without alt text. Or wwiiInRealTime. Or wintbot_neo, which is inexplicable outside of twitter but serves only comedic purpose.
  - sigstoat 5y ago
    > Most bots aren't marketing bots, wouldn't you need to know how many marketing bots there are to determine that? making statements about goodbots/(goodbots+badbots) is difficult when the good bots already make it clear they're bots, and the bad bots are misleading.
  - CharlesW 5y ago
    > Most bots aren't marketing bots, they're sort of... Goofs, or utilities, or projects. In my experience those kinds of boutique/indie bots appear to make up a tiny percentage of total bots. If you have data that shows otherwise, I'd appreciate if you could share it.
    - freeone3000 5y ago
      They're the kind people engage with. There's obviously a lot more astroturfing and disinformation, but most corporate marketing on twitter is done by humans. Steak-Umm, Oreo, Microsoft, Wendy's, even indie game publishers have a human running their accounts.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

theshrike79 5y ago

This is what Discord does. A bot looks exactly like a normal user, except for a [BOT] label after the name. Works like a charm.

wink 5y ago

Only on Twitter is 'bot' now a loaded term the masses understand. In every other medium you could already (and many did) let some software post automatic posts (most benign example: "Here's my new blog post: xxxx") or scripts on irc. Where is the line? Technically scheduled tweets are automatic, and so, by some definition, bots.

somehnacct3757 5y ago

This is how I see it too. Twitter is boiling the frog on malicious bot accounts. Bots that want you to think they're human will end up with "bot verified" badges that undermine the strength of their opinion, or they will be banned.

HyperLinear 5y ago

AFAIK the Fediverse requires this (on mastodon instances).

drewzero1 5y ago
I really appreciate that some masto/fedi clients have the option to indicate bot accounts. Tusky adds a little robot icon to the profile pic of bot accounts, which helps when deciding whether/how to interact.

CharlesW 5y ago

> The natural next step is to require bot labels for bots. Great! This would convince me to use Twitter again.

ryantgtg 5y ago

But on Twitter, bots aren’t only bots. For example, I have bot accounts that auto-tweet things, but then I can log in to those accounts and manually tweet. Because of that I’d think the label would have to be applied to individual tweets and not to the profile.