4 ms·

"good" implies there is a "bad", but both are subjective... for whom? I thought the same about Google Bot scraping websites, many websites would argue that thi

by buro9 5y ago

"good" implies there is a "bad", but both are subjective... for whom? I thought the same about Google Bot scraping websites, many websites would argue that this is universally good. In fact at Cloudflare the Google Bot was on a system wide allow list as it was "good" (in the older and now long deprecated original system years ago). But "good" from one perspective isn't "good" from all perspectives, it's subjective. Google Bot isn't good to the site that contains private information and launched too early and didn't yet have it's security in place and was scraped and the private exposed. Bots are just machines, and machines aren't "good" or "bad", the actions they perform aren't even "good" or "bad"... it remains relative to each person as to whether they are good or bad. Even with bots on Twitter, for some any bot is bad, or advertising bots are good, or they're bad. Creating the idea of a "blue tick for automated accounts" doesn't seem like the smartest move and just brings in the same problem that the blue tick has with humans. I'm glad they're thinking about the problem, but a binary solution to a subjective and relative problem feels more like a regression than a step forward. Calling this "known" bots would be a better thing, especially if tools to filter tweets by specific known bots existed.

falcor84 5y ago
>Google Bot isn't good to the site that contains private information and launched too early and didn't yet have it's security in place and was scraped and the private exposed. What does Google have to do with this scenario? If someone puts their private information on the internet, then they shouldn't be surprised that their private information is on the internet.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  There’s a difference between “I am in public so taking a photo of me is fair game” and paparazzi gathering around a front door with a dozen cameras snapping flash photos the moment both feet are outside while goading the person verbally because their income depends on a saleable picture. “It’s information in public so someone might see” vs “Google continuously maximising the damage of a short term mistake, testing every door round the clock for accidental unlocks, because it’s in their financial interest” If the internet is a hostile place where mistakes can harm you, the harm comes from the people acting in a hostile way rather than s friendly supportive way, and on this spectrum Google is the indifferent machine rather than the kindly human janitor exercising discretion and judgement.
willis936 5y ago
The answer for bots is the same for dogs: who we call good. It's going to change over time, sometimes quickly. Today bots made by individuals and labeled as bots that once per hour makes some clever markov speech tweet are good. Bots that spam reply to all tweets of a pattern and pretend to be humans are bad. Battles will get fought in the very large grey zone but the entity that gets the final say on "good enough" is the owner. http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/dog-philosophy http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/dog-philosophy
chrbarrol 5y ago
As far as I can see only the BBC article is claiming Twitter is trying to label bots as "good" or "bad". The actual system appears to be for linking bot accounts to real accounts (ie. who made this bot) or simply label an account as "automated" to give better transparency, which to me sounds like an overall positive feature.
everdrive 5y ago
Ultimately technology cannot really solve this problem. People need to either learn to use Twitter less. (or not at all) or find a way to be more rational and skeptical about Twitter. I'm skeptical that this is possible, though, as even genuinely intelligent people seem to become swept up in outrage and narrative as easily as anyone else.
- freedomben 5y ago
  One of the smartest people I know, who is so rational and skeptical against unknown information, will go on Twitter and see a 30 second clip that's totally out of context from some random person, but hits his confirmation bias, and he'll share it to the world. So yeah I'm not optimistic about the future either.
wslh 5y ago
IMHO the idea of accepting some bots (e.g. Google Bot) while not accepting others in robots.txt (e .g. a new Google business killer bot) clashes with Internet neutrality.

by buro9 5y ago

falcor84 5y ago

>Google Bot isn't good to the site that contains private information and launched too early and didn't yet have it's security in place and was scraped and the private exposed. What does Google have to do with this scenario? If someone puts their private information on the internet, then they shouldn't be surprised that their private information is on the internet.

jodrellblank 5y ago
There’s a difference between “I am in public so taking a photo of me is fair game” and paparazzi gathering around a front door with a dozen cameras snapping flash photos the moment both feet are outside while goading the person verbally because their income depends on a saleable picture. “It’s information in public so someone might see” vs “Google continuously maximising the damage of a short term mistake, testing every door round the clock for accidental unlocks, because it’s in their financial interest” If the internet is a hostile place where mistakes can harm you, the harm comes from the people acting in a hostile way rather than s friendly supportive way, and on this spectrum Google is the indifferent machine rather than the kindly human janitor exercising discretion and judgement.

willis936 5y ago

The answer for bots is the same for dogs: who we call good. It's going to change over time, sometimes quickly. Today bots made by individuals and labeled as bots that once per hour makes some clever markov speech tweet are good. Bots that spam reply to all tweets of a pattern and pretend to be humans are bad. Battles will get fought in the very large grey zone but the entity that gets the final say on "good enough" is the owner. http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/dog-philosophy http://www.threepanelsoul.com/comic/dog-philosophy

chrbarrol 5y ago

As far as I can see only the BBC article is claiming Twitter is trying to label bots as "good" or "bad". The actual system appears to be for linking bot accounts to real accounts (ie. who made this bot) or simply label an account as "automated" to give better transparency, which to me sounds like an overall positive feature.

everdrive 5y ago

Ultimately technology cannot really solve this problem. People need to either learn to use Twitter less. (or not at all) or find a way to be more rational and skeptical about Twitter. I'm skeptical that this is possible, though, as even genuinely intelligent people seem to become swept up in outrage and narrative as easily as anyone else.

freedomben 5y ago
One of the smartest people I know, who is so rational and skeptical against unknown information, will go on Twitter and see a 30 second clip that's totally out of context from some random person, but hits his confirmation bias, and he'll share it to the world. So yeah I'm not optimistic about the future either.

wslh 5y ago

IMHO the idea of accepting some bots (e.g. Google Bot) while not accepting others in robots.txt (e .g. a new Google business killer bot) clashes with Internet neutrality.