8 ms·

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think this would apply to bots. The Texas law text[1] says it only protects 'users' which are defined as people. And even then the

by Brybry 4y ago

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think this would apply to bots. The Texas law text[1] says it only protects 'users' which are defined as people. And even then the law only prohibits censorship for specific reasons. It doesn't say companies can't ban users for running bots. Even if the messages the bot is posting are protected the fact of running the bot itself should still be a bannable offense if it's not allowed in the TOS. [1] https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020F.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/HB00020F...

patmcc 4y ago
So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me?
- bojangleslover 4y ago
  Oldest trick in the book
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- omgwtfbyobbq 4y ago
  Probably, but I don't they that should be allowed. I suppose someone with an applicable disability could also use software/automation to they point where they can post more than someone without that disability.
  - giaour 4y ago
    The line between "user" and "bot" would get very murky very quickly. If you write a tweet and then use a bot to post it at a certain time of day, is your speech still protected, even if it was posted by a bot? What if you have the bot post it at the same time every day? What if you have the bot post it in reply to all tweets with a certain hashtag? Or just all tweets? In each of those cases, the original speech is a user's, and the bot is merely following the human user's publication instructions.
    - junofan 4y ago
      Fortunately there’s hundreds of years of cases and frameworks to help us get this right. Application of the law won’t turn on minor technical details.
      - giaour 4y ago
        That's my point as well. Twitter's terms of service allow automated users, so I have a hard time seeing how anyone would successfully convince a court that "users" under this law means "humans who write the content on twitter.com and then press a button on the same site to post it."
        catiopatio 4y ago
        The law only disallows viewpoint-based censorship. Twitter remains free to write and enforce an acceptable-use policy that disallows "bot-like" behaviors, as long as the policy and enforcement is viewpoint-neutral.
        FilterSweep 4y ago
        but what if the _flying spaghetti monster cult_ were disproportionate users of bots for their viewpoints? how does twitter disprove bias?
        catiopatio 4y ago
        Twitter has no obligation under this law to disprove accusations of bias that arise due to disparate outcomes. Furthermore, such a requirement would backfire spectacularly on the conservative right; consider all the other areas where disparity of outcome arises today.
        FilterSweep 4y ago
        perhaps - or perhaps that ship has already sailed[0] [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-white-supremacy-gop-politicians-report-2019-4?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-...
- PradeetPatel 4y ago
  It's already being done by reputation management firms. As someone who worked as a resource liaison manager at one, it is not uncommon to see the majority of our social media operators are from diverse cost-of-living locations such as Nepal, rural Pakistan, and parts of Africa.
  - xani_ 4y ago
    "diverse cost-of-living locations" is such a corporate way to call it
    - armchairhacker 4y ago
      Is it really diverse if 99% of the population is dirt poor, 0.999% of the population is middle-class, and 0.001% of the population is ultra-rich?
      - ekianjo 4y ago
        Your numbers are off.
    - Sunspark 4y ago
      "..to improve the living conditions of our valued employees and members of the family, we sent them some plastic water bottles. They can hydrate themselves with clean water and then they can make a hole in their tin roof ceiling and stick the bottle through and this way it will act as a lightbulb and improve conditions in their dwellings."
- inetknght 4y ago
  > So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me? For some definitions of low cost-of-living, sure. In this law specifically: Sec. 120.002. APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter applies only to a user who: (1) resides in this state; (2) does business in this state; or (3) shares or receives content on a social media platform in this state. There are, of course, plenty of low-cost-of-living "users" in Texas.
  - mr_toad 4y ago
    > This chapter applies only to a user who: (1) resides in this state; (2) does business in this state; or (3) shares or receives content on a social media They forgot (4) can afford a lawyer. This law will only benefit those with deep pockets.
    - everforward 4y ago
      Oh, there will be plenty of pro se complainants with barely-intelligible filings. I would almost put money down that there will be a comical period where Texas' civil court is DDoSed by people filing pro se complaints around this law.
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    I'm sure nobody will fill their address as Texas and use a VPN (you might even not need both ways)
  - tmaly 4y ago
    Would using a VPN termination in the state constitute sharing or receiving content on a social media platform in the state?
spamizbad 4y ago
The term "bot" doesn't necessarily suggest something automated in the context of social media. I could pay a bunch of people overseas to do the same thing manually as well. They are all technically "users".
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  Since when ? I'm pretty sure that's called astroturfing - the difficulty of separating some of real people from bots doesn't change that legally there's a pretty big difference...
hedora 4y ago
Corporations are people. This clearly defines bots hired by any corporation that is in, does buisness with, or communicates with a person in Texas as a "user". Edit: Skipped a step: When spent by a corporation, the courts have ruled that money is speech. Therefore, the bot's output is clearly the speech of the corporation, which is definitely a person.
- kortilla 4y ago
  > Corporations are people. No they are not. They share some specific rights as people, but are not people. A corporation can’t be murdered, can’t vote, can’t be imprisoned, can’t marry another person, etc.
  - Kamq 4y ago
    The concept is a "legal person", which means there's a whole host of things corporations can do. The big ones being that they can be sued and charged for breaking the law, you can't do either of those things with, say, a rock or a dog. They can also sue you back which is, admittedly, less fun.
    - zarzavat 4y ago
      All very true, but at the risk of laboring the point, a legal person is not a person, just like a sperm bank is not a bank. A noun phrase is not necessarily a sub-category of the original noun. This is underlined by the use of the plural “legal persons”, rather “legal people” which is usually reserved for meat sacks with law degrees.
      - Kamq 4y ago
        > A noun phrase is not necessarily a sub-category of the original noun. This is actually something I had not fully considered. I had always considered odd modifiers to create a non-central example of the category, rather than creating a new category. To take your example of a sperm bank, I had always considered that to be a kind of generalized version of a bank. A general "place you can deposit things for future use". Do you have any other good examples? I'm gonna have to let this roll around in my head for a bit to see what the implications are.
garyfirestorm 4y ago
If bots earn money, is their income subjected to tax? If yes then they are people.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
So can I post AI generated underage pictures of Doland Trump as an 8-year old having sex with a boar without censorship?
- headsoup 4y ago
  Is that already illegal? If so, no, if not, yes. Being offensive is not the measure for applying censorship.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
    But platforms can currently decide to censor stuff if that want - which usually includes porn. Now they can't.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- jrockway 4y ago
  Someone else is way ahead of you there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit.... The underage part seems to be in the clear. Fucking a boar is less clear (plain old obscenity, the first amendment's greatest weakness).

by Brybry 4y ago

patmcc 4y ago

So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me?

bojangleslover 4y ago
Oldest trick in the book
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
omgwtfbyobbq 4y ago
Probably, but I don't they that should be allowed. I suppose someone with an applicable disability could also use software/automation to they point where they can post more than someone without that disability.
- giaour 4y ago
  The line between "user" and "bot" would get very murky very quickly. If you write a tweet and then use a bot to post it at a certain time of day, is your speech still protected, even if it was posted by a bot? What if you have the bot post it at the same time every day? What if you have the bot post it in reply to all tweets with a certain hashtag? Or just all tweets? In each of those cases, the original speech is a user's, and the bot is merely following the human user's publication instructions.
  - junofan 4y ago
    Fortunately there’s hundreds of years of cases and frameworks to help us get this right. Application of the law won’t turn on minor technical details.
    - giaour 4y ago
      That's my point as well. Twitter's terms of service allow automated users, so I have a hard time seeing how anyone would successfully convince a court that "users" under this law means "humans who write the content on twitter.com and then press a button on the same site to post it."
      - catiopatio 4y ago
        The law only disallows viewpoint-based censorship. Twitter remains free to write and enforce an acceptable-use policy that disallows "bot-like" behaviors, as long as the policy and enforcement is viewpoint-neutral.
        FilterSweep 4y ago
        but what if the _flying spaghetti monster cult_ were disproportionate users of bots for their viewpoints? how does twitter disprove bias?
        catiopatio 4y ago
        Twitter has no obligation under this law to disprove accusations of bias that arise due to disparate outcomes. Furthermore, such a requirement would backfire spectacularly on the conservative right; consider all the other areas where disparity of outcome arises today.
        FilterSweep 4y ago
        perhaps - or perhaps that ship has already sailed[0] [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-white-supremacy-gop-politicians-report-2019-4?amp https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-algorithm-crackdown-...
PradeetPatel 4y ago
It's already being done by reputation management firms. As someone who worked as a resource liaison manager at one, it is not uncommon to see the majority of our social media operators are from diverse cost-of-living locations such as Nepal, rural Pakistan, and parts of Africa.
- xani_ 4y ago
  "diverse cost-of-living locations" is such a corporate way to call it
  - armchairhacker 4y ago
    Is it really diverse if 99% of the population is dirt poor, 0.999% of the population is middle-class, and 0.001% of the population is ultra-rich?
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      Your numbers are off.
  - Sunspark 4y ago
    "..to improve the living conditions of our valued employees and members of the family, we sent them some plastic water bottles. They can hydrate themselves with clean water and then they can make a hole in their tin roof ceiling and stick the bottle through and this way it will act as a lightbulb and improve conditions in their dwellings."
inetknght 4y ago
> So can I hire someone from a low cost-of-living jurisdiction and get them to behave like a bot for me? For some definitions of low cost-of-living, sure. In this law specifically: Sec. 120.002. APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. (a) This chapter applies only to a user who: (1) resides in this state; (2) does business in this state; or (3) shares or receives content on a social media platform in this state. There are, of course, plenty of low-cost-of-living "users" in Texas.
- mr_toad 4y ago
  > This chapter applies only to a user who: (1) resides in this state; (2) does business in this state; or (3) shares or receives content on a social media They forgot (4) can afford a lawyer. This law will only benefit those with deep pockets.
  - everforward 4y ago
    Oh, there will be plenty of pro se complainants with barely-intelligible filings. I would almost put money down that there will be a comical period where Texas' civil court is DDoSed by people filing pro se complaints around this law.
- raverbashing 4y ago
  I'm sure nobody will fill their address as Texas and use a VPN (you might even not need both ways)
- tmaly 4y ago
  Would using a VPN termination in the state constitute sharing or receiving content on a social media platform in the state?

spamizbad 4y ago

The term "bot" doesn't necessarily suggest something automated in the context of social media. I could pay a bunch of people overseas to do the same thing manually as well. They are all technically "users".

BlueTemplar 4y ago
Since when ? I'm pretty sure that's called astroturfing - the difficulty of separating some of real people from bots doesn't change that legally there's a pretty big difference...

hedora 4y ago

Corporations are people. This clearly defines bots hired by any corporation that is in, does buisness with, or communicates with a person in Texas as a "user". Edit: Skipped a step: When spent by a corporation, the courts have ruled that money is speech. Therefore, the bot's output is clearly the speech of the corporation, which is definitely a person.

kortilla 4y ago
> Corporations are people. No they are not. They share some specific rights as people, but are not people. A corporation can’t be murdered, can’t vote, can’t be imprisoned, can’t marry another person, etc.
- Kamq 4y ago
  The concept is a "legal person", which means there's a whole host of things corporations can do. The big ones being that they can be sued and charged for breaking the law, you can't do either of those things with, say, a rock or a dog. They can also sue you back which is, admittedly, less fun.
  - zarzavat 4y ago
    All very true, but at the risk of laboring the point, a legal person is not a person, just like a sperm bank is not a bank. A noun phrase is not necessarily a sub-category of the original noun. This is underlined by the use of the plural “legal persons”, rather “legal people” which is usually reserved for meat sacks with law degrees.
    - Kamq 4y ago
      > A noun phrase is not necessarily a sub-category of the original noun. This is actually something I had not fully considered. I had always considered odd modifiers to create a non-central example of the category, rather than creating a new category. To take your example of a sperm bank, I had always considered that to be a kind of generalized version of a bank. A general "place you can deposit things for future use". Do you have any other good examples? I'm gonna have to let this roll around in my head for a bit to see what the implications are.

garyfirestorm 4y ago

If bots earn money, is their income subjected to tax? If yes then they are people.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

So can I post AI generated underage pictures of Doland Trump as an 8-year old having sex with a boar without censorship?

headsoup 4y ago
Is that already illegal? If so, no, if not, yes. Being offensive is not the measure for applying censorship.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  But platforms can currently decide to censor stuff if that want - which usually includes porn. Now they can't.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
jrockway 4y ago
Someone else is way ahead of you there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalit.... The underage part seems to be in the clear. Fucking a boar is less clear (plain old obscenity, the first amendment's greatest weakness).