6 ms·

What’s the difference between talking to a real partner and talking to a bot if you’re dumb enough to think the bots are real?

jollyllama 2y ago
The way someone answers this question probably correlates to their opinion on police entrapment.
- refulgentis 2y ago
  First, flattened "cheating on your spouse" to "salacious lies" because they failed at it. Now, flattening "doing bad things is bad" to "supporting police entrapment." Beginning to think this is trolling.
  - jollyllama 2y ago
    I'm sorry it comes off that way. I genuinely think these are interesting distinctions. If I had to make an analogy, I would react differently if I found a bag of weed in a kid's backpack vs a bag of oregano that the kid was fooled into thinking was weed.
    - pc86 2y ago
      Somewhat related but if you're selling either one the court (in the US at least) will treat them the same. If you tell an undercover cop that you have cocaine and you sell them a baggie of baking powder, you'll get arrested and charged with selling cocaine.
    - LeFantome 2y ago
      To be fair, the additional distinction here is that you found nothing except that you know they asked where they might buy weed. Obviously nobody was meeting with these chat bots physically. Real or fake, that is an important distinction.
      - dwighttk 2y ago
        >you found nothing except that you know they asked where they might buy weed. And that they gave money to someone for what they thought was weed
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      I guess the question there is "what are you punishing"? If it's your kid and you don't want them smoking weed, they clearly went out for weed. Are you punishing the act or the intent? Which is the disappointing bit?
  - itishappy 2y ago
    That's way reductive. Is that really what you think they're trying to say?
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      It's what they said: as written, it generates a high volume of replies saying the same thing, namely, that the posts are extremely reductive. But do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, curious for your thoughts.
      - itishappy 2y ago
        It's not actually what they said as written though. Your quotes do not come from their post, they reflect your own interpretation. I'm suggesting that this interpretation differs from my own and what I assume is the original posters intent. (FWIW, they say the same thing.) I also don't interpret the other replies here to be saying the same thing as you. They're discussing the idea that getting caught trying to have an affair (that happens to be fake) has interesting parallels with getting caught trying to buy drugs (that happen to be fake). You're accusing the poster of trolling.
        refulgentis 2y ago
        I appreciate the feedback. Looking at the other comments for a 3rd time, it's clear I'm not the only one expressing skepticism. I can't find any more to discuss here, it would feel awkward sitting in a side thread, where no one else is engaging, scrapping over how to sort other people's comments. ex. people saying the follow up analogy is flawed doesn't say "I agree with jpohhhh", so someone looking to police here should feel they can validly. And I don't like arguing with the cops, never goes well afaik :)
- dotnet00 2y ago
  If by police entrapment, you mean cases where, say, someone tries to put out a hit and doesn't realize that the person they're hiring is a cop, I think that's totally fair. That's still indicative of serious intent to commit murder, and it really is just luck that they happened to hire a cop to do it rather than running into someone actually willing to kill. Same with the AM stuff, it doesn't really matter that my hypothetical SO was too dumb to notice they were talking to bots. Their intention was to cheat, and so the trust would be gone. At that point, how am I supposed to believe that they aren't cheating in other ways? It brings to mind another thing that sometimes happens lately, where "prank" channels on YouTube or TikTok film themselves committing crimes, thinking that since they don't actually mean any harm, or say, are using fake weapons, it isn't a crime anymore. But, of course, it is a crime, the people who are being "pranked" in this manner believe they're actually in danger. There has even been a case where a prankster got shot for pulling a knife on someone as a "prank", and the shooter was found innocent because it was reasonable self defense.
- mindslight 2y ago
  The problem with police entrapment isn't that the bag contains oregano instead of real marijuana. Rather it's the creation of new "crime" that wouldn't have happened otherwise. So with Ashley Madison it's not so much the bot dynamic itself creating the distinction, but rather all the push advertising getting people to sign up out of curiosity when they perhaps wouldn't have sought such a thing out otherwise.

jollyllama 2y ago

The way someone answers this question probably correlates to their opinion on police entrapment.

refulgentis 2y ago
First, flattened "cheating on your spouse" to "salacious lies" because they failed at it. Now, flattening "doing bad things is bad" to "supporting police entrapment." Beginning to think this is trolling.
- jollyllama 2y ago
  I'm sorry it comes off that way. I genuinely think these are interesting distinctions. If I had to make an analogy, I would react differently if I found a bag of weed in a kid's backpack vs a bag of oregano that the kid was fooled into thinking was weed.
  - pc86 2y ago
    Somewhat related but if you're selling either one the court (in the US at least) will treat them the same. If you tell an undercover cop that you have cocaine and you sell them a baggie of baking powder, you'll get arrested and charged with selling cocaine.
  - LeFantome 2y ago
    To be fair, the additional distinction here is that you found nothing except that you know they asked where they might buy weed. Obviously nobody was meeting with these chat bots physically. Real or fake, that is an important distinction.
    - dwighttk 2y ago
      >you found nothing except that you know they asked where they might buy weed. And that they gave money to someone for what they thought was weed
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    I guess the question there is "what are you punishing"? If it's your kid and you don't want them smoking weed, they clearly went out for weed. Are you punishing the act or the intent? Which is the disappointing bit?
- itishappy 2y ago
  That's way reductive. Is that really what you think they're trying to say?
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    It's what they said: as written, it generates a high volume of replies saying the same thing, namely, that the posts are extremely reductive. But do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, curious for your thoughts.
    - itishappy 2y ago
      It's not actually what they said as written though. Your quotes do not come from their post, they reflect your own interpretation. I'm suggesting that this interpretation differs from my own and what I assume is the original posters intent. (FWIW, they say the same thing.) I also don't interpret the other replies here to be saying the same thing as you. They're discussing the idea that getting caught trying to have an affair (that happens to be fake) has interesting parallels with getting caught trying to buy drugs (that happen to be fake). You're accusing the poster of trolling.
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        I appreciate the feedback. Looking at the other comments for a 3rd time, it's clear I'm not the only one expressing skepticism. I can't find any more to discuss here, it would feel awkward sitting in a side thread, where no one else is engaging, scrapping over how to sort other people's comments. ex. people saying the follow up analogy is flawed doesn't say "I agree with jpohhhh", so someone looking to police here should feel they can validly. And I don't like arguing with the cops, never goes well afaik :)
dotnet00 2y ago
If by police entrapment, you mean cases where, say, someone tries to put out a hit and doesn't realize that the person they're hiring is a cop, I think that's totally fair. That's still indicative of serious intent to commit murder, and it really is just luck that they happened to hire a cop to do it rather than running into someone actually willing to kill. Same with the AM stuff, it doesn't really matter that my hypothetical SO was too dumb to notice they were talking to bots. Their intention was to cheat, and so the trust would be gone. At that point, how am I supposed to believe that they aren't cheating in other ways? It brings to mind another thing that sometimes happens lately, where "prank" channels on YouTube or TikTok film themselves committing crimes, thinking that since they don't actually mean any harm, or say, are using fake weapons, it isn't a crime anymore. But, of course, it is a crime, the people who are being "pranked" in this manner believe they're actually in danger. There has even been a case where a prankster got shot for pulling a knife on someone as a "prank", and the shooter was found innocent because it was reasonable self defense.
mindslight 2y ago
The problem with police entrapment isn't that the bag contains oregano instead of real marijuana. Rather it's the creation of new "crime" that wouldn't have happened otherwise. So with Ashley Madison it's not so much the bot dynamic itself creating the distinction, but rather all the push advertising getting people to sign up out of curiosity when they perhaps wouldn't have sought such a thing out otherwise.