3 ms·

Don't get caught up to the point you write about it with a damage control approach. "If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dream

by novalis 14y ago

Don't get caught up to the point you write about it with a damage control approach. "If someone cannot differentiate themselves from a bot spitting out ("dreaming of %x and %y", x, y) then is there really an identity to steal?" Is this turning to some introduction to awkward online eugenics or what... You don't know that impersonation isn't something a creative commons license on a photo from wikipedia was made for ? Do they have the right to create a substitutive persona to establish contacts with others ? Was there a change to the law and no one sent the memo or something... Differentiation is intrinsic to identity, you don't have to display it like a onus. What are you on about ? So a bot with your name on it, that would tweet "comments" on the weather and caviar, would render you non existant, voiding of the hability to contest impersonation ? That just has that touch of the same non sensical dribble that funnyjunk lawyer has, where are you going with that. Natural rights cease because someone made a bot ? Whisky Tango Foxtrot. Hold the internet presses people. "By what virtue does he own those rights?" Maybe because when he signed up for the service he had those rights then and didn't give them away. Yeah, probably because of that. People accept terms of service when signing up to online services by their own predisposition and free will. They enter a contract, see where this is going. Bots that impersonate people that accept terms of service don't have precedence just because some pseudo experimental trio thought it would be a good project. They don't own his rights. That is the framing that causes the problem and why they are at fault when trying to turn the discussion to some indefensible position. They failed miserably at it. That halloween criminal's holiday day... honestly, if you had to go make an account just to sprinkle this conversation with that piece of golden web dust/insight, you should have saved yourself the trouble. Honestly there are other places for that sort of thing. In the end it is really funny how people botching a project make this sort of thing pop up. Had a laught, but like a little britain comedy series used to state: "Computer says no."

stfu 14y ago
How is this different from somebody discovering for the first time Wikipedia and becoming all defensive, that there is an article on him, that they are using a picture of him and that he didn't approve that one personally. As far as I can see, they put in the bot-about a clear line that it was a Wiki based bot. Especially since the comments were so nonsensical one could even argue that the bot was intended to persiflage the nonsensical Tweets by pseudo-celebrities. To bring the argument to its final destination: People responding to the fake bot, are similar to those, who were watching Chaplin's The Great Dictator and wondering why Hitler movies were showing in cinemas across the USA.
evanlivingston 14y ago
@novalis, your points are a little unclear. I am unclear what "Differentiation is intrinsic to identity" means. A bot with my name and image would not render me non-existent, but it might seriously compromise my online identity. I view that as a problem. I check a radio box to some terms of service when creating an online profile, and so must a bot. But because I _understand_ the words does that mean I am more protected than the bot? They don't own his rights, but does the human? The terms of service are just words, which describe laws and agreements humans made. These are not unbreakable, infallible laws. Furthermore, the bot is certainly not subject to these laws, perhaps the creators are. But then again, is a mother responsible for the crimes of its child. I realize this metaphor does not hold up ( the trio designed the bot to be nefarious by nature ). They did not fail miserably. They seriously perturbed the man whose identity the bot assumed because his identity weak in the first place. The mere fact that the man was perturbed I think means a victory for the trio. The online (crappy) bot gives the man a run for his a run for his money, and that's disconcerting. If the bot was so ineffective, or the project so pointless, why then is it such a problem that the bot impersonates another human. What's _really_ the problem here? What are we all upset about? Once again, If I pretend to be Steve Jobs, where is the problem. If I pretend to be no name author, where is the problem? If a bot dresses up and pretends to be a no name author, what infraction is it making?

by novalis 14y ago

stfu 14y ago

How is this different from somebody discovering for the first time Wikipedia and becoming all defensive, that there is an article on him, that they are using a picture of him and that he didn't approve that one personally. As far as I can see, they put in the bot-about a clear line that it was a Wiki based bot. Especially since the comments were so nonsensical one could even argue that the bot was intended to persiflage the nonsensical Tweets by pseudo-celebrities. To bring the argument to its final destination: People responding to the fake bot, are similar to those, who were watching Chaplin's The Great Dictator and wondering why Hitler movies were showing in cinemas across the USA.

evanlivingston 14y ago

@novalis, your points are a little unclear. I am unclear what "Differentiation is intrinsic to identity" means. A bot with my name and image would not render me non-existent, but it might seriously compromise my online identity. I view that as a problem. I check a radio box to some terms of service when creating an online profile, and so must a bot. But because I _understand_ the words does that mean I am more protected than the bot? They don't own his rights, but does the human? The terms of service are just words, which describe laws and agreements humans made. These are not unbreakable, infallible laws. Furthermore, the bot is certainly not subject to these laws, perhaps the creators are. But then again, is a mother responsible for the crimes of its child. I realize this metaphor does not hold up ( the trio designed the bot to be nefarious by nature ). They did not fail miserably. They seriously perturbed the man whose identity the bot assumed because his identity weak in the first place. The mere fact that the man was perturbed I think means a victory for the trio. The online (crappy) bot gives the man a run for his a run for his money, and that's disconcerting. If the bot was so ineffective, or the project so pointless, why then is it such a problem that the bot impersonates another human. What's _really_ the problem here? What are we all upset about? Once again, If I pretend to be Steve Jobs, where is the problem. If I pretend to be no name author, where is the problem? If a bot dresses up and pretends to be a no name author, what infraction is it making?