@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

@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?