There is no reason for a bot to be able to access or post on federated social networks if the goal is to make social media humane.

For this reason, bots should be heavily disallowed from posting content to or accessing content from federated social media.

  • younity@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That leads me to another topic, I disagree. You know scientists always trying to make things happen but never asking if they “Should”?

    That’s how I feel about “good” bot content, where, sure, a bot can post something that generates a novel human discussion, but I think this is also inherently bad and is as close as you can get to providing a “turn-key community brainwash application” to anyone who wants it.

    IE: the bot posts good stuff, we all pat the bot on the back with upvotes because it wasn’t horrible, but then we trust the bot, people trust the bot, then there is no way for us to know if the bot is compromised, what if the bot is compromised, and is slowly but surely, algorithmically recommending content to divide and confuse, FUD, etc…

    This is my concern, and lambast me for paranoia, but I’m not wrong, and this is one reason reddit went down the shithole.

    • MimicJar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean humans run bots. So you’re ok with all those things you said as long as a human posts it?

      Bots follow the same rules as humans. I’m happy to discuss rules for all types of posting. Once we agree then bots follow the same rules.

      The truth is if you ban bots, bots are just going to pretend to be human. Even if you allow bots, some will pretend to be human. As long as everyone is following the rules, we’ll be fine.

      • younity@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Humans literally run bots to do things that they wouldn’t/couldn’t/or shouldn’t DO. Your logic is beyond reproach.

        • MimicJar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What? Bots automate what humans would, could or should (or more accurately want) to do.

          No one, literally no one, thinks “Oh, I should do something terrible, but I can’t, but if a bot does it then it’s fine.”

          Bots are just an extension of what humans already want to do. If a bot is designed to be “good” then it is, if it is designed to be “bad” then it’s bad.

          • younity@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay so then, if a human wants to post score of every sports game to a community, they can’t unless they practice the discipline in doing so. A bot removes the human limitation and allow them to do something that is not possible otherwise, and I believe the end result is content that is removed from the humanity behind it in the first place. A self-defeating prophecy that spells my disinterest and permanent doom for fediverse – I can’t stand this place and the ignorance regarding sensitive topics and the disdain to change.

            • MimicJar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Just so we’re on the same page, bots are here and are going to post.

              You can make a rule that bots can not post, but bots will still post. They won’t be labeled as bots and you’ll have to spend all of your time investigating every account. For all you know I’m a bot and for all I know you’re a bot.

              Also it is absolutely possible for a human to post the score to every game. When I watch a TV show I come to lemmy to discuss it. When I get here it is already posted. If it wasn’t I could post it.

              On Reddit some subs would have a bot post it. On some small subs the bot would break. Users would still post a thread. Discussion would still happen.

              The advantage of having a bot post is that bots are organized, bots are predictable, bots make it easier. Bots are just a tool. Bots can be a positive tool.

              Also, since I have no idea what you’re talking about in regards to ignorance, sensitive topics and change. When I posted my comment this post was full of circlejerk “no bots ever” comments and that’s it. I have a different opinion. I’m happy to discuss that opinion. We are allowed to disagree. If you can’t have a reasonable discussion I don’t give a shit if you stay on the Fediverse or not.

    • fearout@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      You know scientists always trying to make things happen but never asking if they “Should”?

      I’ve never seen someone use this as an argument, only as a joke. Can you provide some examples of the things that you think scientists tried to make happen without thinking whether they should or not?

      Also, how is user-specific trust at play here? I never even look at usernames, instead I will upvote or ignore posts based on their content. I don’t think you can really ease Lemmy/kbin users into believing some divisive nonsense that easily.