this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
72 points (86.0% liked)
Technology
58150 readers
3688 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
L4s, who I believe is a bot, posts to this community regularly.
Assuming the content is generally high quality I don't have a problem with it.
If it's bad, the community votes it away, if it's good, the community votes it higher.
The core of social media in my view is the discussion, we can have a discussion even if a bot posts the discussion topic.
We should set rules, sure, but I don't have a problem with bots inherently.
I can't stand L4s. Being provided content from a bot is not engaging at all. I'm tired of seeing the majority of post generated by L4s.
There is a poll that I think is still running to vote about whether to keep the bot or not: !https://lemmy.world/post/1794808
What is the difference between a bot posting and a user posting? Both are posting an article. Both are using the title of the article.
It's not like the bot is posting constantly.
What is the bot doing that makes them less engaging?
If they didn't mark themselves as a bot you'd have no idea.
Often a user is interested and knowledgeable in the topic they’ve posted and will reply to comments, creating dialogue and new content.
Now that is an interesting point and definitely a point against bots. Ultimately I think it's still OK for them to post, but you're right that a genuine seed conversation can be helpful to get the whole post started.
I know in Reddit times some subs required a submission statement and that was a positive. I think if such a rule were adopted I'd be ok with limiting bot posts.
I can understand this take; I realize it probably boils down to personal preference, but seeing the mod bot with 2 of the top posts of the last 6 hours just feels like a bad look for a community to me. It's stated purpose:
This is a relatively active community, and I don't think it really needs to be "jump started" anymore. Let humans post the content. That's what I want to see and engage with. I still think there is a place for bot posts, but with a much more limited scope (episode discussion threads, sports scores as was mentioned elsewhere, etc.). Nothing turns me off a community faster than seeing half the top post from a bot.
As a thought, I wonder how you'd feel if the bot account wasn't clearly identified as a bot.
Using Voyager (wefwef) I can't tell. So to me it's just another account. It's not in my face, it isn't obvious, and most of the time I have no idea who posted anything. I see the title, I vote accordingly (or just move on), if it's interesting I look at the comments.
To be clear bot accounts should 100% identify themselves as bots, but I wonder if making it too obvious is making them stand out too much.
(And of course if I saw "Bot" everywhere I might have a different opinion.)
What's an L4?
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.
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.
Humans literally run bots to do things that they wouldn't/couldn't/or shouldn't DO. Your logic is beyond reproach.
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.
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.
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.
I think disallowing 3rd party api the ability to post would pretty much overnight stop all bots, whereas, in your head, you would have to investigate them all? no. we aren't on the same page or in the same textbook.
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.