Hacker News Reader

Comment by contingencies | Hacker News Reader

Is there an ethical question regarding the computer-assisted manipulation people's perspectives, however ignorant and wrong they may be? I believe so. Personally I would not write this sort of software for this reason, and consider government investment in such software an affront to basic human rights - UN Article 13, Freedom of Expression: Freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall (commonly misattributed to Voltaire)

View on HN

by that logic we should stop talking to each other (sorry for violating your rights)

BUT it would be unethical if it was used, for example, to create the impression that something is the prevalent or mainstream, or the most popular opinion when it isnt. propaganda tactics

I think posing as a "high-status" member of some "group" and spamming them with some cooked message qualifies as propaganda.

You've accurately described the talking heads on the Sunday shows.

Nobody mistakes pundits as having high status.

I disagree. Joel Olsteen, Alex Jones, and countless others have staked their claim on many populations by having a high status in certain people's minds. Many families in the U.S. take these talking heads as gospel, relying on talking heads to decide for them what is true. YouTube has niche talking heads that thrive based on their patreon accounts as they put taking head vids on YouTube. It's why we keep getting more talking heads of all affiliations; people respect them and hold them in high regard.

True true. And there are many degrees of propaganda. But its not a free speech issue

How is it remotely blocking someone's free speech or access to information when you politely and automatically tell them that the blatant racial slur they just used might offend someone?

One problem - and one that people often forget - is that historically, societies change their position on what's appropriate.

It's also easy to see an automated approach leading to hilarious results with say tweets from African-American rappers.

Finally, maybe we can move past this "might offend someone" stance that offers 0% nuance?

It's a curious argument that says un-nuanced insults should be permitted but pointing them out as such should not.

Or that in the past insults differed therefore we should ignore today's.

Or that hypothetically something hilarious might happen so don't call out trolling harassment.

If a bot is used it's automated and you don't tell anyone anything.

This was an experiment sending the same canned response from fake accounts to see if it changed behavior. Nobody is actually suggesting using bots to do this automatically.

The author did by using the word "bot" and WaPo did by saying "programming bots to fight racism".

Maybe it was only clickbait but they clearly suggested automation.

Yes, the WaPo headline was total nonsense, but the article text clarifies that they are called "bots" but not autonomous. Perhaps he just wanted something short and that sounds better than "fake user accounts".

Having been brainwashed by WaPo's headline, I interpreted it as automated but requiring operator's confirmation before "acting", i.e. actually sending something, which sounds reasonable if you aren't sure that your code will work 100% as intended ;)

But now on second read I see it's ambiguous and the author seems to be politics student so maybe you are right after all that he really did it all by hand.

> Perhaps he just wanted something short and that sounds better than "fake user accounts".

I think "accounts" would be fine. Or "sockpuppets" if one wants to be fancy :)

> Is there an ethical question regarding the computer-assisted manipulation people's perspectives, however ignorant and wrong they may be?

Yes, but why did you pick a temporary one-man experiment as your hill to die on rather than a persistent, large-scale manipulator like Facebook?

If you're actually concerned about the ethics of manipulation, why didn't you say anything in any of the several HN submissions about Facebook's fake news issues?

You are right to draw attention to Facebook, but personally I live in China where it is blocked (a very intelligent and forward-looking Chinese government action, in my view) and rarely mentioned so I don't feel informed to comment on it's recent changes: the last time I touched it was perhaps 6 years ago in order to remove all vestiges of media from my account, then to remove my account.

It is true that there are larger manipulators of public perception - look at Hollywood - and I do think the same concerns should be leveled at them (eg. US military sponsorship and support for certain pro-US movies, product placements, etc.).

Rules and all are great, but they're not there to be followed until the end of days. They're there to make you think about it before you break them.

End racism with software? Bold claim, and sign me up, even if it means manipulating racists out of their bigoted attitudes. I honestly can't see a down side to that.

To add to qb45's reply, that kind of a manipulation does not remain hidden. And when it inevitably comes out, the very people you've been trying to convince will be angered by your dishonesty ("I thought I was talking to a real person!"), and be even less willing to reconsider their position. No one likes being deceived.

So, by all means, consider breaking the rules. And then don't, please.

It'll be turned against you.

Which, in turn, will make Twitter an endless bot flamewar.

It'll stop working the moment anybody notices.

In fact, its effects will be inverse from that point.

It's essentially spam.

> Which, in turn, will make Twitter an endless bot flamewar.

I think Charles Stross tried to warn us about this. Get ready for weaponized memetics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com