California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots | Hacker News Reader

California bill would require bots to disclose that they are bots

veeto.app

284 pointsalexd127166 comments

A decade ago, when chat bots were a lot less useful, a common piece of etiquette was that it's fine for a bot to pretend to be a human or God or whatever, but if you directly ask it if it's a bot it has to confirm that. Basically of the bot version of that myth about undercover cops.

I don't see a downside in requiring public-facing bots to do that

Not sure if that's what the proposal is about though, it's currently down

Archive links on another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42968477

I remember the opposite. The chat bots popular in 2015 were trying to pass the Turing Test and would deny being a bot. The 2025 chat bots popular now are pretty good about explaining they are a bot. Of course, that's just generalizing the popular ones - anyone can make their own do as they please.

It bothers me that they didn't consider that this should be bilateral: a bot must confirm that it is a bot, and a human must confirm it is a human.

I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.

Your sentiment reminds me of this: https://www.goingconcern.com/when-ai-stands-for-actually-ind...

Freeze Peach says I can be a bot if I want to.

Some humans pull it off very well.

I’ve had a number of encounters with ISP tech support where the humans seemed a lot like bots…

All support is basically like bots nowadays, that's why they can be replaced by bots so easily.

It's all neural nets.

The differences are just implementation details (i.e. whether the transistors are carbon or silicon based).

I think they used to have a lot of canned responses which made them feel like bots.

> I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.

I don't have an opinion yet, but I can't think of a specific reason to object to that (other than a default preference for honesty). Could you give an example or two?

Probably the main risk would be people trusting what they think to be an automated system and trusting it to act for a specific purpose. That or people saying things they think should be private. I’m not saying it’s actually safe to interact this way with bots, but the trust expectations are different enough.

Privacy

What you'll find is that most people form a knee jerk opinion first, most often in opposition to change, then retrospectively seek reasons to justify their opinion after the fact.

In other words, people, generally, cherrypick evidence for their opinions, rather than picking opinions for their evidence.

A good sign this is occuring is when the reasons provided are vague, the prevalence of that negative outcome is rare, or are hypothetical scenarios which rely on companies or people behaving in unlikely and unnatural ways (like ignoring broader incentives).

The result is luddite-ism, and proposals exactly like this one, whereby regulations are proposed even in the absence meaningful and demonstrable harm.

> I wouldn't want humans pretending to be bots, for a variety of reasons.

It would be so embarrassing if your AI Girlfriend / Boyfriend turned out to be real.

your AI girlfriend/boyfriend is totally real, its just that its a south east asian who works at a pig butchering scam farm.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/06/the-vast-sophis... https://www.economist.com/briefing/2025/02/06/online-scams-m...

To paraphrase a line in the Bible: Are the bots here for the benefit of man, or is man here for the benefit of the bots?

A law like that would probably be unconstitutional if it applied broadly to speech in general. Compare United States v. Alvarez, where the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment gives you the right to lie about having received military medals.

It might work in more limited contexts, like commercial speech.

So compel speech from a person? "Congress shall make no law..." Really the most basic civics education would benefit us all, I think there are some youtube videos about this.

> I don't see a downside in requiring public-facing bots to do that

Your statement attempts to give an impression of a middle ground, but what it actually does is delegating the action to the human - who has limited energy and has to make hundreds of other decisions.

Your statement sounds like what a lobbyist might whisper to a regulator in an attempt to effectively neuter the bill.

People not versed in technology do not - and do not have to - know what an LLM is or what it can do.

These matters need be resolved at the source and we must not allow hopeful libertarian technologist DDoS the whole society.

ah the good ol '/finger [Nick|Address]

This is clearly undisclosed promotion for vetto.app. alexd127's only other account activity is on this thread [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901553] for the exact same bill.

is that against the hn guidelines or something?

No but still good to know in this case specially as the website is broken and I had to refresh a few times.

Probably these guidelines are related:

> Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.

> Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the site should be for curiosity.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Better website:

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB410/2025

how is it better?

It looks clunkier, so it is more legit

Or the official California legislature site: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

I wish this legislation would also apply to AI generated emails, sales outreach, and LinkedIn messages.

Also, political SMS messages and the messages you get from some other random number acknowledging the "STOP" message you just sent.

(Especially if it were in a machine readable form.)

For political stuff you need a human to press send. So it's a semi automated system.

I've volunteered before, and at least in CA, you basically have a gui that prepolutes messages and guides you through each number one by one.

Its really weird

Interesting! Does the same interface expose you to people’s responses, if any? That is, if I receive one of your campaign texts, am I indeed “texting with a person” both directions? Or does that route to a call center somewhere?

I note in TFA that it:

> expands current law, which only mandates disclosure when bots aim to influence commercial transactions or voting behavior.

I wonder if your campaign does it that way because of a rule that applies to particular type of actors, or just because voters viscerally hate robo-whatever.

The best-intentioned of regulations…

Yes, basically you're initiating a lot of chat conversations. They help with pre generated responses here and there (at least if the campaign is savvy) but once you are talking it's mostly human to human. If you were to use LLMs though, you'll still need someone to press send.

Oh, good to know. I get so many of these political spam messages that my default response has gone from just ignoring them to sending nasty replies in the hopes of demoralizing the jerks who think it's okay to send me nineteen messages a day on behalf of a political party I don't even support (not that it would be any better if I DID support the party in question). It's good to know that there's a chance that I can make someone feel just a little bit bad for being part of the mechanism that enables this sort of intrusion on my sleep and solitude.

I thinik it's proper, albeit not entirely optimal. You can use wahtever tools to develop content. There needs to be some human making the final handoffs and decisions when it comes to the act of sending it out.

It's unoptimal because I bet those volunteering or otherwise aren't necesarily doing that QA, though.

I don’t think those are actually bots, unfortunately. There’s a law preventing automated text messages, but there’s a loophole if the message is sent by an actual human being. So campaigns and PACs just get teams of volunteers to send out messages, likely with some software that lets them send messages to a list of numbers with a single click.

surprisingly, I've been registered for 15+ years and I don't get too much political spam via text. Tons through mail, but not my phone (I never changed my phone number either).

Now regular spam... I'm pretty sure I got 6 calls today alone. Help.

I already assume 99.9% of these are all generated by bots.

And social media.

LinkedIn would be in shambles if this became law.

It would become much better website to be honest if only thing you can post is if you are recruiting or if you are searching for a job. The slop is just ruining the experience and diluting the purpose of the website.

it should not apply to non interacting “bots”

Have you been to LinkedIn recently. It is the "dead internet theory" in practice. Every single post, every single comment. I do not understand what's the point of it.

I miss when it was about job/candidate search and that's it.

I think it does. The wording proposed is:

> It shall be unlawful for any person to use a bot to communicate or interact with another person in California online. A person using a bot shall not be liable under this section if the person discloses that it is a bot. A person using a bot shall disclose that it is a bot if asked or prompted by another person.

(see https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB410/2025 for definitions and source)

email, sales outreach and LinkedIn messages are all communications or interactions.

The requirement doesn't kick in until 10 million monthly US users. I don't see why this shouldn't apply to smaller businesses.

Contrarianly, startups should have a little maneuverability to be naughty. Any slight edge against incumbents is directionally sound policy, imho.

I think there's an easy middle ground, 10M is huge. 1k would be much more reasonable. That gives startups more than enough runway to be naughty while also making sure they fix things up before becoming a problem.

This maneuverability already exists; see the operations of Uber, WeWork, OpenAI, etc.

Run 10 subsidiaries via a chain of shell companies, each carefully staying under, say, 8M monthly users, all relaying approximately the same messages, both by pure coincidence, and by admittedly blatant imitation of each other!

My understanding is that the requirement is for __platforms__ with 10m+ monthly users. That is, like Twitter but (probably) not Hacker News. And that really it is more that these platforms need to provide an interface in which bots can identify themselves and do a good faith effort in identifying bots

  > Online platforms with over 10 million monthly U.S. visitors would need to ensure bot operators on their services comply with these expanded disclosure rules.

So even if the bot is from a small business, they still must identify themselves as long as they are on a platform like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc. This feels reasonable, even if we disagree on a threshold. It doesn't make sense to enforce this for small niche forums. This would put undue burden on small players and similarly be a waste of government resources, especially because any potential damage is, by definition, smaller.

Big players love regulation because it's gatekeeping and they can always step over the gate. But the gate keeps out competition. More specifically, it squashes competition before they can even become good competitors. So I think it definitely is a good idea to regulate in this fashion. Remember that the playing field is always unbalanced, big players can win with worse products because they can leverage their weight.

It's a horse trading thing. You are less likely to get your bill passed if it will impact small businesses. think less about SV startups who know what they're doing and more about some indy barber who buys an off the shelf scheduling assistant -- should they have to bury themselves in legal code first?

There's a practical reason with two sides to it. Most small companies simply won't know this rule even exists, if it passes. And as various other jurisdictions pass various other laws relating to AI, this will gradually turn into hundreds of laws, very possibly incompatible, spattered across countless jurisdictions - regularly changing with all sorts of opaque precedent defining what they exactly mean. You'll literally need a regulatory compliance department to keep up to date.

And such departments, staffed with lawyers, tend to be expensive. Have these laws affect small business and you greatly imperil the ability of small companies to even exist, which is one reason big companies in certain industries tend to actively lobby for regulations - a pretext of 'safety' with a reality of anticompetitive behavior. But by the time a company has 10 million regular users, it should be able to comfortably fund a compliance department.

Small companies don't have to implement the ability to stop marketing or political texts if the customer replies STOP. Twilio, Amazon SNS, and other companies further down the stack do it automatically.

I assume foundational models will include it in all text they emit somehow.

Just how Zoom tells everyone "recording in progress" as soon as you press the record button, to ensure compliance. Or indeed Apple's newish call recording feature.

For the same reason GDPR should have not applied to smaller businesses, lots of people who had otherwise perfectly fine small sites that were useful and reasonably secure could not afford the overhead due to various factors, being self-bootstrapped, too small of a budget, hobbyist projects, etc the things that always make the internet great. The fines are in the millions at a MINIMUM, its ridiculous.

After GDPR became the law in the EU, we saw here on HN numerous announcements of smaller sites / companies just shutting their doors. Meanwhile, bigger sites and companies can afford all the red tape, and they win all these smaller companies customers by default.

Incorrect. They 10M requirement is part of the definition of an "online platform" [1], which is only mentioned in the existing statue as them NOT having an obligation [2] and is not mentioned at all in the proposed law [3] other than a formatting fix.

[1] https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-bpc/division-7/...

[2] https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-bpc/division-7/...

[3] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB410/2025

since the Veeto website seems to be struggling, here's the official CA legislature page for the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

seems fairly narrowly written - it looks like it's removing the requirement that bot usage is illegal only if there's "intent to mislead". it seems like that'd be very difficult to prove and would result in the law not really being enforced. instead there's a much more bright-line rule - it's illegal, unless you disclose that it's a bot, and as long as you do that, you're fine.

once I was able to load the Veeto page, I noticed there's a "chat" tab with "Ask me anything about this bill! I'll use the bill's text to help answer your questions." - so somewhat ironically it seems like the bill would directly effect this Veeto website as well, because they're using a chatbot of some kind.

I enjoyed all the corrections of "Internet Web site" to "internet website".

Interesting. I’m afraid this won’t really go anywhere, but it’s a good conversation to have

On one hand, judging by the comments, there’s quite a bit of interest on disclosure

On the other hand, corporations and big advertisers (spammers?) might not really want it. Or is there a positive aspect in disclosure for them?

As bots get smarter we need to give them more access not less, people have been used as useful idiots and puppets for far too long I don't see why we should make an exception for bots.

If having to disclose to your users/customers that they're interacting with a bot makes them stop interacting then that sucks for you. I work in this space and we proudly advertise when you're talking to a bot and our users actually choose it over the option to connect to a human.

Our staff do better work but the bot is instant. It seems people would rather go back and forth a few times and be in the drivers seat than wait on a person.

I see a similar phenomenon in a lot of places that have both kiosks and counters with people. But it seems to depend on how simple the transaction or process is

If it’s simple enough for self-service, most people prefer the kiosks, sometimes even queueing for the kiosks and avoiding the people at the counters (eg. movie theaters, fast food places, supermarket checkout)

But if it’s something more complicated, people tend to either prefer (or end up anyway at) the counters with people (eg. airports, car rentals, in-store customer service)

Because of scale. Fool one person and you're a conman, fool a million and you're a politician. But with software anybody can jump to arbitrarily high scales, limited only by money.

I'd say if you control what information 1.411 billion people have access to you have scale on your side.

So it's not scale.

>I’m afraid this won’t really go anywhere

California tends to be pretty good (well, "good". relative to federal and other states) at getting consumer friendly bills passed. They don't always work, but the intent for many bills feel focused on the people.

>On the other hand, corporations and big advertisers (spammers?) might not really want it.

Of course they don't. I would love one day seeing how many bots there truly are on Reddit and seeing how close to Dead Internet we are.

I don't think HN hits the 10m threshold to require disclosure. But I also doubt many bots are on here.

Industry will get there pretty soon regardless of that bill or another, since there is a paradigm shift.

The conversation is no longer about scraping bots versus genuine human visitors. Today’s reality involves legitimate users leveraging AI agents to accomplish tasks—like scanning e-commerce sites for the best deals, auto-checking out, or running sophisticated data queries. Traditional red flags (such as numerous rapid requests or odd navigation flows) can easily represent honest customer behavior once enhanced by an AI assistant.

see what I have posted a couple of weeks ago -

https://blog.tarab.ai/p/bot-management-reimagined-in-the

I think you still care too much about the visitor's identity and agency.

Step back a bit and ask why anyone ever tried to throttle or block bots in the first place. Most of the time, it's because they waste the service operator's resources.

From a service operator's point of view, there is no need to distinguish an AI agent that rapidly requests 1000 pages to find the best deal from a dumb bot that scrapes the same 1000 pages for any other purpose. Even a human with fast fingers can open hundreds of tabs in a minute, with the same impact on your AWS bill. You have every right to kick them all out if they strain your resources and you don't want their business. Whether they carry a token of trust is as irrelevant as whether they are human. The problem has always been about behavior, not agency.

Should PUBG mobile players be told they are winning against bots?

Should psychics tell you they cannot really speak for the dead?

> Should psychics tell you they cannot really speak for the dead?

Yes?

That really does sound like a useful rule.

Is there much of a point in telling psychics that they must tell people they cannot really speak for the dead? Outside of a few outliers, e.g. those who admit that it is for entertainment or those who have psychological problems, those who practice it know it is a scam.

I'm not sure whether those selling AI are in the same boat. One the one hand, the technology does produce results. On the other hand, the product clearly isn't what people think of as intelligence.

Yes and yes

I'm mocking the idea of a consistent answer. Of course you can be consistent, but you'll wind up with a bunch of rules that are stupid.

Do we make it illegal to pretend Santa is a real person? Do you see? It's exactly the same thing.

But I don't think that's a good idea, about Santa. OChatbots disclosing they're bots makes sense, but not because it's logical or whatever. And I'm not even sure if it makes sense to do in the context of entertainment, where suspending disbelief is common.

>Should PUBG mobile players be told they are winning against bots?

They don't already? Games tend to be one of the better platforms of informing of an AI opponent vs. a Human one.

>Should psychics tell you they cannot really speak for the dead

We have to prove they are robots first.

I understand being against this law on practicality / constitutionality grounds. It seems to me that the "converse" law would be more useful and legally appropriate: forbid people from making intentionally deceptive bots that claim to be human or have human-like emotional/social capabilities.

Alternate proposal: For every meme, we are by law able to see who created that meme. If all the knuckle-heads who fall for every meme could see, e.g., that it was created by a Russian or Chinese propaganda organization, I think they would soon learn to be more skeptical.

So basically all the "good" bots will follow the law, and all the scamming and problematic bots won't, giving people a false sense of security, and leaving everyone worse off than they were before.

If they figured out how to enforce this effectively, the role of something like OpenAI’s Operator could end up being played by a human much of the time. Then there would be click farms similar to call centers. Presumably an AI could watch as long as humans were clicking, which could make click farms more viable through real time quality control. This would also be a boon for projects like Worldcoin to verify distinct humans. I’m having trouble coming up with a scenario in which this works well.

A even better law would be to force people who are getting paid to post to disclose which company they are working for. A shill disclosure law.

The problem I see with this is that us company's will be forced to follow it, but foreign ones will subvert it. Knowing that foreign companies will just break the law us companies will offshore these jobs.

No shilling no bots, I think all consumers would agree to vote for such bills.

So Californian/US companies would have to comply, and other companies/states would get an advantage.

I say this to phone spammers all the time—are you a bot? If you are you have to tell me. Haha. Reminds me of a conversation I had with a CSR once, who gave their name as “Maryjane”. I asked, on an impulse, is that your real name? They said, No. It’s a jungle out there. Good for CA.

I like that this bill partially implements the second law of robotics:

"1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law."

Pretty much all of the stories on the laws of robotics were about why the laws suck and don't work.

I think you deeply misunderstood the stories.

Your contention is that Asimov considered the 3 laws as good and effective ways to protect humanity?

You do realize that RFC3514 is still not widely implemented?

And that was just one bit on a packet — far different than complex constraints on the behavior of artificial intelligence…

Archive link to the overview: https://archive.ph/U7q9u

And full text here: https://archive.ph/AYnoR

I get this eerie feeling she has no idea what a bot even is in a technical sense and most likely is being puppeteered by weasels like State Senator Scott Wiener having introduced gems like the AI Models Act [1][2][3]. If the bill passes wouldn't then she have to be the first to disclose she's a bot?

[1] https://www.answer.ai/posts/2024-04-29-sb1047.html (SB-1047 will stifle open-source AI and decrease safety)

[2] https://safesecureai.org/responseletter (Response to inaccurate, inflammatory statements by Y Combinator & a16z regarding Senate Bill 1047)

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41690302 (Gavin Newsom vetoes SB 1047)

If you are speaking honestly, you are not doing your allies any favors with this comment.

> The bill updates the legal definition of "bot" to encompass accounts operated by generative artificial intelligence - including systems that create synthetic images, videos, audio, and text.

I'm not sure how enforceable that is tbh.

It should be like ads.

Required a watermark that is NIST standardized

edit: sorry I though y’all would get the joke

Shame, this makes my Turing test battle royale game https://trashtalk.borg.games/ illegal in California.

what if they don't know they are bots like in this short film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VrLQXR7mKU

or any blade runner..

i wonder if someone has rlhf’d an llm into thinking it is human

I remember reading a short story once, I forget its name.

The narrator wakes up in what they believe to be a coma but later learns to be an AI. It had to be given memories and (maybe?) a body in order for it to not go crazy upon activation.

It was set up better than I describe but I think back to it often.

Who wants to bet this ends up in prop-65-like list of disclaimers about алл тхе automation tools used for every message, which will make the messages bigger but won't make them any less frequent?

> алл тхе

“all the”, written in Cyrillic script, in case anyone couldn’t follow.

I mean prop-65 does make the "messages" less frequent. You have to dispose of certain items listed in the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 different than other items. As-in companies can't just discharge cancerous substances down the drain anymore so you're going to want safer substances as an input if you can't avoid discharging it.

You clearly never been in California if you think prop 65 warnings have much to do with drains or safety.

Why do you think those items are labeled?

Its so you can do proper disposal of them ...

But what would you know about this since you're incapable of reading laws.

https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/law/proposition-65-law-a...

> Why do you think those items are labeled?

Because labeling cost is close to zero, and cost of drive-by lawsuit is much higher, and the prop 65 is written in a way that practically invites drive-by lawsuits.

> But what would you know about this since you're incapable of reading laws.

That you for going ah hominem so quickly, otherwise people may think you had a valid argument. Unlike you, I lived in California and witnessed the consequences of it - e.g. pervasive prop 65 warnings on practically every building open to the public and most of the goods that theoretically could contain even one molecule of any substance that could theoretically be linked to any harm. I.e. pretty much all of them. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65...

https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/crn...

> The Act prohibits any person in the course of doing business from knowingly discharging or releasing a chemical known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity into water or onto or into land where it passes or probably will pass into a source of drinking water.

And you can't dump any of that stuff into a river to dispose of it anymore. I'm not sure why you seem to be in favor of a company dumping coffee cups into a river.

You seem to pretend to be dense on purpose, so I'll try one last time to explain it to you as simple as possible, in the very slim hope that you have trouble understanding my point and not just trolling.

What this legislation was purported to do has very little to do with what ended up happening once it was enacted. What it caused is massive proliferation of useless warnings about presence of dangerous chemicals on pretty much every public place (I had multiple prop 65 warnings in apartment building I lived in, because it had an underground parking, cars emit dangerous chemicals, those chemicals may accumulate in the air and walls of the structure, and you could be affected by it) and many goods, while vast majority of places and goods so marked posed absolutely no danger, and for ones that did the warning was useless, because everything is marked with this warning so people just ignore it. It also created a situation where failure to post such warning posed a significant risk of being sued - not by actual victims of pollution, but by opportunist law firms hiring straw plaintiffs to cash in on the situation. Nothing of this has absolutely anything to do with dumping anything into rivers - despite the legislation mentioning rivers, there are other parts of the legislation, not mentioning rivers, that led to the above described effects.

This is common knowledge to anybody who lived in California for any significant time - prop 65 warnings are literally everywhere.

This is a cool website, would love to see more like it in other states.

Had to hard refresh 3 or 4 times to get it to load.

works fine for me. HN Hug of Death, perhaps?

I think so, the content also required one or two F5s for me.

More discussion 5 days ago (77 points, 73 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42901553

Is this feasibly enforceable? The types of organizations that employ bots seem like the same type to not care about the California laws.

Most likely not. See previous laws on disclosing salary requirements on job postings, less than half of CA companies disclose it and nothing happens

Seems only fair, given how often I have to check a box to prove I'm not one.

Aside: what is this Veeto site all about? How long has it been around?

Given we are past the Turing test, how are they going to enforce this?

What if more human than human is your motto?

Wait... What? There is already a law for this exact purpose in California. It's called the BOT Act from 2019

https://dailyjournal.com/articles/379909-california-s-bolste...

>requires clear and conspicuous disclosures of bots ("automated online account[s] where all or substantially all of the actions or posts of that account are not the result of a person"), in the context of incentivizing a purchase or sale of goods or services in a commercial transaction or influencing a vote in an election

I suppose they are generalizing this away from just "paid actors". bots don't need to be commercially involved to be annoying.

That one's here:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

"An act to add Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 17940) to Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to bots."

The new one is "An act to amend Sections 17940 and 17941 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to bots." This one amends that one.

Seems to be down.

It’s probably struggling. I first got an error, then got the correct content after trying it a couple times

Seems impossible

Hack a phone

hopefully applies to crawlers too

Yes please

just another thing that will hurt the small guy somehow, and barely bother the big guy

“I’m Mr. Meeseeks, look at me!”

How are they going to know who is a bot?

Yet another dead law. This is like asking a criminal to not use weapons.

Are you a bot? You gotta tell me if you’re a bot. /s

How do I know if I'm a bot?

The simulation hypothesis says we're all bots.

Can you identify all the fire hydrants in a picture?

Send a message to a Californian, and a California court will make that determination.

>Online platforms with over 10 million monthly U.S. visitors would need to ensure bot operators on their services comply with these expanded disclosure rules.

Dang can check for you.

You're claiming that news.ycombinator.com has over 10 million monthly U.S. visitors?

Most of us are just bots.

I was going to say no, but decided to try and look it up.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33454140

A lot more than I expected, but we're in the clear... For now.

Nah dude * hits bongs, coughs * if you ask if they're a bot they _have_ to say yes

Reply on news.ycombinator.com