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.
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.)
That’s a good point. If I didn’t see that they were bot accounts it would probably be an ignorance-is-bliss situation. I just wouldn’t notice. Though, using desktop, it’s fairly obvious since most have the “b” next to their names that also include “bot”.
A lot of the time, you’ll see OP engage in the comments of what they post because they themselves have a personal interest in it. You don’t get that with bots. I have to wonder if bots are denying humans that chance. Someone goes to post something they found, but the reddit repost bot already pulled it from some subreddit’s new feed.
“Stealing” posts is a good argument against bots as well. As a user if, every time I went to post, my post was already “taken” then I’d be less likely to post in the future.
Although technically that’s true even without bots.
I do think limiting in general how often any one account can post makes sense, so I would extend that same rule to bots.
For “good” bots we could even request that they wait 24 hours before posting something new. (Of course if the rules are too strict we’ll just have bad bots and that defeats the point of having bot rules.)
What’s an L4?
https://lemmy.world/u/L4s
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.
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.