THEY are creeping into your Twitter mentions, trying to make friends on Facebook, and liking your Instagram pics, all without you knowing. The legions of online bots – automated software designed to mimic humans – are growing, and politicians in the US and Europe have decided something needs to be done.
Last week, The Washington Post reported that as part of a bot crackdown, . While many bots are just a bit of fun, some are used for nefarious purposes. “They’re trying to trick people, whether into giving people more followers, allowing companies to inflate their valuations, or tricking people in politics,” says Robert Hertzberg, a Californian state senator.
He is hoping to pass a new law – the Bolstering Online Transparency, or – that would require bots communicating with Californian residents to be identified on social networks. Bot creators would have to identify their products, and social networks would be responsible for removing any unidentified bots within 72 hours of their being highlighted by other users. Hertzberg hopes the Californian legislation will be a model for the wider US – and eventually, the rest of the world.
Advertisement
Automated Twitter activity has been recorded in the aftermath of school shootings, terrorist attacks and in the run-up to elections in at least 18 different countries, according to a , a non-governmental organisation focused on democracy. Such interference tries to shape public debate online. “We can’t stop bots,” says Hertzberg, “but we can at least put a label on them and make a process to bring them down.”
His bill has already inspired one national politician to put bots in the firing line. Dianne Feinstein, who represents California in the US Senate, introduced a similar bill in late June.
“This bill is designed to help respond to Russia’s efforts to interfere in US elections through the use of social media bots, which spread divisive propaganda,” she said in a statement.
The law would require social networks to disclose every bot operating on their platforms and is intended to stop “fake social media bots” being used by political campaigns.
“Voters must be able to make informed judgements about the information they receive, and that includes knowing the origin and motives behind these pervasive and fake online personas,” said Feinstein.
If the law is passed, social networks would have a year to flag up any bots on their platforms. Although what action would be taken against anyone flouting the rules has yet to be decided.
“Online disinformation is a new, multifaceted and fast-developing issue that requires immediate action”
Meanwhile in Europe, politicians are also calling for social media firms to tackle the problem of automated accounts. As part of a wider movement against disinformation, the European Commission is developing a code of practice that it expects social networks to adhere to.
“Online disinformation is a new, multifaceted and fast-developing issue that requires immediate action,” says Nathalie Vandystadt, a spokesperson for the commission. “Self-regulation is considered the most appropriate way for online platforms to implement swift action to tackle this problem,” she says, though the commission may introduce stronger regulation if sites don’t stick to the code.
The commission wants protections in place before the next European Parliament elections, due to take place in May 2019. “All efforts must be undertaken to counter disinformation tactics targeting election processes,” says Vandystadt.
In fact, Europe may already have a law to deal with some bots. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in May, places restrictions on how people’s personal data can be used to make automated decisions. Because social media messages are personal data, a bot replying to your tweets should be covered by the law, says Jon Baines, chair of the UK’s National Association of Data Protection and Freedom of Information Officers.
“Bots shouldn’t be taking, or be coded to take, decisions about us without our being aware,” he says. “If they are being used to make significant decisions about us, we should, in general, be allowed to refuse.” That said, Baines admits the likelihood of Twitter bots being called to task for flouting GDPR rules is unlikely, although not impossible.
Friend or foe
But will identifying the bots make a difference to how we interact with them? A at the perceived differences between Twitter bots and human-controlled profiles found that users saw bots as slightly less competent and caring, although its findings were long before the rise of the bot army.
Without context as to who has created a bot and why, it can be difficult to discern what its goals are – and how you should treat the information it is providing. Laws that require bots to be identified should help with this, but may not be enough.
“I think it’s important to identify bots, but I think it’s more important to identify the people behind them,” says Luciano Floridi, a digital ethicist at the Oxford Internet Institute. “There is no such thing as independent bots unleashed on the web like some kind of alien life taking root. I think there should be accountability.”
But not all bots are harmful, says Stefan Bohacek. He is creator of Botwiki, which catalogues friendly or helpful bots, such as those that create artwork or monitor changes to websites.
Bohacek says some bot-makers might not want to be identified for fear of reprisals when their bots tweet material someone doesn’t like. Or perhaps their accounts are benign art projects that rely on users believing they’re interacting with a human to avoid affecting their political viewpoints, so strict laws might go too far. “The right balance would be to say this action has been automated, but I wouldn’t say we need to identify who’s automated it.”
Hertzberg agrees it is important to strike a balance between cracking down on the bad bots while allowing space for positive experimentation. “We don’t want to have a chilling effect on innovation and creativity,” he says.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group based in California, says Hertzberg’s bot legislation, as presently written, is flawed.
“We’re not opposed to bot labelling, but this bill is overbroad and poorly defined,” says Jamie Lee Williams, staff attorney at the EFF.
The organisation in late May to outline its issues with his law. Like Bohacek, it raised concerns that bots used for research or artistic purposes would be affected, but it also highlighted wider problems.
The EFF says the BOT Act would require social networks to swiftly take down any unidentified bots flagged to them by a third party, then ask questions later. It worries that the law could be weaponised to take down benign bots that certain groups or individuals disagree with.
The group doesn’t go so far as to say bots themselves have the right to free speech, but it does say in its letter to Hertzberg that “disclosure mandates would restrict and chill the speech” of those behind non-harmful bots.
“There is no such thing as independent bots unleashed on the web like some kind of alien life”
“Election interference and fraud are two areas in which bot activity is a huge problem and labelling would be helpful,” says Williams, but it should be possible to address these problems without opening all bots up to attack. Removing strict takedown provisions from the law would be a helpful solution, she says.
Hertzberg doesn’t see the EFF’s qualms with his law. “I heard their argument but can’t understand it,” he says. “If someone wants to have their voice, I’m not saying they can’t. I just want to understand who the voice is from. All I’m suggesting is tell the truth about who you are.”
The BOT Act is currently moving through the Californian legislature, and could become law later this year. But will it make a dent in the growing army? For that, we would need global agreement, which isn’t likely, says Floridi. “We haven’t even achieved effective global regulation on the use of nuclear weapons,” he says. “I’d be astonished if we were to reach it on this.”
This article appeared in print under the headline “The race to stop bots from taking over the world”
