The authors state, \u201cPlatforms, governments and citizens must step in and consider the purpose, and future, of bot technology,\u201d as if some legislature or rulebook could possibly cover all possible actions bots will make in the future (Wooley, Boyd, & Broussard 2016). The truth is, it is impossible to predict precisely what semi-autonomous bots will do, and this ambiguity makes any type of preemptive policy pointless. A better solution would simply mirror the steps taken towards the accounts of actual humans who tweet dangerous or libelous things.<\/span><\/p>\n If a real person tweets something incredibly offensive or blatantly false, Twitter can simply look at the tweet as a case by case event and delete the tweet. If the real person repeatedly tweets inappropriate material, Twitter can suspend the account. Why not follow the same steps towards bots? If a bot tweets something illegal, Twitter can delete it. If it keeps tweeting illegal things, Twitter can delete the account.<\/p>\n Sources:<\/p>\n Wooley, Samuel, et al. \u201cHow to Think About Bots.\u201d Motherboard, 23 Feb. 2016, motherboard.vice.com\/en_us\/article\/qkzpdm\/how-to-think-about-bots.<\/span><\/p>\n\n Posted from My DIG 101 Blog<\/a> by Matt B.<\/a><\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There are bots that tweet random sentences, bots that report earthquakes, bots that report journalistically on congress, bots that spread false information, bots that encourage political transparency, bots that do nothing other than appear comically inhuman, and bots that perform so many other varied functions on the internet (particularly twitter). The article “How to Think … <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/courses.mabode.us\/DIG101\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/suspended.png?resize=525%2C216\")
Source:\u00a0<\/a>https:\/\/leapfroggr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/03\/new-twitter-account-suspended.png<\/p>\n