Should automated propaganda bots be legal to use in US elections?

[Renew Deal]

Wired has a crazy story about automated propaganda bots being used on major social networks. Should they be legal to use?

It is still early days -- many of the bots deployed in 2015 will be programmed to use relatively simple heuristic techniques to imitate intelligence. But, powered by rapid advances in artificial intelligence, propaganda bots will soon run on genetic algorithms that let their ideas and messaging evolve, based on the resonance and effectiveness of previous messages. We are likely to see versions of these bots deployed on US audiences as part of the 2016 presidential election campaigns, and not only by the traditionally more tech-savvy Democrats.

http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2015/06/wired-world-2015/robot-propaganda

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=138657

Poll question: Should Democrats use automated propaganda bots to support the Democratic nominee?

2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, the Democratic nominee should use automated and human bots
	1 (50%)
	Yes, the Democratic nominee should use human bots only
	0 (0%)
	No, Dems should not use bots
	1 (50%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	Not sure
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Old Union Guy]

1. I for one welcome ... etc ... you know the drill.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. "Simple heuristic tool" may become my go-to insult for 2016

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. As with other technological changes, there is no way to stop it in the short term.

and no one who could stop it.

Therefore, I voted "other."

[Renew Deal]

4. Agree

Even if it was outlawed for campaigns, other third parties would try to use them (PAC's, foreign entities, individuals, underground orgs).

[arcane1]

3. I'm not too crazy about our government doing this in other countries either n/t

[tritsofme]

5. You ask two very different questions. Should they be legal? and Should we use it?

They are undoubtedly legal on First Amendment grounds, but I don't have much of an opinion on whether we should use them or if they are useful.

[Renew Deal]

10. Do computers have first amendment rights?

[tritsofme]

11. Is speech created on a computer protected by the First Amendment?

Does it end because you package that speech into a program you create? I don't think so. Interesting to ponder.

[Nye Bevan]

13. Do printing presses have First Amendment rights?

Does Microsoft Word have First Amendment rights?

Or are only handwritten pamphlets protected free speech?

[Warren DeMontague]

6. I'm gonna second the observation that you are asking two very different questions, here.

Until you get it straightened out, Im not gonna answer the poll.

Legal? Yes, we criminalize enough silly shit as it is, plus there's that pesky 1st Amendment that some folks here cant stand.

Which is a very different question than "should they do it". It sounds annoying at best, and it could easily backfire on the candidate, much as The photos of McCain in front of crowds obviously enlarged via the photoshop clone tool, did.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. "Simple heuristic tools"- that's shorthand for the Republican Base right there, isnt it?

Although they may want to simulate something other than intelligence.

[Nye Bevan]

12. Please align your poll question with the question in your subject line (nt)

[951-Riverside]

14. As much as I hate them I believe Fox News has a first amendment right

[MohRokTah]

15. You go to the polls with the existing legal framework,...

not the legal framework you wish were in place.

Failure to utilize all technology and techniques legally at your disposal is playing to lose.