907

Instagram is profiting from several ads that invite people to create nonconsensual nude images with AI image generation apps, once again showing that some of the most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet, but are actively promoted to users by social media companies unable or unwilling to enforce their policies about who can buy ads on their platforms.

While parent company Meta’s Ad Library, which archives ads on its platforms, who paid for them, and where and when they were posted, shows that the company has taken down several of these ads previously, many ads that explicitly invited users to create nudes and some ad buyers were up until I reached out to Meta for comment. Some of these ads were for the best known nonconsensual “undress” or “nudify” services on the internet.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 167 points 6 months ago

Seen similar stuff on TikTok.

That's the big problem with ad marketplaces and automation, the ads are rarely vetted by a human, you can just give them money, upload your ad and they'll happily display it. They rely entirely on users to report them which most people don't do because they're ads and they wont take it down unless it's really bad.

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 56 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's especially bad on reels/shorts for pretty much all platforms. Tons of financial scams looking to steal personal info or worse. And I had one on a Facebook reel that was for boner pills that was legit a minute long ad of hardcore porn. Not just nudity but straight up uncensored fucking.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] Nobody@lemmy.world 119 points 6 months ago

It’s all so incredibly gross. Using “AI” to undress someone you know is extremely fucked up. Please don’t do that.

[-] TheBat@lemmy.world 51 points 6 months ago

I'm going to undress Nobody. And give them sexy tentacles.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (65 replies)
[-] dan1101@lemm.ee 106 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yet another example of multi billion dollar companies that don't curate their content because it's too hard and expensive. Well too bad maybe you only profit 46 billion instead of 55 billion. Boo hoo.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 68 points 6 months ago

It's not that it's too expensive, it's that they don't care. They won't do the right thing until and unless they are forced to, or it affects their bottom line.

[-] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago

Wild that since the rise of the internet it's like they decided advertising laws don't apply anymore.

But Copyright though, it absolutely does, always and everywhere.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] ClusterBomb@lemmy.blahaj.zone 72 points 6 months ago

Intersting how we can "undress any girl" but I have not seen a tool to "undress any boy" yet. 😐

I don't know what it says about people developing those tools. (I know, in fact)

[-] r00ty@kbin.life 58 points 6 months ago

Make one :P

Then I suspect you'll find the answer is money. The ones for women simply just make more money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Flipper@feddit.de 31 points 6 months ago

I've seen a tool like that. Everyone was a bodybuilder and Hung like a horse.

[-] Peppycito@sh.itjust.works 35 points 6 months ago

I'm going to guess all the ones of women have bolt on tiddies and no pubic hair.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago

Thats what we all look like.

Don't check though

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] starman@programming.dev 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Be the change you wish to see in the world

\s

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 64 points 6 months ago

It remains fascinating to me how these apps are being responded to in society. I'd assume part of the point of seeing someone naked is to know what their bits look like, while these just extrapolate with averages (and likely, averages of glamor models). So we still dont know what these people actually look like naked.

And yet, people are still scorned and offended as if they were.

Technology is breaking our society, albeit in place where our culture was vulnerable to being broken.

[-] exanime@lemmy.today 101 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And yet, people are still scorned and offended as if they were.

I think you are missing the plot here... If a naked pic of yourself, your mother, your wife, your daughter is circulating around the campus, work or just online... Are you really going to be like "lol my nipples are lighter and they don't know" ??

You may not get that job, promotion, entry into program, etc. The harm done by naked pics in public would just as real weather the representation is accurate or not ... And that's not even starting to talk about the violation of privacy and overall creepiness of whatever people will do with that pic of your daughter out there

[-] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 42 points 6 months ago

I believe their point is that an employer logically shouldn't care if some third party fabricates an image resembling you. We still have an issue with latent puritanism, and this needs to be addressed as we face the reality of more and more convincing fakes of images, audio, and video.

[-] exanime@lemmy.today 21 points 6 months ago

I agree... however, we live in the world we live in, where employers do discriminate as much as they can before getting in trouble with the law

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee 20 points 6 months ago

This is a transitional period issue. In a couple of years you can just say AI made it even if it's a real picture and everyone will believe you. Fake nudes are in no way a new thing anyway. I used to make dozens of these by request back in my edgy 4chan times 15 years ago.

[-] exanime@lemmy.today 19 points 6 months ago

This is a transitional period issue. In a couple of years you can just say AI made it even if it’s a real picture and everyone will believe you.

Sure, but the question of whether they harm the victim is still real... if your prospective employer finds tons of pics of you with nazi flags, guns and drugs... they may just "play it safe" and pass on you... no matter how much you claim (or even the employer might think) they are fakes

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Dead internet.

It also means in a few years, any terrible thing someone does will just be excused as a "deep fake" if you have the resources and any terrible thing someone wants to pin on you with be cooked up in seconds. People wont just blanket believe or disbelieve any possible deep fake. They'll cherry pick what to believe based on their preexisting world view and how confident the story telling comes across.

As far as your old edits go, if they're anything like the ones I saw, they were terrible and not believable at all.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] Beebabe@lemmy.world 30 points 6 months ago

Something like this could be career ending for me. Because of the way people react. “Oh did you see Mrs. Bee on the internet?” Would have to change my name and move three towns over or something. That’s not even considering the emotional damage of having people download you. Knowledge that “you” are dehumanized in this way. It almost takes the concept of consent and throws it completely out the window. We all know people have lewd thoughts from time to time, but I think having a metric on that…it would be so twisted for the self-image of the victim. A marketplace for intrusive thoughts where anyone can be commodified. Not even celebrities, just average individuals trying to mind their own business.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Wtf are you even talking about? People should have the right to control if they are "approximated" as nude. You can wax poetic how it's not nessecarily correct but that's because you are ignoring the woman who did not consent to the process. Like, if I posted a nude then that's on the internet forever. But now, any picture at all can be made nude and posted to the internet forever. You're entirely removing consent from the equation you ass.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (44 replies)
[-] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 51 points 6 months ago

Lot of people in this thread who don't seem to understand what sexual exploitation is. I've argued about this exact subject on threads like this before.

It is absolutely horrifying that someone you know could take your likeness and render it into a form for their own sexual gratification. It doesn't matter that it's ai rendered. The base image is still you, the face in the image is still your face, and you are still the object being sexualized. I can't describe how disgusting that is. If you do not see the problem in that I don't know what to tell you. This will be used on images of normal non-famous women. It will be used on pictures from the social media profiles of teenage girls. These ads were on a platform with millions of personal accounts of women and girls. It's sickening. There is no consent involved here. It's non-consensual pornography.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 47 points 6 months ago

Is there such a thing as a consensual undressing app? Seems redundant

[-] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 6 months ago

There isn't, but emphasis on why it's an issue is always a good thing to do. Same reason people get upset when some articles say "had sex with a minor" or "involved in a relationship with a minor" when the accurate crime is "raped a minor."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[-] callouscomic@lemm.ee 41 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

So many of these comments are breaking down into arguments of basic consent for pics, and knowing how so many people are, I sure wonder how many of those same people post pics of their kids on social media constantly and don't see the inconsistency.

[-] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 20 points 6 months ago

There isn’t really many good reasons to post your kid’s picture anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] _sideffect@lemmy.world 38 points 6 months ago

Good, let all celebs come together and sue zuck into the ground

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 37 points 6 months ago

youtube has been for like 6 or 7 months. even with famous people in the ads. I remember one for a while with Ortega

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] evlogii@lemm.ee 36 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Isn't it kinda funny that the "most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet," yet this article is locked behind a paywall?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 26 points 6 months ago

Sharing this screenshot again, to drive the point home.

[-] LucidBoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 6 months ago

What in the fuck are all these photos of kids? They're not part of the ad?

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 45 points 6 months ago

This was from a test I did with a throwaway account on IG where I followed a handful of weirdo parents who run "model" accounts for their kids to see if Instagram would start pushing problematic content as a result (spoiler: yes they will).

It took about 5 minutes from creating the account to end up with nothing but dressed down kids on my recommendations page paired with inappropriate ads. I guess the people who follow kids on IG also like these recommended photos, and the algorithm also figures they must be perverts, but doesn't care about the sickening juxtaposition of children in swimsuits next to AI nudifying apps.

Don't use Meta products. They don't care about ethics, just profits.

[-] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The other day, I had an ad on facebook that was basically lolicon. It depicted a clearly underage anime girl in a sexually suggestive position on a motorcycle with their panties almost off. I am in Germany, Facebook knows I am in Germany and if I took a screenshot of that ad and saved it, it would probably be classed as CSAM in my jurisdiction. I reported the ad and got informed that FB found "nothing wrong" with it a few days later. Fuck off, you child predators.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

AI gives creative license to anyone who can communicate their desires well enough. Every great advancement in the media age has been pushed in one way or another with porn, so why would this be different?

I think if a person wants visual "material," so be it. They're doing it with their imagination anyway.

Now, generating fake media of someone for profit or malice, that should get punishment. There's going to be a lot of news cycles with some creative perversion and horrible outcomes intertwined.

I'm just hoping I can communicate the danger of some of the social media platforms to my children well enough. That's where the most damage is done with the kind of stuff.

[-] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 36 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The porn industry is, in fact, extremely hostile to AI image generation. How can anyone make money off porn if users simply create their own?

Also I wouldn't be surprised if the it's false advertising and in clicking the ad will in fact just take you to a webpage with more ads, and a link from there to more ads, and more ads, and so on until eventually users either give up (and hopefully click on an ad).

Whatever's going on, the ad is clearly a violation of instagram's advertising terms.

I’m just hoping I can communicate the danger of some of the social media platforms to my children well enough. That’s where the most damage is done with the kind of stuff.

It's just not your children you need to communicate it to. It's all the other children they interact with. For example I know a young girl (not even a teenager yet) who is being bullied on social media lately - the fact she doesn't use social media herself doesn't stop other people from saying nasty things about her in public (and who knows, maybe they're even sharing AI generated CSAM based on photos they've taken of her at school).

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 22 points 6 months ago

That bidding model for ads should be illegal. Alternatively, companies displaying them should be responsible/be able to tell where it came from. Misinformarion has become a real problem, especially in politics.

[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 21 points 6 months ago

ITT: A bunch of creepy fuckers who dont think society should judge them for being fucking creepy

[-] intensely_human@lemm.ee 21 points 6 months ago

This is not okay, but this is nowhere near the most harmful application of AI.

The most harmful application of AI that I can think of would disrupting a country’s entire culture via gaslighting social media bots, leading to increases in addiction, hatred, suicide, and murder.

Putting hundreds of millions of people into a state of hopeless depression would be more harmful than creating a picture of a naked woman with a real woman’s face on it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
907 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

59169 readers
2176 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS