5
after contact, the company acknowledged the problem and removed the accounts
Meta is outsourcing content moderation to journalists.
Meta profits from these accounts, it also profits off scams and fraud posts, because they pay for ad space. They have literally no incentive to moderate beyond the bare minimum their automatic tools do
Please, please, please abandon these platforms. Just stop using them. There's a cycle to these things and once they are past the due date all that's left is rotten. It really is as simple as stop using their platform.
Parents should get their kids to never touch anything “Meta” made or brought.
But then again, them same parents are currently telling the world what their neighbours are doing, what they’re eating and how cute did “insert name here” look in their new school uniform. 🤦♂️
When I saw this, 2 questions came to mind: How come that this isn't immediately reported? Why would anyone upload illegal material to a platform that tracks as thoroughly as Meta's do?
The answer is:
All of those accounts followed the same visual pattern: blonde characters with voluptuous bodies and ample breasts, blue eyes, and childlike faces.
The 1 question that came to mind upon reading this is: What?
I’m a little confused as to how it can still be AI CSAM if the bodies are voluptuous and the breasts are ample. Childlike faces have been the bread and butter of face filters for years.
Which parts specifically have to be childlike for it to be AI CSAM? This is why we need some laws ASAP.
Things that you want to understand but sure as fuck ain't gonna Google.
Child Sexual Abuse Material is abhorrent because children were literally abused to create it.
AI generated content, though disgusting, is not even remotely on the same level.
The moral panic around AI that leads to implying that these things are the same thing is absurd.
Go after the people filming themselves literally gang raping toddlers, not the people typing forbidden words into an image generator.
Don't dilute the horror of the production CSAM by equating it to fake pictures.
Although that's true, such material can easily be used to groom children which is where I think the real danger lies.
I really wish they had excluded children in the datasets.
You can't really put a stop to it anymore but I don't think it should be something that's normalized and accepted just because there isn't a direct victim anymore. We are also talking about distribution here and not something being done in private at home.
such material can easily be used to groom children
This literally makes no sense.
Kids will do things if they see other children doing it in pictures and videos. It's easier to normalize sexual behavior with cp then without.
This sounds like you're searching really hard for a reason to justify banning it. Pretty tenuous "what if" there.
Like, a dildo could hypothetically be used to sexualize a child. Should we ban dildos?
It's so vague it could apply to anything.
Yes at a cursory glance that's true. AI generated images don't involve the abuse of children, that's great. The problem is what the follow-on effects of this is. What's to stop actual child abusers from just photoshopping a 6th finger onto their images and then claiming that it's AI generated?
AI image generation is getting absurdly good now, nearly indistinguishable from actual pictures. By the end of the year I suspect they will be truly indistinguishable. When that happens, how do you tell which images are AI generated and which are real? How do you know who is peddling real CP and who isn't if AI-generated CP is legal?
What's the follow on effect from making generated images illegal?
Do you want your freedom to be at stake where the question before the Jury is "How old is this image of a person (that doesn't exist?)". "Is this fake person TOO child-like?"
When that happens, how do you tell which images are AI generated and which are real? How do you know who is peddling real CP and who isn't if AI-generated CP is legal?
You won't be able to tell, we can assume that this is a given.
So the real question is:
Who are you trying to arrest and put in jail and how are you going to write that difference into law so that innocent people are not harmed by the justice system?
To me, the evil people are the ones harming actual children. Trying to blur the line between them and people who generate images is a morally confused position.
There's a clear distinction between the two groups and that distinction is that one group is harming people.
If a child is not being harmed, I truly do not give a shit.
The most compelling argument against AI generated child porn I have heard is it normalizes it and makes it more likely people will be unable to tell if it is real or AI. This allows actual children to get hurt when it is not reported or skimmed over because someone thought it was AI.
As a counterpart, the fact that it is so easy and simple to get those AI images, compared to the risk and extra effort of doing it for real, could make the actual child abuse become less common and less profitable for mafias and assholes in general. It's a really complex topic that no simple straight answer would solve.
Normalising it would be horrible and should be avoided, but there will always be some amount of people looking for that content. I rather have them using AI to create it than having to go searching for real content. Persecuting the AI content is not only very inefficient, it might also be harmful as the only other content left would be the real one that is much harder to catch those who make it.
I rather have them using AI to create it than having to go searching for real content.
A rebuttal to this that I've read is that the easy access may encourage people to dig into it and eventually want "the real thing"... but regardless, with it being FOSS, there's no easy way to stop it anyway... It's just a Pandora's box that we can never close.
And I could rebute to that, that if someone is interested enough to check it with AI then they were likely to try and check it anyway without AI, maybe it would take longer, it would be harder to find... But they'd be the intended audience that now are redirected elsewhere.
To quote myself:
It's a really complex topic that no simple straight answer would solve.
We could rebute again and again and again, and get nowhere because either option is hard to discuss as it is simply impossible to give proper data to prove anything. And worse, when defending the use of AI for it can lead to being told you are allowing it in the first place and that's not even telling how many people still believe that AI needs real sample images to produce those (whether the algorithm is trained or not on CP is irrelevant on this particular point, as it is not needed to be created)
What if it features real kid’s faces?
Then it is harming someone.
How do you think they train the models?
With a set of all images on the internet. Why do you people always think this is a "gotcha"?
I've been assuming it's because they truly have no idea how this tech works
Hey.
I've been in tech for 20 years. I know python, Java, c#. I've worked with tensorflow and language models. I understand this stuff.
You absolutely could train an AI on safe material to do what you're saying.
Stable diffusion and openai have not guaranteed that they trained their AI on safe materials.
It's like going to buy a burger, and the restaurant says "We can't guarantee there's no human meat in here". At best it's lazy. At worst it's abusive.
Ok, but by that definition Google should be banned because their trawler isn't guaranteed to not pick up CP.
In my opinion, if the technology involves casting a huge net, and then creating an abstracted product from what is caught in the net, with no steps in between seen by a human, then is it really causing any sort of actual harm?
I mean, there is no photograph of a school bus with pegasus wings diving to the titanic, but I bet one of these AIs can crank out that picture. If it can do that...?
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2025
5 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
82066 readers
546 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS