Bluesky Deletes AI Protest Video of Trump Sucking Musk's Toes, Calls It 'Non-Consensual Explicit Material'
-
I seem to be in the minority here, but I am extremely uncomfortable the idea of non-consensual AI porn of anyone. Even people I despise. It’s so unethical that it just disgusts me. I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.
In this case, it's clearly a form of speech and therefore protected under the 1st amendment.
I also don't understand such a strong reaction to non-consensual AI porn. I mean, I don't think it's in good taste but I also don't see why it warrants such a strong reaction. It's not real.
-
I agree with you.
However...there's an argument to be made that the post itself is a form of criticism and falls under the free speech rules where it regards political figures. In many ways, it's not any different than the drawings of Musk holding Trump's puppet strings, or Putin and Trump riding a horse together. One is drawn and the other is animated, but they're the same basic concept.
I understand however that that sets a disturbing precedent for what can and cannot be acceptable. But I don't know where to draw that line. I just know that it has to be drawn somewhere.
I think...and this is my opinion...political figures are fair game for this, while there should be protections in place for private citizens, since political figures by their very ambition put themselves in the public sphere whereas private individuals do not.
In my opinion, public figures, including celebrities, give a degree of consent implicitly by seeking to be public figures. I dont think that for celebrities that should extend to lewd or objectionable material, but if your behavior has been to seek being a public figure you can't be upset when people use your likeness in various ways.
For politicians, I would default to "literally everything is protected free speech", with exceptions relating to things that are definitively false, damaging and unrelated to their public work.
"I have a picture of Elon musk engaging in pedophillia" is all those, and would be justifiably removed. Anything short of that though should be permitted. -
In this case, it's clearly a form of speech and therefore protected under the 1st amendment.
I also don't understand such a strong reaction to non-consensual AI porn. I mean, I don't think it's in good taste but I also don't see why it warrants such a strong reaction. It's not real.
Protected from government censorship. Companies have strong protections allowing for controlling the speech on their platforms.
And if you asked Roberts he'd probably say since companies are people, as long as it's used to protect conservatives they have protection for controlling their platforms speech as a 1st amendment right.
-
Anarchism is never an answer, it's usually willful ignorance about there being any problems.
AnCaps drive me nuts. They want to dismantle democratic institutions while simultaneously licking the boots of unelected institutions.
People against ancaps usually only disagree with them in the way institutions are being dismantled.
In any case looking through the eyes of an ancap you might get valuable insights, and this thought should be obvious for an intelligent person of any school in regards to any other.
-
I guess I don't really consider AnCaps to be Anarchists because Anarchy is generally leftist philosophy. Traditional anarchy is like small government socialism: empowered local unions and city governments.
You know what's funny about Stalinism that everyone forgets about?
Its structures were similar to what you describe on the lower level. Districts and factories and such all had their councils (soviet means council), from which representatives were elected to councils of the upper level. They still were pretty despotic most of that period, because crowd rule leads to despotism.
Democracy shouldn't be made too small and too unavoidable. In some sense an imagined hillbilly village is democratic with that problem.
Point being that this didn't look much like some people imagine anarchy.
Anyway, ancaps are not particularly attached to the name, and themselves prefer the words "voluntarism" and "agorism" and a few others. But it's one of the most common names for the ideology.
-
Anarchism is never an answer
This isn't anarchism, as described. Anarchism, like actual anarchism, is the only likely solution, imo. No gods, no masters, no idols.
Solution involves answers where to get energy to dig in the gods, masters and idols. They are well-armed and those seeking solutions are not.
-
No, we cannot think like that. It is true that fascism cannot be beat peacefully, but we should never want them to suffer. We should always strive to crush their fascist oligarchy with as little suffering ss possible.
"Whoever would be a slayer of monsters must take heed, or they may become the very monsters they slay... For when one peers into the abyss, the abyss peers back into thee" -FN
but we should never want them to suffer
No, we should, actually. It's what they want for others and is the only way they might come to an understanding with what's wrong with them.
Sympathy for the fascists is almost equal to support of them afaic
-
So you don't remember Jack Dorsey's shenanigans ?
No. I don’t
-
No. I don’t
This guy censored the POTUS (Granted it was Trump)
-
Bluesky deleted a viral, AI-generated protest video in which Donald Trump is sucking on Elon Musk’s toes because its moderators said it was “non-consensual explicit material.” The video was broadcast on televisions inside the office Housing and Urban Development earlier this week, and quickly went viral on Bluesky and Twitter.
Independent journalist Marisa Kabas obtained a video from a government employee and posted it on Bluesky, where it went viral. Tuesday night, Bluesky moderators deleted the video because they said it was “non-consensual explicit material.”
Other Bluesky users said that versions of the video they uploaded were also deleted, though it is still possible to find the video on the platform.
Technically speaking, the AI video of Trump sucking Musk’s toes, which had the words “LONG LIVE THE REAL KING” shown on top of it, is a nonconsensual AI-generated video, because Trump and Musk did not agree to it. But social media platform content moderation policies have always had carve outs that allow for the criticism of powerful people, especially the world’s richest man and the literal president of the United States.
For example, we once obtained Facebook’s internal rules about sexual content for content moderators, which included broad carveouts to allow for sexual content that criticized public figures and politicians. The First Amendment, which does not apply to social media companies but is relevant considering that Bluesky told Kabas she could not use the platform to “break the law,” has essentially unlimited protection for criticizing public figures in the way this video is doing.
Content moderation has been one of Bluesky’s growing pains over the last few months. The platform has millions of users but only a few dozen employees, meaning that perfect content moderation is impossible, and a lot of it necessarily needs to be automated. This is going to lead to mistakes. But the video Kabas posted was one of the most popular posts on the platform earlier this week and resulted in a national conversation about the protest. Deleting it—whether accidentally or because its moderation rules are so strict as to not allow for this type of reporting on a protest against the President of the United States—is a problem.
I'm not here to discuss how we need to be ethical in response to a fascist takeover. So we gotta play by the rules but they don't?
-
Protected from government censorship. Companies have strong protections allowing for controlling the speech on their platforms.
And if you asked Roberts he'd probably say since companies are people, as long as it's used to protect conservatives they have protection for controlling their platforms speech as a 1st amendment right.
not claiming private organizations don't have to the right to regulate speech on their platforms. was responding to statement
I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.
which to me implies some sort of state censorship on this type of material
Really, I just wanted to understand the rationale behind the desire to ban this type of material.
On the topic of Judge Roberts, on a similar although different legal issue
He wrote the Court’s opinion in United States v. Stevens (2010), invalidating a federal law that criminalized the creation or dissemination of images of animal cruelty. The government had argued that such images should be a new unprotected category of speech akin to child pornography. Roberts emphatically rejected that proposition, writing that the Court does not have “freewheeling authority to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.” Roberts also wrote the Court’s opinion in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), ruling that the First Amendment prohibited the imposition of civil liability against the Westboro Baptist Church for their highly offensive picketing near the funeral of a slain serviceman.
In oft-cited language, Roberts wrote:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”
If Judge Roberts were to be consistent, and I make no such claims that he will ever be consistent, I believe he would likewise not support banning fake AI porn.
-
That's a really thin line. I have a hard time imagining anyone sticking to this same argument if the satire were directed towards someone they admired in a similar position of power. The prime minister visiting a school is a world away from AI generated content of something that never actually happened. Leaving nuance out of these policies isn't some corporation pulling wool over our eyes, it's just really hard to do nuance at scale without bias and commotion.
I have a hard time imagining anyone sticking to this same argument if the satire were directed towards someone they admired in a similar position of power
I have a hard time imagining a reasonable person being mad at satire of a politician. Like maybe it's a cultural divide and I'm not American so I don't view politics as team sports and my country has a stronger history of political satire than the often pathetically meek American political cartoons, but you can make a satirical deepfake of the politicians I voted in last election if you want.
If the deepfake was not obviously related to current political events or wasn't obviously fake, the point could be arguable at least as a matter of good taste. As it stands, the satire is obvious, harmless, and topical. It is therefore terrifying that censoring it is even a question. How far the concept of free speech has fallen that it refers to Seig Heiling but a 2s gif of Trump sucking some toes apparently crosses a line.
-
Bluesky deleted a viral, AI-generated protest video in which Donald Trump is sucking on Elon Musk’s toes because its moderators said it was “non-consensual explicit material.” The video was broadcast on televisions inside the office Housing and Urban Development earlier this week, and quickly went viral on Bluesky and Twitter.
Independent journalist Marisa Kabas obtained a video from a government employee and posted it on Bluesky, where it went viral. Tuesday night, Bluesky moderators deleted the video because they said it was “non-consensual explicit material.”
Other Bluesky users said that versions of the video they uploaded were also deleted, though it is still possible to find the video on the platform.
Technically speaking, the AI video of Trump sucking Musk’s toes, which had the words “LONG LIVE THE REAL KING” shown on top of it, is a nonconsensual AI-generated video, because Trump and Musk did not agree to it. But social media platform content moderation policies have always had carve outs that allow for the criticism of powerful people, especially the world’s richest man and the literal president of the United States.
For example, we once obtained Facebook’s internal rules about sexual content for content moderators, which included broad carveouts to allow for sexual content that criticized public figures and politicians. The First Amendment, which does not apply to social media companies but is relevant considering that Bluesky told Kabas she could not use the platform to “break the law,” has essentially unlimited protection for criticizing public figures in the way this video is doing.
Content moderation has been one of Bluesky’s growing pains over the last few months. The platform has millions of users but only a few dozen employees, meaning that perfect content moderation is impossible, and a lot of it necessarily needs to be automated. This is going to lead to mistakes. But the video Kabas posted was one of the most popular posts on the platform earlier this week and resulted in a national conversation about the protest. Deleting it—whether accidentally or because its moderation rules are so strict as to not allow for this type of reporting on a protest against the President of the United States—is a problem.
Amazed people saying it is correct decision! This is two public figures and doing art or any form of expression material with their image should be protected under freedom of speech.
-
In this case, it's clearly a form of speech and therefore protected under the 1st amendment.
I also don't understand such a strong reaction to non-consensual AI porn. I mean, I don't think it's in good taste but I also don't see why it warrants such a strong reaction. It's not real.
Nobody's going to mistake that stick figure for the real me, though.
-
Nobody's going to mistake that stick figure for the real me, though.
so is that the key differentiating issue here? whether someone can mistake it for a real photo?
what if I'm a really talented artist and make a drawing of you posing in a sexually suggestive way. Should that be criminalized?
if I put a watermark "AI generated" in the AI porn, does that make it OK?
-
I seem to be in the minority here, but I am extremely uncomfortable the idea of non-consensual AI porn of anyone. Even people I despise. It’s so unethical that it just disgusts me. I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.
I think the important point in this case is not that the content is acceptable, but that it is newsworthy.
If somebody made the video and posted it, I could see it being permanently taken down. And it was at first, per the letter of their policy.
But the fact that government employees had it playing on government property inside government facilities, to protest some extreme and historical stuff going on, means it should be recorded for the public and for history.
I look at it much the same way as the photos of upside down American flags that various government employees put up. Just posting an upside down flag and saying how America is wrong is an opinion like any other that would get lost in the noise. But when it’s people inside the government intending it as a sign of distress, very much more newsworthy and important to record.
-
Holy shit. A reasonable take from someone who clearly leaves the house.
On Lemmy??? Blasphemy!
-
This is what I was thinking about myself. Because we're cool with political caricatures, right?
I guess the problem is that nobody wants to feature in non-consensual AI porn. I mean if you'd want to draw me getting shafted by Musk, that'd be weird, but a highly realistic video of the same event, that would be hard to explain to the missus.
I guess "obviously Elon Musk would never go for a guy like me" would be the wrong answer
-
I'm not here to discuss how we need to be ethical in response to a fascist takeover. So we gotta play by the rules but they don't?
I made account on bluesky to post drawings and no seeing AI slop. I hate Elon Musk, but I don't consider seeing AI generated lemon party as funny thing. It's one of the reason why I don't use Twitter anymore.
-
Assuming you’re asking out of genuine curiosity, for me personally, I’d draw the line somewhere along “could this, or any frame of this, be mistaken for a real depiction of these people?” and “if this were a depiction of real children, how hard would the FBI come down on you?”
I understand that that’s not a practical way of creating law or moderating content, but I don’t care because I’m talking about my personal preference/comfort level. Not what I think should be policy. And frankly, I don’t know what should be policy or how to word it all in anti-loopholes lawyer-speak. I just know that this sucking toes thing crosses an ethical line for me and personally I hate it.
Putting it more idealistically: when I imagine living in utopia, non-consensual AI porn of people doesn’t exist in it. So in an effort to get closer to utopia, I disapprove of things that would not exist in an utopia.
That sounds fair, though I could still see an argument to be made for not always protecting the rich fucks the same way. Either way, we know that anything that comes out that's too incriminating would be declared AI-generated anyway, lol
Though mentioning the utopia... having porn of anyone anywhere might be some people's idea of a utopia! Haha
