Bluesky Deletes AI Protest Video of Trump Sucking Musk's Toes, Calls It 'Non-Consensual Explicit Material'
-
I am standing on the wire
what is the problem with satire and AOC (whatever that is)? -
Note on the term canceling. Independent creators cannot, by definition, get canceled. Unless you literally are under a production or publishing contract that gets actually canceled due to something you said or did, you were not canceled. Being unpopular is not getting canceled, neither is receiving public outrage due to being bad or unpopular. Even in a figurative sense, just the fact that the videos were published to YouTube and can still be viewed means they were not canceled. They just fell out of the zeitgeist and aren't popular anymore, that happens to 99% of entertainment content.
-
I think there's a huge difference between fighting bullying or hate speech against minorities. Another thing is making fun of very specific and very public people.
-
You clearly never were the victim back in those days. Neither do you realize this approach doesn't work on the modern web even in the slightest, unless you want the basics of both enlightenment and therefore science and democracy crumbling down even faster.
Anarchism is never an answer, it's usually willful ignorance about there being any problems.
-
Many FOSS nerds don't even understand the necessity of a user-friendly GUIā¦
-
The sad truth is that the vast majority of people WANT an algorithm to tell them what they like.
Mastodon requires you to actually have your own opinions going in, and follow material based on that.
-
I'm weirded out when people say they want zero moderation. I really don't want to see any more beheading or CSAM and moderation can prevent that.
-
Yeah I really don't like that this is probably going to end up being used to argue that deepfake porn of public figures is ok as long as it is "satire".
I don't really care about the Trump x Musk one but I know for a fact that this will lead to MAGAs doing the same shit to AOC and any other prominent woman on the democrat side.
-
Moderation should be optional .
Say, a message may have any amount of "moderating authority" verdicts, where a user might set up whether they see only messages vetted by authority A, only by authority B, only by A logical-or B, or all messages not blacklisted by authority A, and plenty of other variants, say, we trust authority C unless authority F thinks otherwise, because we trust authority F to know things C is trying to reduce in visibility.
Filtering and censorship are two different tasks. We don't need censorship to avoid seeing CSAM. Filtering is enough.
This fallacy is very easy to encounter, people justify by their unwillingness to encounter something the need to censor it for everyone as if that were not solvable. They also refuse to see that's technically solvable. Such a "verdict" from moderation authority, by the way, is as hard to do as an upvote or a downvote.
For a human or even a group of humans it's hard to pre-moderate every post in a period of time, but that's solvable too - by putting, yes, an AI classifier before humans and making humans check only uncertain cases (or certain ones someone complained about, or certain ones another good moderation authority flagged the opposite, you get the idea).
I like that subject, I think it's very important for the Web to have a good future.
-
people justify by their unwillingness to encounter something the need to censor it for everyone...
I can't engage in good faith with someone who says this about CSAM.
Filtering and censorship are two different tasks. We donāt need censorship to avoid seeing CSAM. Filtering is enough.
No it is not. People are not tagging their shit properly when it is illegal.
-
I can't engage in good faith
Right, you can't.
If someone posts CSAM, police should get their butts to that someone's place.
No it is not. People are not tagging their shit properly when it is illegal.
What I described doesn't have anything to do with people tagging what they post. It's about users choosing the logic of interpreting moderation decisions. But I've described it very clearly in the previous comment, so please read it or leave the thread.
-
And that would be okay
-
It already is
-
The problem is the combination of AOC and nonconsentual explicit AI content. Overly broad rules might make that fall under satire, which is why caution is advised when devising such rules.
-
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. Itās so unethical that it just disgusts me. I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but Iād be more than happy to live in a world where there werenāt.
-
Where do you draw the line for the rich fucks of the world? Realistic CGI? Realistic drawings? Edited photos?
-
So you don't remember Jack Dorsey's shenanigans ?
-
Anything bad that happens to a conservative is good. The world will only get better if they are made to repeatedly suffer.
-
Assuming youāre asking out of genuine curiosity, for me personally, Iād draw the line somewhere along ācould this, or any frame of this, be mistaken for a real depiction of these people?ā and āif this were a depiction of real children, how hard would the FBI come down on you?ā
I understand that thatās not a practical way of creating law or moderating content, but I donāt care because Iām talking about my personal preference/comfort level. Not what I think should be policy. And frankly, I donāt 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 doesnāt exist in it. So in an effort to get closer to utopia, I disapprove of things that would not exist in an utopia.
-
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.
