Bluesky Deletes AI Protest Video of Trump Sucking Musk's Toes, Calls It 'Non-Consensual Explicit Material'
-
Your analogy doesn’t hold. Words aren’t human body parts.
Is this considered porn? I am certainly, along with at least hundreds of millions of people, into shirtless Ryan Gosling. Specifically his pecs and abs.
Look, I am taking the piss, but not everything that might turn someone on for one reason or another is porn. The AI video of Trump is clearly satire and meant to disgust. What's next, we can't make satirical drawings of him grovelling at Putin's feet because some people have a humiliation fetish?
-
That's quite a good point. Here's a little thought experiment, though: If we woke up tomorrow and Mastodon looked just like Bluesky (but with a different color scheme) and featured 100% two-way integration with Bluesky...
Essentially, if Mastodon became hands down the most user-friendly and engaging option—would that be enough to make a meaningful difference in its adoption curve?
Possibly, although anyone who already has an account on Bluesky would likely stay there, and Bluesky has the upper hand in name recognition, and there is the uphill battle of explaining the concept of federation to people who have little interest in technology.
And that's if, hypothetically speaking, Mastodon was as easy to use.
It's not happening. Also, if it's anything like here, the non stop Linuxposting would probably annoy people.
-
There's plenty of legal precedent for newsworthiness to supersede some rules in the name of the freedom of the Press. It makes sense that I'm not allowed (at least where I live) to post a non-consensual pictures of someone off the street. But it would not make sense if I was forbidden from posting a picture of the Prime Minister visiting a school for example. That's newsworthy and therefore the public interest outweighs his right to privacy.
The AI video of Trump/Musk made a bunch of headlines because it was hacked onto a government building. On top of that it's satire of public figures and – I can't believe that needs saying – is clearly not meant to provide sexual gratification.
Corpos and bureaucracies would have you believe nuance doesn't belong in moderation decisions, but that's a fallacy and an flimsy shield to hide behind to justify making absolutely terrible braindead decisions at best, and political instrumentation of rules at worst. We should celebrate any time when moderators are given latitude to not stick to dumb rules (as long as this latitude is not being used for evil), and shame any company that censors legitimate satire of the elites based on bullshit rules meant to protect the little people.
Exactly.
Content featuring public figures should be given extra lenience, because if we can't openly criticize our leaders, we aren't free. So as long as it's either factually correct or clearly parody/satire/etc, it should be allowed. Defamation and libel rules should have a very high bar for conviction when it comes to public figures.
This was obviously satire, and well done at that. Good on BlueSky for restoring it, I hope they fix whatever process got it pulled.
-
I do not understand why people use BlueSky
We already had the alternative!!!!! It was here first and many had already created accounts.. Then just went back to Twitterbecause there is zero marketing for mastodon. zero sex-appeal to mastodon.
bluesky was a better car salesman selling the same old car twitter had.
-
Satire is already legal and right wingers have already called for her to be shot or worse and gotten away with it. Pandora's box isn't closed, it's long been open.
I don't like AOC, but any threat of of call for violence is unacceptable regardless of the target. I don't care if it's despicable people like Trump, violence against an individual isn't the answer. Violence against ideas, however, is fine.
There are politicians that I kind of like, and they should also not be above reproach. Bring all their bad takes into the light and let's talk about them.
-
There's plenty of legal precedent for newsworthiness to supersede some rules in the name of the freedom of the Press. It makes sense that I'm not allowed (at least where I live) to post a non-consensual pictures of someone off the street. But it would not make sense if I was forbidden from posting a picture of the Prime Minister visiting a school for example. That's newsworthy and therefore the public interest outweighs his right to privacy.
The AI video of Trump/Musk made a bunch of headlines because it was hacked onto a government building. On top of that it's satire of public figures and – I can't believe that needs saying – is clearly not meant to provide sexual gratification.
Corpos and bureaucracies would have you believe nuance doesn't belong in moderation decisions, but that's a fallacy and an flimsy shield to hide behind to justify making absolutely terrible braindead decisions at best, and political instrumentation of rules at worst. We should celebrate any time when moderators are given latitude to not stick to dumb rules (as long as this latitude is not being used for evil), and shame any company that censors legitimate satire of the elites based on bullshit rules meant to protect the little people.
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.
-
That's a pretty big loophole. I mean, imagine the same exact video with Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi. It takes a significantly different subtext when the subjects are women. But the subtext doesn't really matter to the morality of the act.
Either involuntary AI generated pornography is wrong or it isn't. I think it's wrong. Do Trump and Musk deserve it? Sure, but it's still wrong. Do I feel bad for them? No, because they deserve it. But it's still not something I would do, or suggest anyone else do, and if the creator is prosecuted, I'm not going to defend them.
It's satire, and yeah, I think satire of Harris skipping the primary process through "backroom deals" could be criticized with a similar video.
As long as there's a point to the video, it's speech. Make it clear that it's AI gen satire and I think it's fine, just don't make more explicit than necessary to get the point across.
-
Yes, exactly this. Like something might be technically better but unless it's doing its main job of actually connecting people it's not going to work.
I wish more FOSS nerds understood this.
I don't agree that Mastodon is technically better, but it was first so it should have first mover advantage.
I think it largely comes down to marketing. Mastodon is marketed by word of mouth, and BlueSky has an actual marketing team.
-
Poor moderator probably had a foot fetish
Or more likely a Trump fetish.
-
Yeah. I think it was hilarious to "hack" government displays to show this in protest.
I am REALLY uncomfortable with sharing it on a wider basis. Because, at the risk of sounding like DNC leadership, it is opening a huge can of worms. Imagine if instead this was musk posting a deepfake of him and AOC similar to how he offered to rape taylor swift a while back?
If it's actual satire, it should be allowed, but to be satire, it needs to criticize something instead of just being offensive.
-
I'd expect a little more enthusiasm from our Commander in Chief...
-
Once again proving it isn't really decentralised.
How so? Lemmy is technically decentralized and mods remove stuff here...
-
If this was AOC and MTG would the video still be up
That doesn't sound like satire, so probably not.
-
At least you haven’t been defeeted.
Tarantino nods in agreement
-
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.
Their moderation has been garbage lately. They're wrongly banning people for things they didn't do. It's just premusk twitter at this point. The real fediverse is a better vet medium and long term
-
It was far faster and easier to build up a feed of enjoyable content on BlueSky. My Mastodon feed has sat almost completely empty, and I've only been able to find a few news-reposters there.
And I'm tech-savvy. Imagine how it is for other social media users.
We do need better onboarding. I wonder if you could make an equivalent of the "discovery" feed that wasn't abusive to the user
-
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.
Bluesky is BS
-
It's satire, and yeah, I think satire of Harris skipping the primary process through "backroom deals" could be criticized with a similar video.
As long as there's a point to the video, it's speech. Make it clear that it's AI gen satire and I think it's fine, just don't make more explicit than necessary to get the point across.
Except you know that sexual exploitation has a different effect on women than men. Trump revels in his playboy reputation. Harris was accused of using sex to get ahead in politics. And you know that conservatives would believe that the video was real while they jerk off to it. Those dipshits still think Michelle Obama was a man.
Trump rapes women. He's not entitled to the same level of respect as almost anyone. He is entitled to the same laws, on that we agree.
-
Except you know that sexual exploitation has a different effect on women than men. Trump revels in his playboy reputation. Harris was accused of using sex to get ahead in politics. And you know that conservatives would believe that the video was real while they jerk off to it. Those dipshits still think Michelle Obama was a man.
Trump rapes women. He's not entitled to the same level of respect as almost anyone. He is entitled to the same laws, on that we agree.
And you know that conservatives would believe that the video was real while they jerk off to it
It doesn't matter what they believe, what matters is that it's explicitly parody or satire. Idiots will be idiots despite your best efforts to prevent it.
-
I don't agree that Mastodon is technically better, but it was first so it should have first mover advantage.
I think it largely comes down to marketing. Mastodon is marketed by word of mouth, and BlueSky has an actual marketing team.
By "technically better" I mean it actually delivers on its technical promises of decentralisation, as opposed to bluesky that simply uses decentralisation as a buzzword without being actually open source and without allowing real competition for the main - centralised - instance.
I think mastodon has actual legs in that if bluesky fails to actually open up, it will enshittify and there will be another exodus. Mastodon has technical barriers to that kind problem, so it will still be there to pick up the pieces. The decentralised nature protects the network from enshittifying and means it will tend not to ger exoduses like central platforms do.
If in that time mastodon has worked on its discovery features, it might be finally ready to capture that growth.
If bluesky manages to properly decentralise then I imagine mastodon will not need to pick up the slack and will either join the network or fade into irrelevancy.
Hard to say which way it will go. I don't hold out a lot of hope for bluesky changing its ways, and who knows when mastodon will improve in this way.
