197
Stanford researchers find Mastodon has a massive child abuse material problem (www.theverge.com)
submitted 3 years ago* by to c/technology@lemmy.ml
232 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Not a good look for Mastodon - what can be done to automate the removal of CSAM?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 172 points 3 years ago* (97 children)

https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:vb515nd6874/20230724-fediverse-csam-report.pdf

I'd suggest that anyone who cares about the issue take the time to read the actual report, not just drama-oriented news articles about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 97 child comments
    •
  • [–] 51 points 3 years ago (17 children)

    If I can try to summarize the main findings:

    1. Computer-generated (e.g.., Stable Diffusion) child porn is not criminalized in Japan, and so many Japanese Mastodon servers don't remove it
    2. Porn involving real children is removed, but not immediately, as it depends on instance admins to catch it, and they have other things to do. Also, when an account is banned, the Mastodon server software is not sending out a "delete" for all of their posted material (which would signal other instances to delete it)

    Problem #2 can hopefully be improved with better tooling. I don't know what you do about problem #1, though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 3 years ago (13 children)

    One option would be to decide that the underlying point of removing real CSAM is to avoid victimizing real children; and that computer-generated images are no more relevant to this goal than Harry/Draco slash fiction is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (12 children)

    And are you able to offer any evidence to reassure us that simulated child pornography doesn't increase the risk to real children as pedophiles become normalised to the content and escalate (you know, like what already routinely happens with regular pornography)?

    Or are we just supposed to sacrifice children to your gut feeling?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (11 children)

    Would you extend the same evidence-free argument to fictional stories, e.g. the Harry/Draco slash fiction that I mentioned?

    For what it's worth, your comment has already caused ten murders. I don't have to offer evidence, just as you don't. I don't know where those murders happened, or who was murdered, but it was clearly the result of your comment. Why are you such a terrible person as to post something that causes murder?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (10 children)

    I have no problem saying that writing stories about two children having gay sex is pretty fucked in the head, along with anyone who forms a community around sharing and creating it.

    But it's also not inherently abuse, nor is it indistinguishable from reality.

    You're advocating that people just be cool with photo-realistic images of children, of any age, being raped, by any number of people, in any possible way, with no assurances that the images are genuinely "fake" or that pedophiles won't be driven to make it a reality, despite other pedophiles cheering them on.

    I was a teenage contrarian psuedo-intellectual once upon a time too, but I never sold out other peoples children for something to jerk off too.

    If you want us to believe its harmless, prove it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
    load more comments (10 replies)
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I don't know what you do about problem #1, though.

    Well the simple answer is that it doesn't have to be illegal to remove it.

    The legal question is a lot harder, considering AI image generation has reached levels that are almost indistinguishable from reality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago*

    In which case, admins should err on the side of caution and remove something that might be illegal.

    I personally would prefer to have nothing remotely close to CSAM, but as long as children aren't being harmed in any conceivable way, I don't think it would be illegal to post art containing children. But communities should absolutely manage things however they think is best for their community.

    In other words, I don't think #1 is a problem at all, imo things should only be illegal if there's a clear victim.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 3 years ago (74 children)

    4.1 Illustrated and Computer-Generated CSAM

    Stopped reading.

    Child abuse laws "exclude anime" for the same reason animal cruelty laws "exclude lettuce." Drawings are not children.

    Drawings are not real.

    Half the goddamn point of saying CSAM instead of CP is to make clear that Bart Simpson doesn't count. Bart Simpson is not real. It is fundamentally impossible to violate Bart Simpson's rights, because he doesn't fucking exist. There is nothing to protect him from. He cannot be harmed. He is imaginary.

    This cannot be a controversial statement. Anyone who can't distinguish fiction from real life has brain problems.

    You can't rape someone in MS Paint. Songs about murder don't leave a body. If you write about robbing Fort Knox, the gold is still there. We're not about to arrest Mads Mikkelsen for eating people. It did not happen. It was not real.

    If you still want to get mad at people for jerking off to the wrong fantasies, that is an entirely different problem from photographs of child rape.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 74 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    You should keep reading then, because they cover that later.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    What does that even mean?

    There's nothing to "cover." They're talking about illustrations of bad things, alongside actual photographic evidence of actual bad things actually happening. Nothing can excuse that.

    No shit they are also discussing actual CSAM alongside... drawings. That is the problem. That's what they did wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Oh, wait, Japanese in the other comment, now I get it. This conversation is a about AI Loli porn.

    Pfft, of course, that's why no one is saying the words they mean, because it suddenly becomes much harder to take the stance since hatred towards Loli Porn is not universal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    I mean, I think it's disgusting, but I don't think it should be illegal. I feel the same way about cigarettes, 2 girls 1 cup, and profane language. It's absolutely not for me, but that shouldn't make it illegal.

    As long as there's no victim, knock yourself out with whatever disgusting, weird stuff you're into.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (67 children)

    Okay, thanks for the clarification

    Everyone except you still very much includes drawn & AI pornographic depictions of children within the basket of problematic content that should get filtered out of federated instances so thank you very much but I'm not sure your point changed anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 67 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (52 replies)