this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
685 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

63277 readers
4160 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Update: After this article was published, Bluesky restored Kabas' post and told 404 Media the following: "This was a case of our moderators applying the policy for non-consensual AI content strictly. After re-evaluating the newsworthy context, the moderation team is reinstating those posts."

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 37 minutes ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 16 minutes ago

Anything bad that happens to a conservative is good. The world will only get better if they are made to repeatedly suffer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 29 minutes ago

Where do you draw the line for the rich fucks of the world? Realistic CGI? Realistic drawings? Edited photos?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Bluesky will become just the same az elonx...

[–] [email protected] -1 points 48 minutes ago

It already is

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (8 children)

Ah, the rewards of moderation: the best move is not to play. Fuck it is & has always been a better answer. Anarchy of the early internet was better than letting some paternalistic authority decide the right images & words to allow us to see, and decentralization isn't a bad idea.

Yet the forward-thinking people of today know better and insist that with their brave, new moderation they'll paternalize better without stopping to acknowledge how horribly broken, arbitrary, & fallible that entire approach is. Instead of learning what we already knew, social media keeps repeating the same dumb mistakes, and people clamor to the newest iteration of it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

Elon acts like a new Reddit mod drunk on power. He is the guy screaming in the comments that he knows how to run a forum better and seized the chance, and now he cannot fathom why people hate him.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

You need some kind of moderation for user generated content, even if it’s only to comply with takedowns related to law (and I’m not talking about DMCA).

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I miss the early days of the internet when it was still a wild west.

Something like I hate you myg0t 2 or Pico's School would have gotten the creators cancelled if released in 2025.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 hours ago

Fuck it is & has always been a better answer

Sure. Unless you live in a place that have laws and laws enforcement. In that case, it's "fuck it and get burnt down".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You do remember snuff and goatse and csam of the early internet, I hope.

Even with that of course it was better, because that stuff still floats around, and small groups of enjoyers easily find ways to share it over mainstream platforms.

I'm not even talking about big groups of enjoyers, ISIS (rebranded sometimes), Turkey, Azerbaijan, Israel, Myanma's regime, cartels and everyone share what they want of snuff genre, and it holds long enough.

In text communication their points of view are also less likely to be banned or suppressed than mine.

So yes.

Yet the forward-thinking people of today know better and insist that with their brave, new moderation they’ll paternalize better

They don't think so, just use the opportunity to do this stuff in area where immunity against it is not yet established.

There are very few stupid people in positions of power, competition is a bitch.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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 don’t need censorship to avoid seeing CSAM. Filtering is enough.

No it is not. People are not tagging their shit properly when it is illegal.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 55 minutes ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I had to hack an ex’s account once to get the revenge porn they posted of me taken down.

There’s a balance at the end of the day.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Bluesky had better take care that they not act like other cowardly tech media

[–] [email protected] 1 points 24 minutes ago

So you don't remember Jack Dorsey's shenanigans ?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

If they don't it is only because they are waiting to obtain a higher share of the social media market.

Jumping ship from one corporate owned social media to another corporate owned social media isn't a smart move. There is nothing about Bluesky that will prevent it from becoming X in the future. People joining now are only adding to the network effect that will make leaving more difficult in a decade or two.

The problem of social media won't be solved by choosing which dictator's rule you want to live under. You don't have the freedom to speak and express yourself if you give someone veto power over what you write.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 hours ago

Bluesky is BS

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 37 points 14 hours ago

Put it on Facebook! Ol’ Zuck decided all the guardrails pretty much needed to go so. Post and do whatever. Plus, the people who should see it most are those still hanging around on Facebook 🤣

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

It's just premusk twitter at this point.

I mean, given that Jack Dorsey founded it as basically the "not Twitter Twitter" after musk bought the main one, I don't think it's surprising to see it face basically the same moderation issues in the name of being "even-handed"

[–] [email protected] 262 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (31 children)

I guess I get it. They would not like to set precedent to allow non-consensual AI generated porn on the platform. Seems reasonable. That said, fuck Donny. The video is hilarious. It’s fine if Bluesky doesn’t host it though.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 hours ago

Holy shit. A reasonable take from someone who clearly leaves the house.

load more comments (30 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›