this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
914 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

63746 readers
3469 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] 283 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (12 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] 51 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Only because I find these specific videos to be quite funny, maybe there can be a "satire/criticism of a public figure" exception that could exist

[–] [email protected] 87 points 5 days ago (5 children)

I'll just explain why that is a horrible idea with three simple letters:

A. O. C.

[–] [email protected] 53 points 5 days ago

Fuck. Good point. Guess I'll just have to come to peace with me being a hypocrite when it comes to what I find acceptable.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 days ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well, looks like they put it back up. I think I agree with you though. It might be better for them to restrict this. Frankly republican incels excel at generating this kind of content and this sets the precedent that Bluesky will welcome such AI garbage. I'm not arguing that this stuff shouldn't be made in good spirit, but for a serious platform to not moderate it out I think invites chaos.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 5 days ago (20 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] 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

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

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 days ago (4 children)

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?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 days ago

Here's my take on it:

  • I don't care about AI being used on public figures, if you won't want people to use you, don't be in public, or ruin the government. No one has made AI featuring me.
  • This is no different than a political cartoon, the only difference is no one made it directly by hand.
  • Bluesky doesn't have to host it, but I also would want it applied equally. If this was perma-removed, all AI or all political shit would be. I don't like it, but selective moderating is what got us Trump in the first place with Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.
  • I don't like queerphobic shit being used to call out Trump and Musk. Use their actual actions and words, not "haha they gay". It's just wild how certain kinds of informal bigtry are okay when you use them on people who are evil. Like the people who constantly insult Trump's weight because he's evil. Maybe he's just evil and happens to be fat.
  • And let's not pretend Jack Dorsey is somehow a saint when he only removed Trump from twitter after Jan 6. Nothing before despite how horrid Trump was. I credit Jack Dorsey to enabling Trump, and it's why I refuse to join "Twitter 2 made by the guy who enabled Twitter to be the shit place it was".
[–] [email protected] 55 points 5 days ago (1 children)

fwiw they restored the post and blamed it on a moderator being too strict in applying a policy regarding non consensual ai porn. It’s objectively good they have policies banning such things but it was completely obvious from context that this was not meant to be pornographic at all

As such, one could easily read it with cynicism as responding to backlash as they only reviewed said moderators actions after this article came out and the associated clamor

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Poor moderator probably had a foot fetish

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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 🤣

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Simple solution to all this crap:

MASTODON.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago (5 children)

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 Twitter

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago (16 children)

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.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)
  1. Bluesky is more easily usable
  2. More people they want to follow are on Bluesky

Instead of complaining we need to work on making Masto more welcoming to new users and amplifying the advantages it has over Bluesky

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Honestly, that ship has sailed, I think. When Musk first took over Twitter and everyone was bailing, if Mastodon was a viable alternative it could have taken off.

Now that Bluesky has overtaken them, and is seen as the alternative to Twitter, I think the opportunity has been lost.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (13 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] 17 points 5 days 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] 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

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).

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (13 children)

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.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago

Correct. this is indeed the correct decision to remove the thing. BUT i have a feeling that this quick reaction does not compare to the speed of decision for normal people, especially women who get this kind of stuff made about them.

Also, note that I'm not saying it was bad to make the video, or have it run in public on hacked screens.
That is perfectly fine political commentary, by means of civil disobedience.

Just that Bluesky is correct in it's action to remove it from their service.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Re-upload it 100 times over..fuck em

[–] [email protected] 20 points 5 days ago

Throw it on peertube/other platforms. haha

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 5 days ago (5 children)

Hopefully this amplifies the videos exposure. Is it because it is considered explicit that it's not tolerated like other forms of parody?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago

This is no different than a really well drawn political cartoon.

Politicians shouldn't have the power to control the kinds of things you say about politicians.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Bluesky will become just the same az elonx...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 days ago

Bluesky is BS

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Explicit? Hardly. Just two good pals suckin’ toe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days 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] 8 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days 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"

load more comments
view more: next ›