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

  • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • mindbleach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you don’t think images of actual child abuse, against actual children, is infinitely worse than some ink on paper, I don’t care about your opinion of anything.

      You can be against both. Don’t ever pretend they’re the same.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey, just because someone has a stupid take on one subject doesn’t mean they have a stupid take on all subjects. Attack the argument, not the person.

        • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          He invented the stupid take he’s fighting against. Nobody equated “ink on paper” with “actual rape against children”.

          The bar to cross to be filtered out of the federation isn’t rape. Lolicon is already above the threshold, it’s embarrassing that he doesn’t realize that.

          • mindbleach@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We’re not just talking about ‘ew gross icky’ exclusion from a social network. We’re talking about images whose possession is a felony. Images that are unambiguously the product of child rape.

            This paper treats them the same. You’re defending that false equivalence. You need to stop.

            • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Who places the bar for “exclusion from a social network” at felonies? Any kind child porn has no place on the fediverse, simulated or otherwise. That doesn’t mean they’re equal offenses, you’re just not responsible for carrying out anything other than cleaning out your porch.

              • mindbleach@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                We’re not JUST talking about exclusion from a social network.

                Do you speak English?

                The subject matter is the part that’s a felony - so the glib inclusion of the part you just don’t like is dangerous misinformation.

                I am calling out how this study falsely equates child rape and gross drawings, and your neverending hot take is ‘well I don’t care for either.’ There’s not enough ‘who asked’ in the world. One of these things is tacitly legal and has sites listed on Google. One of these things means you die in prison, anywhere in the world.

                And here you are, still calling both of them “child porn.” In the same post insisting you’re not equating them. Thanks for keeping this simple, I guess.

                • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  They’re studying the prevalence of CSAM under the definition of the country they’re in. It’d be arbitrary to separate the two and make two different conclusions.

                  Also you seriously need to take a chill pill

                  • mindbleach@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings.

                    Tell me otherwise in the same breath as insisting you’re not making that false equivalence. Apparently my patience is limitless when the lie is that fucking obvious.

                    edit: Hang on, the obvious lie disguised a stupid lie. What country do you think Stanford is in? Drawing Bart Simpson’s dick is not illegal in America. You could do it right now, in MS Paint, and e-mail it to the FBI, and they’d just formally tell you to go fuck yourself. Which would obviously not be the case with ACTUAL “child sexual abuse materials,” being evidence of abusing a flesh-and-blood child.

        • mindbleach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Some confused arguments reveal confused people. Some terrible arguments reveal terrible people. For example: I don’t give two fucks what Nazis think. Life’s too short to wonder which subjects they’re not facile bastards about.

          If someone’s motivation for making certain JPEGs hyper-illegal is “they’re icky” - they’ve lost benefit of the doubt. Because of their decisions, I no longer grant them that courtesy.

          Demanding pointless censorship earns my dislike.

          Equating art with violence earns my distrust.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Perhaps. But pretty much everyone has a stupid take on something.

            There’s obviously a limit there, but most people can be reasoned with. So instead of jumping to a conclusion, attempt a dialogue first until they prove that they can’t be reasoned with. This is especially true on SM where, even if you can’t convince the person you’re talking with, you may just convince the next person to come along.

            • mindbleach@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Telling someone why they’re a stupid bastard for the sake of other people is not exactly a contradiction. You know what doesn’t do observers any good? “Debating” complete garbage, in a way that lends it respect and legitimacy. Sometimes you just need to call bullshit.

              Some bullshit is so blatant that it’s a black mark against the bullshitter.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, and I don’t think that’s the case here. If someone is literally arguing that a certain race should be exterminated that’s one thing (report, down vote, block, and move on), but someone arguing that lolicon is just as bad as CP is something completely different entirely.

                I’m just arguing that it’s generally better to have the conversation than to completely shut them out. I really hate cancel culture, so I will always call out anything that seems similar. I believe in letting people explain themselves, to an extent, and my limit is if they’re actively promoting real harm to actual people (e.g. encouraging violence against some group).

                • mindbleach@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Someone arguing child rape is only as bad as drawing Bart Simpson naked is some kind of fucked up.

                  As other subthreads should thoroughly demonstrate - I don’t have to respect someone, to call them out. A position you recently endorsed. The end of polite and civil discussion between equals doesn’t mean the yelling has stopped.

                  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not saying you shouldn’t call them out, in fact I’m 100% in favor of calling out BS. What I’m saying is to not shut down the conversation if the other side is willing to explain themselves or open to learning more.

                    One thing I absolutely loved about Reddit was joining communities where I was a minority and having a good faith discussion with someone I wasn’t ideologically aligned with. A lot of times I got completely shut down, but sometimes I had really good discussions and better understood the other side’s perspective.

                    So all I’m saying is you (and everyone here honestly) should seek to enable that kind of discussion instead of just stopping at the first sign of disagreement. Someone saying lolicon is as harmful as CP is probably just misinformed.

                    The end of polite and civil discussion

                    I have yet to see that, because I make a solid effort to have polite and civil discussion and I usually get it reciprocated.

                    If you’re aggressive, you’ll get aggressiveness back, but if you’re inquisitive and polite, you’ll likely get the same in return. Some people can’t be reasoned with, but I have found that many are open to hearing other perspectives, provided I go out of my way to be polite.

            • mindbleach@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              ‘Everyone but you agrees with me!’ Bullshit.

              ‘Nobody wants this stuff that whole servers exist for.’ Self-defeating bullshit.

              ‘You just don’t understand.’ Not an argument.

              • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Okay, the former then.

                Let’s just think about it, how do you think it would turn out if you went outside and asked anyone about pornographic drawings of children? How long until you find someone who thinks like you outside your internet bubble?

                “Nobody wants this stuff that whole servers…”

                There are also servers dedicated to real child porn with real children too. Do you think that argument has any value with that tidbit of information tacked onto it?

                • mindbleach@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Ask a stranger about anything pornographic and see how it goes.

                  This is rapidly going from pointless to stupid. Suffice it to say: stop pretending drawings are ever as bad as actual child abuse.

                  • balls_expert@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Oh yes, to an extent. But it will go much different if the porn doesn’t involve depictions of children. I think you’re in denial