221–230 of 294 posts
I've noticed on YouTube I see a lot of adult sexual ads. Things like home cleaning ads that have an unmistakable wood-grain image of fellatio. I've always wondered "how are these getting past the moderators?". I guess the answer is the obvious one: no one is moderating anything.
Reported an obvious sexual ad the other day and got a very AI generated response that started with "Dear Username" stating that they reviewed the ad and found nothing wrong with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there is filters/moderation.
There are, but only for using IP of large corporations. If you put 12 seconds of a major label song in your video review of an album, that video belongs to the major label now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Something like three strikes and the CEO, top executives, and three primary share holders go to jail while forcing the company to dissolve seems to be the only solution to removing bad actors in corporate settings.
As long as we can also shoot tresspassers and thieves, you got a deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is equating profitability with what societies want and don’t want. Morality exists outside of the business world (and it should inside as well). Further, it is a societies’ right to enforce the boundaries of what business are allow to do / not do. For example: banning ads along roads and scenic areas. Idk, the whole idea of “how much fines will I get doing X shitty business practice” is just gross. I’d ra…
Perhaps, but when you're operating at any significant scale accidents become a statistical certainty. 0 screw ups, ever is not a realistically achievable goal. And if some limited number of screw ups is allowable, that necessarily becomes an insurable cost that amounts to "just the cost of doing business", so I don't really see the complaint. Concrete example: If you run a construction business, even if you take all…
They will be given more leeway for small scale "screwups" if they can show that they are working to reduce large scale issues. As it is we are dealing with organisations that don't give a shit, so peoples attitudes reflect that back at them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you don't think one of the world's biggest media platforms disseminating CSAM is causing meaningful harm to society?
First let's not use an unqualified label of "CSAM" when talking about generated images. But if a thousand people see some ad then the amount of damage is not much compared to their overall business. I'd go for a healthy penalty on top, and adding in more transparency to make sure they don't hide the real extent of the problem, but it's still probably small to them. Getting Facebook to put in a reasonable amount of bl…
Instead it's a "I don't like this" and they will continue to ignore it.
Personally I find these kinds of things fascinating. Partially for the practical problem it represents and it's facets but also the one sided backlash of it all. Moderation is an interesting conglomerate of so many factors. First of all I don't think Meta is a good or honest company, but that doesn't mean they're not trying at all. In reality even if they were good and honest I genuinely believe their task is probabl…
To get a Facebook account they require all sorts of PII.
Why not have people give their PII to set up an advertising account and if they distribute CSAM then they are banned. Removing access to WhatsApp will stop a large portion of the world from participating.
And the parts that can't? Well, they can't advertise on Facebook/Instagram anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you're used to standard billions (a million millions). A US billion would certainly suffer from losing hundreds of millions, you're talking about a double-digit percent.
10^9 is the standard definition of a billion, it's very wrong to call 10^12 a "standard billion." You can say "long scale billion" if you want to refer to the definitively non-standard 10^12 billion.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/billion
I would vote to revert it.
Personally I find these kinds of things fascinating. Partially for the practical problem it represents and it's facets but also the one sided backlash of it all. Moderation is an interesting conglomerate of so many factors. First of all I don't think Meta is a good or honest company, but that doesn't mean they're not trying at all. In reality even if they were good and honest I genuinely believe their task is probabl…
Disagree with essentially all of this. To get a Facebook account they require all sorts of PII. Why not have people give their PII to set up an advertising account and if they distribute CSAM then they are banned. Removing access to WhatsApp will stop a large portion of the world from participating. And the parts that can't? Well, they can't advertise on Facebook/Instagram anymore.
CSAM is highly illegal, no doubt these accounts are getting banned but likely not charged (who knows what jurisdiction the advertiser is even in) clearly they're able to pass the current bar.
This is conjecture but I'd bet that in all likelihood someone at some meeting at Meta has floated the idea of moving impedance to the signup to try to limit this phenomena. Maybe more verification, or more hoops. And likely Meta crunched the numbers and was looking at billions of dollars lost in legit ad traffic and that just doesn't fly for a publicly traded company.
I'd guess that the folks at Meta would absolutely love CSAM to stop showing up, It's simply too dangerous, likely costs more than it earns, makes them look bad when it shows up, and alienates users who don't want to see it.
But those negative effects are probably all quantifiable to some dollar value that's less than the alternatives.
Executives don't get bonuses for altruism or ethical behavior. They get bonuses for making more money than they did last quarter. real fix is changing the game but that's a lot harder than it seems and can have many unintended consequences of it's own.