Meta Ran Ads That Contained AI-Generated Child Sexual Abuse Imagery

Post by golemiprague » Fri, Aug 07, 2026, 9:35 PM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #185

golemiprague wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then let's not have any infrastructure or services because some people use it to commit crimes. The car industry doesn't prevent accidents, the telecom industry doesn't prevent scams, the school industry doesn't prevent bullying, the nightlife industry doesn't prevent rape or drug use and i can go on and on. You can't have a perfect system, people will do what they do, all you can do is trying to prevent those crimes…

> The car industry doesn't prevent accidents The car industry is constantly innovating trying to prevent accidents and make them less damaging to occupants > the school industry doesn't prevent bullying They try to, though. There's all sorts of initiatives to reduce and prevent bullying. Whether or not they are effective, they are still trying and have been working on this for decades > the nightlife industry doesn't…

Post by Anamon » Sat, Aug 08, 2026, 12:37 PM UTC

happymellon wrote: post #227

ticulatedspline wrote: post #217

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.

Post by Ajedi32 » Mon, Aug 10, 2026, 1:42 PM UTC

happymellon wrote: post #224

Ajedi32 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the reaction to the FAANGs obviously not caring that they are publishing CSAM. 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.