301–310 of 463 posts
One of the bigger commercial niches for smart glasses is filming POV porn, so it is hardly surprising that sort of content ended up in the moderation queue. The project should have planned to account for that use case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How else do you want companies to remove and prevent CSAM? It seems like you must have some human involvement to train and monitor. It’s a terrible job, I wouldn’t want to do it, but someone needs to. Perhaps one day, AI will be accurate enough to not need it, but even then you need someone to process complaints and waivers (like someone’s home photos being inaccurately flagged).
Couldn't you just use multiple classifiers? Like "is a minor" classifier coupled with "is sexual content" classifier?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> starting with the fact that Meta is collecting this data to begin with. But that can't be the problem. They're collecting the data that users send them. To avoid collecting it despite the expressed wishes of the user, they'd need to be able to recognize it as untouchable. And recognizing the data is the exact problem that this African firm was hired to help with. What do you want Meta to do?
> To avoid collecting it despite the expressed wishes of the user, they'd need to be able to recognize it as untouchable. > And recognizing the data is the exact problem that this African firm was hired to help with. What do you want Meta to do? This is written as if logically exhaustive, but it misses the very obvious alternative that none of these videos should have been reviewed by a human at all (aka no reason to…
No, taking that approach would mean that when someone sends you data that you aren't supposed to collect, you collect it anyway. This is the opposite of what was suggested above.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this an honest argument? Surely you can think of how glasses might be ... in a different league than the two items you mention?
Unless you are using these during sex I consider a microphone to be 10x more privacy intruding than a camera. Security cameras afaik usually don't record audio, but all phones can. And they don't even need to be pointed in any specific direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that your comment and the one you're responding to can both be true: Just because the rules are heavily enforced does not mean the right rules are in place, starting with the fact that Meta is collecting this data to begin with.
> starting with the fact that Meta is collecting this data to begin with. But that can't be the problem. They're collecting the data that users send them. To avoid collecting it despite the expressed wishes of the user, they'd need to be able to recognize it as untouchable. And recognizing the data is the exact problem that this African firm was hired to help with. What do you want Meta to do?
⸻
1. The first rhyme that came to mind was bow, but I realized there was a problem with that example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Server moderators should be legally responsible for content on their server. And therefore anything that is remotely questionable will be blocked. Not just kiddie porn. Pissed off a local business with a bad review? Blocked. Child abusers are twisted people, and I really don’t care much what happens to them, but making it impossible for them to use the internet means sterilizing the whole thing.
You are just saying that physical life doesn't function. People get banned or removed from all sorts of informal and formal groups all the time because of completely illegitimate reasons. That's just human politics embedded so deeply in our psychology it will never go away. They simply move to different groups - and similarly online they can move to a different federated server. But that's not possible in today's oli…
I know a local blog that pre-approves every comment. He lets a lot of stuff through, because he lets people be dumbasses. If he were personally liable, the conversation would get a lot quieter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How else do you want companies to remove and prevent CSAM? It seems like you must have some human involvement to train and monitor. It’s a terrible job, I wouldn’t want to do it, but someone needs to. Perhaps one day, AI will be accurate enough to not need it, but even then you need someone to process complaints and waivers (like someone’s home photos being inaccurately flagged).
CSAM exists on social media because they are so large that it's not possible to moderate them effectively. To me this is a a no-go. If a business is so large that it cannot respect laws, it needs to be shut down. The correct way to organize social media is in federated way. Each server only holds on average a few hundred or few thousand people. Server moderators should be legally responsible for content on their serv…
That's a tradeoff you can choose to make, but you need to enter into it with open eyes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this weird? People have been trading away their privacy for the smallest possible gains in convenience for a long time.
Are you conflating telemetry with literally live-streaming your life to Meta? Because that's what makes the statement weird. edit 2: OK, I see what you mean. But I'm wondering if it should be possible to consent to this via T&C. Basically the same issue as with many online services, turned up to 11, sure. And it involves OTHER people, who have not consented. Stuff like this used to be outrage fuel even when it was mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How else do you want companies to remove and prevent CSAM? Different situation. Facebook has to do CSAM moderation because it's a publishing platform. People will post CSAM on facebook, so they must do moderation. And "just don't have facebook" isn't a solution because every publication of any sort has to deal with this problem; Any newspaper accepting mail has this problem. (Albeit to a much more scaled down versi…
> traumatizing contract workers for $2-3 an hour) Is there an hourly rate at which this should be acceptable?
The current support systems for police in this subject are already insufficient. Facebook's treatment of their moderation staff is abhorrent. The point of including the pay figure is to further illustrate just how damning this subcontracting practice is.