371–380 of 500 posts
Automatic1111's comment >Github has responded to my ticket. They suspended the account because some links on wiki led to sites that contained pictures that didn't align with github's values. They reinstated the account asked me to remove the links.
Is that an euphanism for "porn"?
I guess we now know if Satya Nadella is a prude or not
What's up with the war on Hyperlinks. Can't post them anywhere anymore. Reddit has a whitelist of a handful sites, everything else will get removed. Twitter will not allow a lot of either. Can't put links in dating profiles. Web sucks so much these days. Arbitrary rules, made by people who need something to enforce.
― Oscar Wilde
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22688-everything-in-moderat...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So it wasn't the fact that large swaths of the wiki, or the sample images for the extensions are using images that are obviously stand ins for lolicon? There's so much icky stuff going on in the generative art community and no one knows just how deep that rabbit hole goes. E.g.: https://github.com/Kahsolt/stable-diffusion-webui-sonar (See bottom of page).
I don't understand why people give a shit. When did normies invade the spaces of these crazy intelligent lunatics? People purposely go play in filth then complain it's filthy.
It's not a "normie" take that we shouldn't sexualize children, even if they are animated.
This looks like a tool for generating images of underage cartoon children? Even right now you can see some of the example images are generated with a hand on the breast through a bikini top.
Same way Photoshop can be considered a tool for drawing images of underage cartoon children.
This looks like a tool for generating images of underage cartoon children? Even right now you can see some of the example images are generated with a hand on the breast through a bikini top.
For what it's worth, Usada Pekora is a vtuber (a streamer who presents themselves as a mocapped anime/cartoon/3D avatar) who is never implied to be underage. Not that I'm defending whatever Automatic1111 does.
In general when it comes to porn and porn-adjacent content, "I know it when I see it" remains how the law generally works :(
There are VTubers and video game characters that in their canonical profiles will say things like 'eternally 17' or whatever. How is a regulator supposed to interpret something like that when deciding whether something is meant by the artist to be transgressive or not? We know the actresses involved and the artists are all adults, of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that it was literally a terms of service violation, and resolution was to remove the content in question (ie. this wasn’t GitHub saying “we were wrong” it was them saying, don’t do that or you’re banned)… it seems difficult to be particularly sympathetic.
The terms should be changed. A violation of terms that they themselves created isn’t automatically right. It’s unclear it’s even technically right, let alone morally or strategically. This has “kickstarter bans Unstable Diffusion” vibes. Can anyone cite the relevant TOS section? It’d be good to know how far they’re trying to extend the moderation umbrella.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici...
Now on the other hand this wasn't actually pornographic content, it was links to pornographic content and their TOS doesn't really make it clear that linking is not allowed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that an euphanism for "porn"?
Do we really want Github regulating links in repos based purely on the moral instincts of random support employees? Seems weird. It's just a link, and not even to illegal content (AFAIK, I didn't actually follow them).
What's up with the war on Hyperlinks. Can't post them anywhere anymore. Reddit has a whitelist of a handful sites, everything else will get removed. Twitter will not allow a lot of either. Can't put links in dating profiles. Web sucks so much these days. Arbitrary rules, made by people who need something to enforce.
Surprise, surprise, GitHub took action because of "links on wiki led to sites that contained pictures that didn't align with github's values" and not because of Automatic1111's racist repos. That said, I hope this whole debacle has shown a light on the potentially problematic nature of having the Automatic1111/stable-diffusion-webui project be the go-to UI for using Stable Diffusion. Not just because of the viewpoint…
So it wasn't the fact that large swaths of the wiki, or the sample images for the extensions are using images that are obviously stand ins for lolicon? There's so much icky stuff going on in the generative art community and no one knows just how deep that rabbit hole goes. E.g.: https://github.com/Kahsolt/stable-diffusion-webui-sonar (See bottom of page).