this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
33 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

65819 readers
5155 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Update: After this article was published, Bluesky restored Kabas' post and told 404 Media the following: "This was a case of our moderators applying the policy for non-consensual AI content strictly. After re-evaluating the newsworthy context, the moderation team is reinstating those posts."

Bluesky deleted a viral, AI-generated protest video in which Donald Trump is sucking on Elon Musk’s toes because its moderators said it was “non-consensual explicit material.” The video was broadcast on televisions inside the office Housing and Urban Development earlier this week, and quickly went viral on Bluesky and Twitter.

Independent journalist Marisa Kabas obtained a video from a government employee and posted it on Bluesky, where it went viral. Tuesday night, Bluesky moderators deleted the video because they said it was “non-consensual explicit material.”

Other Bluesky users said that versions of the video they uploaded were also deleted, though it is still possible to find the video on the platform.

Technically speaking, the AI video of Trump sucking Musk’s toes, which had the words “LONG LIVE THE REAL KING” shown on top of it, is a nonconsensual AI-generated video, because Trump and Musk did not agree to it. But social media platform content moderation policies have always had carve outs that allow for the criticism of powerful people, especially the world’s richest man and the literal president of the United States.

For example, we once obtained Facebook’s internal rules about sexual content for content moderators, which included broad carveouts to allow for sexual content that criticized public figures and politicians. The First Amendment, which does not apply to social media companies but is relevant considering that Bluesky told Kabas she could not use the platform to “break the law,” has essentially unlimited protection for criticizing public figures in the way this video is doing.

Content moderation has been one of Bluesky’s growing pains over the last few months. The platform has millions of users but only a few dozen employees, meaning that perfect content moderation is impossible, and a lot of it necessarily needs to be automated. This is going to lead to mistakes. But the video Kabas posted was one of the most popular posts on the platform earlier this week and resulted in a national conversation about the protest. Deleting it—whether accidentally or because its moderation rules are so strict as to not allow for this type of reporting on a protest against the President of the United States—is a problem.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 week ago

Here's my take on it:

  • I don't care about AI being used on public figures, if you won't want people to use you, don't be in public, or ruin the government. No one has made AI featuring me.
  • This is no different than a political cartoon, the only difference is no one made it directly by hand.
  • Bluesky doesn't have to host it, but I also would want it applied equally. If this was perma-removed, all AI or all political shit would be. I don't like it, but selective moderating is what got us Trump in the first place with Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.
  • I don't like queerphobic shit being used to call out Trump and Musk. Use their actual actions and words, not "haha they gay". It's just wild how certain kinds of informal bigtry are okay when you use them on people who are evil. Like the people who constantly insult Trump's weight because he's evil. Maybe he's just evil and happens to be fat.
  • And let's not pretend Jack Dorsey is somehow a saint when he only removed Trump from twitter after Jan 6. Nothing before despite how horrid Trump was. I credit Jack Dorsey to enabling Trump, and it's why I refuse to join "Twitter 2 made by the guy who enabled Twitter to be the shit place it was".
[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I'm not here to discuss how we need to be ethical in response to a fascist takeover. So we gotta play by the rules but they don't?

[–] lenz@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (12 children)

I seem to be in the minority here, but I am extremely uncomfortable the idea of non-consensual AI porn of anyone. Even people I despise. It’s so unethical that it just disgusts me. I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.

[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I agree. I've thought about it a lot and I still don't have any sympathy for them after the harm they've caused. I see why it's news worthy enough they might reverse it, and why it would be political speech.

But also I think they made the right choice to take it down. If blsky wants to be the better platform, it needs to be better. And not having an exception for this is the right thing.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Where do you draw the line for the rich fucks of the world? Realistic CGI? Realistic drawings? Edited photos?

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is what I was thinking about myself. Because we're cool with political caricatures, right?

I guess the problem is that nobody wants to feature in non-consensual AI porn. I mean if you'd want to draw me getting shafted by Musk, that'd be weird, but a highly realistic video of the same event, that would be hard to explain to the missus.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

I guess "obviously Elon Musk would never go for a guy like me" would be the wrong answer

[–] lenz@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

Assuming you’re asking out of genuine curiosity, for me personally, I’d draw the line somewhere along “could this, or any frame of this, be mistaken for a real depiction of these people?” and “if this were a depiction of real children, how hard would the FBI come down on you?”

I understand that that’s not a practical way of creating law or moderating content, but I don’t care because I’m talking about my personal preference/comfort level. Not what I think should be policy. And frankly, I don’t know what should be policy or how to word it all in anti-loopholes lawyer-speak. I just know that this sucking toes thing crosses an ethical line for me and personally I hate it.

Putting it more idealistically: when I imagine living in utopia, non-consensual AI porn of people doesn’t exist in it. So in an effort to get closer to utopia, I disapprove of things that would not exist in an utopia.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I agree with you.

However...there's an argument to be made that the post itself is a form of criticism and falls under the free speech rules where it regards political figures. In many ways, it's not any different than the drawings of Musk holding Trump's puppet strings, or Putin and Trump riding a horse together. One is drawn and the other is animated, but they're the same basic concept.

I understand however that that sets a disturbing precedent for what can and cannot be acceptable. But I don't know where to draw that line. I just know that it has to be drawn somewhere.

I think...and this is my opinion...political figures are fair game for this, while there should be protections in place for private citizens, since political figures by their very ambition put themselves in the public sphere whereas private individuals do not.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

In my opinion, public figures, including celebrities, give a degree of consent implicitly by seeking to be public figures. I dont think that for celebrities that should extend to lewd or objectionable material, but if your behavior has been to seek being a public figure you can't be upset when people use your likeness in various ways.

For politicians, I would default to "literally everything is protected free speech", with exceptions relating to things that are definitively false, damaging and unrelated to their public work.
"I have a picture of Elon musk engaging in pedophillia" is all those, and would be justifiably removed. Anything short of that though should be permitted.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

In this case, it's clearly a form of speech and therefore protected under the 1st amendment.

I also don't understand such a strong reaction to non-consensual AI porn. I mean, I don't think it's in good taste but I also don't see why it warrants such a strong reaction. It's not real. If I draw a stick figure with boobs and I put your name on it, do you believe I am committing a crime?

[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Protected from government censorship. Companies have strong protections allowing for controlling the speech on their platforms.

And if you asked Roberts he'd probably say since companies are people, as long as it's used to protect conservatives they have protection for controlling their platforms speech as a 1st amendment right.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

I guess I get it. They would not like to set precedent to allow non-consensual AI generated porn on the platform. Seems reasonable. That said, fuck Donny. The video is hilarious. It’s fine if Bluesky doesn’t host it though.

[–] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Only because I find these specific videos to be quite funny, maybe there can be a "satire/criticism of a public figure" exception that could exist

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's a pretty big loophole. I mean, imagine the same exact video with Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi. It takes a significantly different subtext when the subjects are women. But the subtext doesn't really matter to the morality of the act.

Either involuntary AI generated pornography is wrong or it isn't. I think it's wrong. Do Trump and Musk deserve it? Sure, but it's still wrong. Do I feel bad for them? No, because they deserve it. But it's still not something I would do, or suggest anyone else do, and if the creator is prosecuted, I'm not going to defend them.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] mavu@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 week ago

Correct. this is indeed the correct decision to remove the thing. BUT i have a feeling that this quick reaction does not compare to the speed of decision for normal people, especially women who get this kind of stuff made about them.

Also, note that I'm not saying it was bad to make the video, or have it run in public on hacked screens.
That is perfectly fine political commentary, by means of civil disobedience.

Just that Bluesky is correct in it's action to remove it from their service.

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Re-upload it 100 times over..fuck em

[–] mesamunefire@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

Throw it on peertube/other platforms. haha

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

please stop being weird and gross

also please no more 'look bad person do gay' content

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah I hate Musk and Trump for lots of things. I don't think using "haha they might be kissing each other! Musk sucks Trumps dick!" is somehow effective criticism of actual fascists in office.

Maybe we can criticize and protest and organize without using shit rooted in queerphobia. Might as well just say "Well Trump probably cross dresses, that shows him!"

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I don’t think using “haha they might be kissing each other! Musk sucks Trumps dick!” is somehow effective criticism of actual fascists in office.

It is, for them.

Especially having Trump be "the bottom".

Ever watch Shameless, the US version? Its along the same lines as Terry, Mickey's dad. He only hated Mickey because he was catching, because "It aint gay if you're doing the fucking, just if you get fucked".

So, in this case, yes, making implications of gay sex happening, with Trump catching, is VERY effective at it.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It is, for them.

Fucking crazy you think this is making them sweat at all

all you're doing is giving them completely valid ammo that liberal 'virtue signaling' is completely hollow because look at your hypocritical behavior

not to mention telling all the queers you snarl at every 2-4 years to vote for you exactly how you feel about them

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don’t know, man. Seems to me conservatives let shit like that fester, while ignoring it (or further festering it) while they do the real dirty work in buried headlines.

They let us have the fun while they quietly pull everything out from under us.

But, at the same time, it’s just going to happen. People are frustrated with very little perceived outlet.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

Let me use another example: calling them "weird".

It doesn't matter to a rational person if another person calls them weird.

It matters to Reich wingers, who base their whole self identity on "matching the ideal".

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

I'm confused as to why this 404media story neglected to link to the post in question.

to get from this article to the post that it is about, i had to type in the bsky username from the screenshot and scroll through the timeline. to save others the effort:

https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3liwlwvvq6k2s is the post which was removed.

https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lj3yrzc6is2p is the thread about it being removed and later restored.

[–] commander@lemmings.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah guys, fuck bluesky.

Already showing its true colors of "We'll abuse our power when we want to and only reneg if there's sufficient backlash."

Recommend MASTODON, NOT BLUESKY.

[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you allow it for people you don't like, where the bar for others.

[–] thisphuckinguy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Bluesky is BS

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Once again proving it isn't really decentralised.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How so? Lemmy is technically decentralized and mods remove stuff here...

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You can just move to another server and repost it.

With blue sky there is no "another server"

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Mod actions propagate though, no? So you'd have to post to a separate community, not just another server. I guess your admin could override a mod, but that's quite rare.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I was more thinking about mastodon, since it's the closest competitor to bluesky, but yeah here you would want to post it in a community on another server.

[–] ToiletFlushShowerScream@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hopefully this amplifies the videos exposure. Is it because it is considered explicit that it's not tolerated like other forms of parody?

[–] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

yeah it's basically deepfake porn.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Ah, the rewards of moderation: the best move is not to play. Fuck it is & has always been a better answer. Anarchy of the early internet was better than letting some paternalistic authority decide the right images & words to allow us to see, and decentralization isn't a bad idea.

Yet the forward-thinking people of today know better and insist that with their brave, new moderation they'll paternalize better without stopping to acknowledge how horribly broken, arbitrary, & fallible that entire approach is. Instead of learning what we already knew, social media keeps repeating the same dumb mistakes, and people clamor to the newest iteration of it.

[–] Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You clearly never were the victim back in those days. Neither do you realize this approach doesn't work on the modern web even in the slightest, unless you want the basics of both enlightenment and therefore science and democracy crumbling down even faster.

Anarchism is never an answer, it's usually willful ignorance about there being any problems.

[–] Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Anarchism is never an answer, it's usually willful ignorance about there being any problems.

AnCaps drive me nuts. They want to dismantle democratic institutions while simultaneously licking the boots of unelected institutions.

[–] tron@midwest.social 1 points 1 week ago

I guess I don't really consider AnCaps to be Anarchists because Anarchy is generally leftist philosophy. Traditional anarchy is like small government socialism: empowered local unions and city governments.

load more comments
view more: next ›