So if I’m understanding right, based on their recommendations this will all be addressed as more moderation and QOL tools are introduced as we move further down the development roadmap?
As does most successful open source software. It’s more of a "this is where we’d like to see things go long term, but that in no way restricts contributions, it merely helps communicate the ideas of the core contributors.
Computer-generated (e.g…, Stable Diffusion) child porn is not criminalized in Japan, and so many Japanese Mastodon servers don’t remove it
Porn involving real children is removed, but not immediately, as it depends on instance admins to catch it, and they have other things to do. Also, when an account is banned, the Mastodon server software is not sending out a “delete” for all of their posted material (which would signal other instances to delete it)
Problem #2 can hopefully be improved with better tooling. I don’t know what you do about problem #1, though.
One option would be to decide that the underlying point of removing real CSAM is to avoid victimizing real children; and that computer-generated images are no more relevant to this goal than Harry/Draco slash fiction is.
And are you able to offer any evidence to reassure us that simulated child pornography doesn’t increase the risk to real children as pedophiles become normalised to the content and escalate (you know, like what already routinely happens with regular pornography)?
Or are we just supposed to sacrifice children to your gut feeling?
Would you extend the same evidence-free argument to fictional stories, e.g. the Harry/Draco slash fiction that I mentioned?
For what it’s worth, your comment has already caused ten murders. I don’t have to offer evidence, just as you don’t. I don’t know where those murders happened, or who was murdered, but it was clearly the result of your comment. Why are you such a terrible person as to post something that causes murder?
I have no problem saying that writing stories about two children having gay sex is pretty fucked in the head, along with anyone who forms a community around sharing and creating it.
But it’s also not inherently abuse, nor is it indistinguishable from reality.
You’re advocating that people just be cool with photo-realistic images of children, of any age, being raped, by any number of people, in any possible way, with no assurances that the images are genuinely “fake” or that pedophiles won’t be driven to make it a reality, despite other pedophiles cheering them on.
I was a teenage contrarian psuedo-intellectual once upon a time too, but I never sold out other peoples children for something to jerk off too.
Awful pearl-clutchy for someone advocating for increased community support for photorealistic images of children being raped.
Which do you think is more acceptable to Lemmy in general? Someone saying “fuck”, or communities dedicated to photorealistic images of children being raped?
Maybe I’m not the one who should be changing their behavior.
Quality play. That’ll absolutely convince people that you’re the good guy if they somehow find themselves at the bottom of this thread without having read your wet mouthed defense of the sharing of photorealistic images of children being raped.
You’ve got a lot of dark, lewd fantasies about other people. Please don’t post them here. I’m sure there’s an NSFW community where you can post them instead; but you do not have my consent to post your dark, lewd fantasies about me and what sort of person you fantasize that I am. You’ve already crossed over that line.
Please stop.
I’m asking you specifically: stop inventing dark, lewd fantasies about me and posting them here.
In which case, admins should err on the side of caution and remove something that might be illegal.
I personally would prefer to have nothing remotely close to CSAM, but as long as children aren’t being harmed in any conceivable way, I don’t think it would be illegal to post art containing children. But communities should absolutely manage things however they think is best for their community.
In other words, I don’t think #1 is a problem at all, imo things should only be illegal if there’s a clear victim.
Child abuse laws “exclude anime” for the same reason animal cruelty laws “exclude lettuce.” Drawings are not children.
Drawings are not real.
Half the goddamn point of saying CSAM instead of CP is to make clear that Bart Simpson doesn’t count. Bart Simpson is not real. It is fundamentally impossible to violate Bart Simpson’s rights, because he doesn’t fucking exist. There is nothing to protect him from. He cannot be harmed. He is imaginary.
This cannot be a controversial statement. Anyone who can’t distinguish fiction from real life has brain problems.
You can’t rape someone in MS Paint. Songs about murder don’t leave a body. If you write about robbing Fort Knox, the gold is still there. We’re not about to arrest Mads Mikkelsen for eating people. It did not happen. It was not real.
If you still want to get mad at people for jerking off to the wrong fantasies, that is an entirely different problem from photographs of child rape.
There’s nothing to “cover.” They’re talking about illustrations of bad things, alongside actual photographic evidence of actual bad things actually happening. Nothing can excuse that.
No shit they are also discussing actual CSAM alongside… drawings. That is the problem. That’s what they did wrong.
Everyone except you still very much includes drawn & AI pornographic depictions of children within the basket of problematic content that should get filtered out of federated instances so thank you very much but I’m not sure your point changed anything.
Everybody understands there’s no real kid involved. I still don’t see an issue reporting it to authorities and all the definitions of CSAM make a point of including simulated and illustrated forms of child porn.
What’s the point of reporting it to authorities? It’s not illegal, nor should it be because there’s no victim, so all reporting it does is take up valuable time that could be spent tracking down actual abuse.
It’s illegal in a lot of places including where I live.
In the US you have the protect act of 2003
(a) In General.—Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that— (1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and(B) is obscene; or(2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and (B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
There’s no definite conclusion on whether consuming and distributing lolicon content could lead some individuals to seek out or create explicit content involving real children
If they rule that out entirely through the scientific method one day, then I’ll join your side
Weebs usually respond to that “Well that’s like saying video games cause violence!” so I’ll jump ahead of you, that would be like saying we should forbid Lolicon videogames in a society that already has lolicon books, lolicon movies, lolicon cartoons and where history classes mostly cover instances of countries showing lolicon to each other. That’s not the situation we’re in, and even if it was, it’s still not necessarily comparable. Sexual urges have properties that violence doesn’t share.
Yeah, I’d definitely like more research on the topic. I imagine it’s a correlative relationship, but not causal (as in, pedos disproportionately also like loli, but enjoying loli won’t likely make you a pedo), but I don’t have much to go on there.
What I do know is that most reports of “gateway” behaviors end up being false. For example, smoking weed isn’t going to push you toward harder drugs, but people who may be interested in harder drugs will likely start with weed. The same goes for violent video games, gambling, prostitution, etc. Each of those things can be used in a healthy way, so imo they should not be illegal.
But I don’t have a high quality study to back it up. I’m completely willing to concede if the science shows otherwise.
Definitions of CSAM definitely do not include illustrated and simulated forms. They do not have a victim and therefore cannot be abuse. I agree that it should not be allowed on public platforms, hence why all instances hosting it should be defederated. Despite this, it is not illegal, so reporting it to authorities is a waste of time for you and the authorities who are trying to remove and prevent actual CSAM.
CSAM definitions absolutely include illustrated and simulated forms. Just check the sources on the wikipedia link and climb your way up, you’ll see “cartoons, paintings, sculptures, …” in the wording of the protect act
They don’t actually need a victim to be defined as such
That Wikipedia broader is about CP, a broader topic. Practically zero authorities will include illustrated and simualated forms of CP in their definitions of CSAM
That’s not what I was debating. I was debating whether or not it should be reported to authorities. I made it clear in my previous comment that it is disturbing and should always be defederated.
If you don’t think images of actual child abuse, against actual children, is infinitely worse than some ink on paper, I don’t care about your opinion of anything.
You can be against both. Don’t ever pretend they’re the same.
Let’s just think about it, how do you think it would turn out if you went outside and asked anyone about pornographic drawings of children? How long until you find someone who thinks like you outside your internet bubble?
“Nobody wants this stuff that whole servers…”
There are also servers dedicated to real child porn with real children too. Do you think that argument has any value with that tidbit of information tacked onto it?
Repeating over and over again that I’m equating drawings with rape isn’t going to cut it if people can just read what I wrote. Especially when nobody was even talking about rape in the first place
The irony of you repeatedly sneering “reading comprehension” is delightful.
Yes, idiot, people can see my perfectly consistent point. Good job. I once told you to stop lumping together drawings with CSAM, and now, I’m still telling you stop lumping together drawings with CSAM.
CSAM is a product of rape. Child rape is part of the subject matter. That is the “child abuse” that’s in the goddamn headline.
Except the dolts at Stanford lumped in drawings.
And you aggressively do not see the problem with treating those things the same way.
Even though one is a drawing, and the other is rape. You are… equating… those two things. You are treating them identically and interchangeably.
“treating them the same” => The threshold for being banned is just already crossed at the lolicon level.
From the perspective of the park, pissing in a pond and fighting a dude both get you thrown out. That doesn’t mean you’re “treating them the same”. You’re just the park.
You see no problem with this study explicitly about CSAM casually lumping in… drawings.
The only reason you said shit to me in the first place was to smugly assert that they belong together. You declared confidently that the entire world was on your side, which does raise questions of who exactly is hosting and using these servers full of drawings you don’t like.
But the issue is the false equivalence.
The only issue is the false equivalence.
Sounding the alarm about child rape shouldn’t fucking include drawings for the same reason reports of a murder epidemic at the local park shouldn’t throw in “and also someone pissed in the pond.” Bit of a difference there! Kind of important! Negative one and negative one billion are both negative, but they’re plainly not as negative, are they? They don’t belong in the same sentence without a very narrow context. Glibly chastising someone, for pointing out that gulf, is the polar opposite of helpful, to anyone.
Saying ‘so what, they’re both bad’ is false equivalence. It’s dangerous nonsense that enables far-reaching abuse of power. What you’re doing is the textbook basis for unjustifiable surveillance laws, censorship, and general moral policing. If your kneejerk reaction when someone belabors the difference between “we have to stop this proliferation of child rape!” and “we have to stop this proliferation of drawings we don’t like!” is to insist you don’t like either and you’d expect them to be treated the same - you are the problem.
I mean, not as much of a problem as child rape, but nonetheless, shut up already.
Some confused arguments reveal confused people. Some terrible arguments reveal terrible people. For example: I don’t give two fucks what Nazis think. Life’s too short to wonder which subjects they’re not facile bastards about.
If someone’s motivation for making certain JPEGs hyper-illegal is “they’re icky” - they’ve lost benefit of the doubt. Because of their decisions, I no longer grant them that courtesy.
Perhaps. But pretty much everyone has a stupid take on something.
There’s obviously a limit there, but most people can be reasoned with. So instead of jumping to a conclusion, attempt a dialogue first until they prove that they can’t be reasoned with. This is especially true on SM where, even if you can’t convince the person you’re talking with, you may just convince the next person to come along.
Telling someone why they’re a stupid bastard for the sake of other people is not exactly a contradiction. You know what doesn’t do observers any good? “Debating” complete garbage, in a way that lends it respect and legitimacy. Sometimes you just need to call bullshit.
Some bullshit is so blatant that it’s a black mark against the bullshitter.
Sure, and I don’t think that’s the case here. If someone is literally arguing that a certain race should be exterminated that’s one thing (report, down vote, block, and move on), but someone arguing that lolicon is just as bad as CP is something completely different entirely.
I’m just arguing that it’s generally better to have the conversation than to completely shut them out. I really hate cancel culture, so I will always call out anything that seems similar. I believe in letting people explain themselves, to an extent, and my limit is if they’re actively promoting real harm to actual people (e.g. encouraging violence against some group).
Someone arguing child rape is only as bad as drawing Bart Simpson naked is some kind of fucked up.
As other subthreads should thoroughly demonstrate - I don’t have to respect someone, to call them out. A position you recently endorsed. The end of polite and civil discussion between equals doesn’t mean the yelling has stopped.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t call them out, in fact I’m 100% in favor of calling out BS. What I’m saying is to not shut down the conversation if the other side is willing to explain themselves or open to learning more.
One thing I absolutely loved about Reddit was joining communities where I was a minority and having a good faith discussion with someone I wasn’t ideologically aligned with. A lot of times I got completely shut down, but sometimes I had really good discussions and better understood the other side’s perspective.
So all I’m saying is you (and everyone here honestly) should seek to enable that kind of discussion instead of just stopping at the first sign of disagreement. Someone saying lolicon is as harmful as CP is probably just misinformed.
The end of polite and civil discussion
I have yet to see that, because I make a solid effort to have polite and civil discussion and I usually get it reciprocated.
If you’re aggressive, you’ll get aggressiveness back, but if you’re inquisitive and polite, you’ll likely get the same in return. Some people can’t be reasoned with, but I have found that many are open to hearing other perspectives, provided I go out of my way to be polite.
The guy here saying CSAM and drawings are the same keeps insisting he’s not saying that and then immediately saying it again. I’m still here calling him a stupid bastard. As often as he needs to hear it. Again: if you’re worried about the thread stopping, I am not your concern. But I’m not about to give dolts like that some undue fair shake, after the fifth time they sneer “reading comprehension!” in response to rubbing their nose in the inescapable meaning of the words they keep saying.
Sometimes you get assholes no matter what you say.
That’s not why I value blunt honesty, in some contexts, but it’s a counter to the most common criticism of blunt honesty. Bending over backwards to appease unreasonable people is worse to do and worse to read than someone barging in to accurately and lucidly call bullshit.
I’m responding to this comment you made earlier ITT, emphasis mine:
If you don’t think images of actual child abuse, against actual children, is infinitely worse than some ink on paper, I don’t care about your opinion of anything.
It’s quite an extreme position to me to completely shut someone out because they hold a relatively popular opinion (e.g. lolicon and CP are treated under the same federal statute in the US). You constructed a strawman (they didn’t say they were equivalent), and then you jumped to saying you don’t care about their opinion about anything because of it. That’s ridiculous and unnecessarily inflammatory.
I’m not saying you should try to appease everyone, just that you should consider toning things down a bit and inquire instead of accuse. If we want a polite and civil discourse, everyone needs to make an effort. I certainly try, and I respectfully ask that you do the same.
What you’re asking for is what I’m very obviously doing, here. Again: “shutting someone out” does not mean the talking stops. I am almost pathologically inclined to continue bickering with someone, for the sake of a potential audience.
This ding-dong’s false equivalence is equally obvious. They’ve contradicted their contrary insistence within the same sentence as some of those insistences. Most recently they’ve blamed it on the laws where this study took place. Last I checked… Stanford is in California. American laws do not say diddly fuck about drawings of Bart Simpson’s dick. There’s public-facing sites where you could find one in a heartbeat. The FBI is not out a-hunting them. Their legal troubles will mostly come from the Walt Disney Corporation.
Not that any country’s laws could possibly make child… sexual abuse… materials… somehow include computer renderings of fictional characters.
If we want a polite and civil discourse, everyone needs to make an effort.
Why is that the highest goal?
The creeping demand for “civility” above all else is a detriment to conversational honesty. That doesn’t mean anything-goes. Screaming escalations and blatant trolling are not the same thing as identifying bullshit and saying ‘that’s bullshit.’ Saying so is not polite or civil, but surely it’s important. Rules saying otherwise have been a gift to bullshitters. Moderation never comes down hard and fast enough on their fallacies, abuse, and manipulation, compared to how mods pounce on direct call-outs. Even in language and tone that would scarcely raise eyebrows face-to-face. As if ‘do you still beat your wife’ is ambiguous, but ‘hey, get bent’ is inexcusable.
Long ago and far away, the point of reference was a cocktail party.
Most forums are not debate clubs, or kindergartens, or any other equivalent scenario where a quiet ‘what are you fucking talking about’ would get someone ejected. They’re indoor-voice banter. Constructive, ideally, and sober enough to side with well-spoken rationale over ingroup posturing… but somewhere that ‘here’s why you’re wrong, jackass’ will be judged on ‘why’ more than on ‘jackass.’
And sometimes the person you’re talking to is obviously drunk or stupid or both, but you can keep calmly telling them how they’re wrong about everything that comes out of their mouth. Debate is not what’s happening. Civility won’t help. But you can keep it reasonable, and frankly, that’s better.
(B) advertises, promotes, presents, distributes, or solicits through the mails, or using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is, or contains—
(i) an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(ii) a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
I’m not sure if a cartoon dick pic would be enough, but it’s not far off.
I never claimed that. I merely said we should push for civility first, as in give people the benefit of the doubt. Or in other words, let them make a fool of themselves instead of jumping at the opportunity to try to “cancel” someone.
That’s all I’m asking for. I obviously can’t control how you choose to use your speech, but I can respectfully point out when I think you or anyone else has gone a bit too far.
There are plainly websites where Simpsons porn is openly available. If it was as illegal as actual images of child abuse, I cannot imagine where you think they’re hosted. Secret wizards on the backside of the moon would still get raided by the FBI. In practice, that law’s inclusion of drawings is unenforceable nonsense, because - as I keep telling the idiot who I assure you I am still bickering with - drawings are not children.
Child rape is different from drawings.
Child rape is worse than drawings.
Any argument to the contrary, on any basis, no matter how dry, is kinda fucked up. Saying so, to him or to you, doesn’t mean I’ve engaged in some campaign to silence him, or prevent others from considering his position. It means I’ve judged his words on their merit and I expect he’s just an idiot.
I am not joking when I say this person has contradicted their own hair-splitting within one sentence. They will outright sneer as if I have imagined all claims of equivalence… in the same comment as insisting two wildly different problems are by-definition the same thing. Dude legitimately failed at argumentum ad nuh-uh. And I spotted this trajectory from the outset. Unless you feel I’ve tricked him into adopting this position, it was always right there in his mind, and that was in evidence.
At this point I’m legitimately worried about that guy failing Piaget metrics. Whatever diplomacy you want me to extend to people by default, it has been spent.
Just because the federal authorities don’t aggressively enforce a law doesn’t make it legal. Look at marijuana legislation, the federal government could shut down dispensaries in various states, but it chooses not to. Yet you can still be prosecuted for possession and distribution in those states.
So it’s one of those limbo areas where the federal government has decided not to strictly enforce the law. But the law still exists.
As for the person you replied to, I’m merely pointing out how early in the thread you jumped to conclusions. Maybe you were right about them in this scenario (I didn’t check the rest of the thread after posting), but you could easily have been wrong. I really like this quote:
It’s better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
He invented the stupid take he’s fighting against. Nobody equated “ink on paper” with “actual rape against children”.
The bar to cross to be filtered out of the federation isn’t rape. Lolicon is already above the threshold, it’s embarrassing that he doesn’t realize that.
We’re not just talking about ‘ew gross icky’ exclusion from a social network. We’re talking about images whose possession is a felony. Images that are unambiguously the product of child rape.
This paper treats them the same. You’re defending that false equivalence. You need to stop.
Who places the bar for “exclusion from a social network” at felonies? Any kind child porn has no place on the fediverse, simulated or otherwise. That doesn’t mean they’re equal offenses, you’re just not responsible for carrying out anything other than cleaning out your porch.
We’re not JUST talking about exclusion from a social network.
Do you speak English?
The subject matter is the part that’s a felony - so the glib inclusion of the part you just don’t like is dangerous misinformation.
I am calling out how this study falsely equates child rape and gross drawings, and your neverending hot take is ‘well I don’t care for either.’ There’s not enough ‘who asked’ in the world. One of these things is tacitly legal and has sites listed on Google. One of these things means you die in prison, anywhere in the world.
And here you are, still calling both of them “child porn.” In the same post insisting you’re not equating them. Thanks for keeping this simple, I guess.
They’re studying the prevalence of CSAM under the definition of the country they’re in. It’d be arbitrary to separate the two and make two different conclusions.
No possible definition of child sexual abuse can include drawings.
Tell me otherwise in the same breath as insisting you’re not making that false equivalence. Apparently my patience is limitless when the lie is that fucking obvious.
edit: Hang on, the obvious lie disguised a stupid lie. What country do you think Stanford is in? Drawing Bart Simpson’s dick is not illegal in America. You could do it right now, in MS Paint, and e-mail it to the FBI, and they’d just formally tell you to go fuck yourself. Which would obviously not be the case with ACTUAL “child sexual abuse materials,” being evidence of abusing a flesh-and-blood child.
I don’t think the OP ever said the bar was rape, the OP said the article and the person they responded to are treating drawn depictions of imaginary children the same as depictions of actual children. Those are not the same thing at all, yet many people seem to combine them (apparently including US law as of the Protect Act of 2003).
Some areas make a distinction (e.g. Japan and Germany), whereas others don’t. Regardless of the legal status in your area, the two should be treated separately, even if that means both are banned.
“treating them the same” => The threshold for being refused entry into mainstream instances is just already crossed at the lolicon level.
From the perspective of the fediverse, pictures of child rape and lolicon should just both get you thrown out. That doesn’t mean you’re “treating them the same”. You’re just a social network. There’s nothing you can do above defederating.
No, more like “treating them the same” => how the data is reported in the study. Whether they’re both against the TOS of the instance you’re on is a separate issue entirely, the problem is the data doesn’t separate the two categories.
Look elsewhere ITT about that exact perspective. Even the US law (Protect Act of 2003) treats them largely the same (i.e. in the same sentence), and includes other taboo topics like bestiality, even if no actual animals are involved.
It’s completely fine for neither to be allowed on a social network, what isn’t okay is for research to conflate the two. An instance inconsistently removing lolicon is a very different thing from an instance inconsistently removing actual CP, yet the article combines the two, likely to make it seem like a much worse problem than it is.
That’s an arbitrary decision to make and doesn’t really need to be debated
The study is pretty transparent about what “CSAM” is under their definition and they even provide pictures, from a science communication point of view they’re in the clear
And their definition kind of sucks. They’re basically saying it’s anything that SafeSearch or PhotoDNA flags, or something that has hashtag hits.
That said, there’s absolutely some terrible things on Mastodon, including grooming and trading. I’m interested to know what the numbers look like for lolicon and similar vs actual CP, which would give me a much better understanding of how bad the problem is. As in, are the things included in the report outliers, or typical of their sample set?
I guess I’m looking for a bit more granularity in the report.
Oh, wait, Japanese in the other comment, now I get it. This conversation is a about AI Loli porn.
Pfft, of course, that’s why no one is saying the words they mean, because it suddenly becomes much harder to take the stance since hatred towards Loli Porn is not universal.
I mean, I think it’s disgusting, but I don’t think it should be illegal. I feel the same way about cigarettes, 2 girls 1 cup, and profane language. It’s absolutely not for me, but that shouldn’t make it illegal.
As long as there’s no victim, knock yourself out with whatever disgusting, weird stuff you’re into.
Oh no, what you describe is definitely illegal here in Canada. CSAM includes depictions here. Child sex dolls are illegal. And it should be that way because that stuff is disgusting.
Child rape cannot include drawings. You can’t sexually assault a fictional character. Not “you musn’t.” You can’t.
If you think the problem with child rape amounts to ‘ew, gross,’ fuck you. Your moral scale is broken, if there’s not a vast gulf between those two bad things.
Mastodon is a piece of software. I don’t see anyone saying “phpBB” or “WordPress” has a massive child abuse material problem.
Has anyone in the history ever said “Not a good look for phpBB”? No. Why? Because it would make no sense whatsoever.
I feel kind of a loss for words because how obvious it should be. It’s like saying “paper is being used for illegal material. Not a good look for paper.”
What is the solution to someone hosting illegal material on an nginx server? You report it to the authorities. You want to automate it? Go ahead and crawl the web for illegal material and generate automated reports. Though you’ll probably be the first to end up in prison.
I get what you’re saying, but due to federated nature, those CSAMs can easily spread to many instances without their admins noticing them. Having even one CSAM in your server is a huge risk for the server owner.
This could be a really big issue though. People can make instances for really hateful and disgusting crap but even if everyone defederates from them it’s still giving them a platform, a tiny tiny corner on the internet to talk about truly horrible topics.
Again if it’s illegal content publically available, officials can charge those site admins with crime of hosting. Everyone just has a duty to defederate.
Those corners will exist no matter what service they use and there is nothing Mastodon can do to stop this. There’s a reason there are public lists of instances to defederate. This content can only be prevented by domain providers and governments.
phpbb is not the host or the provider. Its just something you download and install on your server, with the actual service provider (You, the owner of the server and operator of the phpbb forum) being responsible for its content and curation.
Mastadon/Twitter/social media is the host/provider/moderator.
Well, terrorists became boring, and they still want the loony wing of the GOP's clicks, so best to back off on Nazis and pro-Russians, leaving pedophiles as the safest bet.
These articles are written by idiots, serving the whims of a corporate stooge to try and smear any other than corporate services and it isn’t even thinly veiled. Look at who this all comes from
The article written by WaPo and regurgitated by The Verge is crap, but the study from Stanford is solid. However, it’s nowhere near as doom and gloom as the articles, and suggests plenty of ways to improve things. Primarily they suggest better tools for moderation.
The study from Stanford conflates pencil drawings of imaginary characters with actual evidence of child rape.
Half the goddamn point of saying CSAM instead of CP is to make that difference blindingly obvious. Somehow, they still missed it. Somehow they are talking about sexual abuse as if it’s something that can happen to pixels.
After reading it, I’m still unsure what all they consider to be CSAM and how much of each category they found. Here are what they count as CSAM categories as far as I can tell. No idea how much the categories overlap, and therefore no idea how many beyond the 112 PhotoDNA images are of actual children.
112 instances of known CSAM of actual children, (identified by PhotoDNA)
713 times assumed CSAM, based on hashtags.
1,217 text posts talking about stuff related to grooming/trading. Includes no actual CSAM or CSAM trading/selling on Mastodon, but some links to other sites?
Drawn and Computer-Generated images. (No quantity given, possibly not counted? Part of the 713 posts above?)
Self-Generated CSAM. (Example is someone literally selling pics of their dick for Robux.) (No quantity given here either.)
Personally, I’m not sure what the take-away is supposed to be from this. It’s impossible to moderate all the user-generated content quickly. This is not a Fediverse issue. The same is true for Mastodon, Twitter, Reddit and all the other big content-generating sites. It’s a hard problem to solve. Known CSAM being deleted within hours is already pretty good, imho.
Meta-discussion especially is hard to police. Based on the report, it seems that most CP-material by mass is traded using other services (chat rooms).
For me, there’s a huge difference between actual children being directly exploited and virtual depictions of fictional children. Personally, I consider it the same as any other fetish-images which would be illegal with actual humans (guro/vore/bestiality/rape etc etc).
If we took this to its logical conclusion, most popular games would be banned. How many JRPGs have underage protagonists? How many of those have some kind of love story going on in the background? What about FPS games where you’re depicted killing other people? What about fantasy RPGs where you can kill and control animals?
Things should always be legal unless there’s a clear victim. And communities should absolutely be allowed to filter out anything they want, even if it’s 100% legal. So the lack of clear articulation of the legal issues is very worrisome since it implies a moral obligation to remove legal but taboo content.
“We got more photoDNA hits in a two-day period than we’ve probably had in the entire history of our organization of doing any kind of social media analysis, and it’s not even close,”
How do you have “probably” and “it’s not even close” in the same sentence?
Here’s the thing, and what I’ve been saying for a long time about The Fediverse:
I don’t care what platform you have, if it is sufficiently popular, you’re GOING to have CSAM. You’re going to have alt-right assholes. You’re going to have transphobia, you’re going to have racism and every other kind of discrimination.
People point fingers at Meta for “allowing” this but there’s no amount of money that can reasonably moderate 3 b-b-billion users. Meta, and probably every other platform that’s not Twitter or False social, does what they can about this.
Masto and Fedi admins need to be cognizant of the amount of users on their instances and need to have a sufficient number of moderators to manage those users. If they don’t have them, they need to close registrations.
But ultimately the Fediverse can also create safe-havens for these sorts of things. Making it easy to set up a discriminatory network that has no outside moderation. This is the downside of free speech.
Ultimately, it’s software. Even if my home instance does a good job of enforcing it’s CoC, and every instance it federated with does as well, someone else can spin up their own instance, load up on whatever, and I’ll never know or even be aware if it’s never federated with my instance.
No, cause then you end up with a case like the guy who lost 15+ years of emails, his phone number, all his photos, his contacts, and everything else he had tied to a google account, because Googles automated detection triggered on a naked photo of their baby, that they sent to the doctor during covid, that the doctor requested, about a rash on the babies diaper area… and no amount of common sense would stay their hand or reverse their ignorant judgement that this man was a child pornographer, and even called the police on him.
But how that platform deals with/fights it is what makes the platform good or bad.
Take Facebook for example in horrible… Facebook is rife with the stuff, and it regularly gets reported… and nothing happens. To the point that a Reporter once confronted them about it during an interview, and Facebook proved it did have the capability to contact law enforcement… by calling them on the reporter who showed them the evidence of it on their platform.
Seems odd that they mention Mastodon as a Twitter alternative in this article, but do not make any mention of the fact that Twitter is also rife with these problems, more so as they lose employees and therefore moderation capabilities. These problems have been around on Twitter for far longer, and not nearly enough has been done.
It points out that you upload to one server, and that server then sends the image to thousands of others. How do those thousands of others scan for this? In theory, using the PhotoDNA tool that large companies use, but then you have to send the every image to PhotoDNA thousands of times, once for each server (because how do you trust another server telling you it’s fine?).
The report provides recommendations on how servers can use signatures and public keys to trust scan results from PhotoDNA, so images can be federated with a level of trust. It also suggests large players entering the market (Meta, Wordpress, etc) should collaborate to build these tools that all servers can use.
Basically the original report points out the ease of finding CSAM on mastodon, and addresses the challenges unique to federation including proposing solutions. It doesn’t claim centralised servers have it solved, it just addresses additional challenges federation has.
Yeah I was mostly just complaining about the poor quality of mainstream tech articles. The original report is a much pretty read and brings up some great points.
Nothing you can do except go after server owners like usual. Has nothing to do with the fedi. Mastodon has nothing to do with either because anyone can pop up their own alternative server. This is one of many protocols they have or will use to distribute this stuff.
This just in: criminals are using the TCP protocol to distribute CP!!! What can the internet do to stop this? Oh yeah, go after server owners and groups like usual.
Things are a bit complicated in the fediverse. Sure, your instance might not host any pedo community, but if a user on your instance subscribe/interact with those community, the CSAMs might get federated into your instance without you noticing. There are tools to help you combat this, but as an instance owner you can’t just assume it’s not your problem if some other instance host pedo stuff.
That is definitely alarming, and a downside of the fedi, but seems like a necessary evil. Unfortunately admins and mods of small communties in the fedi will be the ones exposed to this. There has been better methods if handling this though. There are shared block lists out there and they already have lists that block out undesirable stuff like that, so it at least minimizes the amount of innocent eyes of mods, who are just regular unpaid people, from seeing disgusting stuff. Also, obviously those instances should be reported to the police, fbi, or whatever the heck
There is a database of known files of CSAM and their hashes, mastodon could implement a filter for those at the posting interaction and when federating content
This is one of the reasons I'm hesitant to start my own instance - the moderation load expands exponentially as you scale, and without some sort of automated tool to keep CSAM content from being posted in the first place, I can only see the problem increasing. I'm curious to see if anyone knows of lemmy or mastodon moderation tools that could help here.
That being said, it's worth noting that the same Standford research team reviewed Twitter and found the same dynamic in play, so this isn't a problem unique to Mastodon. The ugly thing is that Twitter has (or had) a team to deal with this, and yet:
“The investigation discovered problems with Twitter's CSAM detection mechanisms and we reported this issue to NCMEC in April, but the problem continued,” says the team. “Having no remaining Trust and Safety contacts at Twitter, we approached a third-party intermediary to arrange a briefing. Twitter was informed of the problem, and the issue appears to have been resolved as of May 20.”
Research such as this is about to become far harder—or at any rate far more expensive—following Elon Musk’s decision to start charging $42,000 per month for its previously free API. The Stanford Internet Observatory, indeed, has recently been forced to stop using the enterprise-level of the tool; the free version is said to provide read-only access, and there are concerns that researchers will be forced to delete data that was previously collected under agreement.
So going forward, such comparisons will be impossible because Twitter has locked down its API. So yes, the Fediverse has a problem, the same one Twitter has, but Twitter is actively ignoring it while reducing transparency into future moderation.
I think the common sense solution is creating instances for physically local communities (thus keeping the moderation overhead to a minimum) and being very judicious about which instances you federate your instance with.
That being said, It’s only a matter of time before moderation tools are created for streamlining the process.
My instance is for members of a certain group, had to email the owner a picture of your card to get in. More instances should exist like that. General instances are great but it’s nice knowing all the people on my local are in this group too.
If you run your instance behind cloudlare, you can enable the CSAM scanning tool which can automatically block and report known CSAMs to authorities if they’re uploaded into your server. This should reduce your risk as the instance operator.
is blocking randomly some requests between activity pub servers ❌
the best way to deal with non solicited content is human moderation, little instance, few people, human scale... #smallWeb made of lots of little instances without any need of a big centralized proxy... 🧠
Thanks for the comment - I wasn't aware of a cloudflare controversy in play, and went through your links and the associated wikipedia page. It's interesting to me, as someone who previously ran a public forum, to see them struggle with the same issues surrounding hate speech I did on a larger scale.
I agree with your thoughts on a centralized service having that much power, although Cloudfare does have a number of competitors, so I'm not quite seeing the risk here, save for the fact that Cloudfare appears to be the only one offering CSAM filtering (will have to dig in further to confirm). The ActivityPub blocking for particular instances is concerning, but I don't see a source on that - do you have more detail?
However, I disagree with your statement on handling non-solicited content - from personal experience, I can confidently state that there are some things that get submitted that you just shouldn't subject another human too, even if it's only to determine whether or not it should be deleted. CSAM falls under this category in my book. Having a system in place that keeps you and your moderators from having to deal with it is invaluable to a small instance owner.
@Arotrios@corb3t@redcalcium it's all about community & trust. I agree that no one should ever has to deal with such offensive content, and my answer again is: running a small instance, with few people, creating a safe space, building trust... ☮️
Of course it's a different approach about how to create and maintain an online community I guess. We don't have to deal with non solicited content here because we are 20 and we kind of know each other, subscription is only available by invitation, so you are kind of responsible for who you're bringing here... and we care about people, each of them! Again, community & trust over any tools 👌
obviously we do not share the same vision here, but it's ok, I'm not trying to convince, I just wanted to say our approach is completely different 😉
Nah, not intimidated. More that I ran a sizeable forum in the past and I know what what a pain in the ass this kind of content can be to deal with. That's why I was asking about automated tools to deal with it. The forum I ran got targeted by a bunch of Turkish hackers, and their one of their attack techniques involved a wave of spambot accounts trying to post crap content. I wasn't intimidated (fought them for about two years straight), but by the end of it I was exhausted to the point where it just wasn't worth it anymore. An automated CSAM filter would have made a huge difference, but this was over a decade ago and those tools weren't around.
I’m not actually going to read all that, but I’m going to take a few guesses that I’m quite sure are going to be correct.
First, I don’t think Mastodon has a “massive child abuse material” problem at all. I think it has, at best, a “racy Japanese style cartoon drawing” problem or, at worst, an “AI generated smut meant to look underage” problem. I’m also quite sure there are monsters operating in the shadows, dogwhistling and hashtagging to each other to find like minded people to set up private exchanges (or instances) for actual CSAM. This is no different than any other platform on the Internet, Mastodon or not. This is no different than the golden age of IRC. This is no different from Tor. This is no different than the USENET and BBS days. People use computers for nefarious shit.
All that having been said, I’m equally sure that this “research” claims that some algorithm has found “actual child porn” on Mastodon that has been verified by some “trusted third part(y|ies)” that may or may not be named. I’m also sure this “research” spends an inordinate amount of time pointing out the “shortcomings” of Mastodon (i.e. no built-in “features” that would allow corporations/governments to conduct what is essentially dragnet surveillance on traffic) and how this has to change “for the safety of the children.”
The content in question is unfortunately something that has become very common in recent months: CSAM (child sexual abuse material), generally AI-generated.
AI is now apparently generating entire children, abusing them, and uploading video of it.
Of course they’re counting “CSAM-like” in the stats, otherwise they wouldn’t have any stats at all. In any case, they don’t really care about child abuse at all. They care about a platform existing that they haven’t been able to wrap their slimy tentacles around yet.
Halfway there. The PDF lists drawn 2D/3D, AI/ML generated 2D, and real-life CSAM. It does highlight the actual problem of young platforms with immature moderation tools not being able to deal with the sudden influx of objectional content.
As a parent, I’m always worried about any policy with “protect the children” as the main argument. There are lots of stupid policies proposed and sometimes implemented that are justified this way, such as:
facial recognition to prevent underage kids from playing certain video games
proof of ID to access social media and porn
complicated parental controls on devices and services
And so on.
Most of these have easy ways to circumvent these rules and absolutely violate privacy, so I will be teaching my kids how to do that. In fact, once our home Internet gets fast enough, I may route all traffic through a VPN just to avoid most of these stupid rules and instead rely on trust with my kids to keep them safe on the Internet.
Or maybe it’s better to err on the side of caution when it comes to maybe one of the worst legal offences you can do?
I’m tired of people harping on this decision when it’s a perfectly legitimate one from a legal standpoint. There’s a reason tons of places are very iffy about nsfw content.
So what im reading is they didnt actually look at any images, they found hashtags, undisclosed hashtags at that. So basically we've no idea what they think they found, for all we know cartoon might've been one of the tags
Add comment