this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
526 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

63277 readers
4086 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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  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
[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours 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.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I had to hack an ex’s account once to get the revenge porn they posted of me taken down.

There’s a balance at the end of the day.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 37 minutes ago

Illegal content has always been unprotected & subject to removal by the law. Moderation policies wouldn't necessarily remove porn presumed to be legal, either, so moderation is still a crapshoot.

Still, that sucks.

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Bluesky had better take care that they not act like other cowardly tech media

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 23 minutes ago* (last edited 23 minutes ago)

If they don't it is only because they are waiting to obtain a higher share of the social media market.

Jumping ship from one corporate owned social media to another corporate owned social media isn't a smart move. There is nothing about Bluesky that will prevent it from becoming X in the future. People joining now are only adding to the network effect that will make leaving more difficult in a decade or two.

The problem of social media won't be solved by choosing which dictator's rule you want to live under. You don't have the freedom to speak and express yourself if you give someone veto power over what you write.

[–] thisphuckinguy@lemmy.world 9 points 4 hours ago

Bluesky is BS

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

WTF bluesky.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 1 points 2 hours ago

I don’t want to watch this video please

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 5 points 4 hours ago

Their moderation has been garbage lately. They're wrongly banning people for things they didn't do. It's just premusk twitter at this point. The real fediverse is a better vet medium and long term

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 29 points 7 hours ago

Put it on Facebook! Ol’ Zuck decided all the guardrails pretty much needed to go so. Post and do whatever. Plus, the people who should see it most are those still hanging around on Facebook 🤣

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 216 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours 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.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 25 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Well, looks like they put it back up. I think I agree with you though. It might be better for them to restrict this. Frankly republican incels excel at generating this kind of content and this sets the precedent that Bluesky will welcome such AI garbage. I'm not arguing that this stuff shouldn't be made in good spirit, but for a serious platform to not moderate it out I think invites chaos.

[–] azertyfun@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

There's plenty of legal precedent for newsworthiness to supersede some rules in the name of the freedom of the Press. It makes sense that I'm not allowed (at least where I live) to post a non-consensual pictures of someone off the street. But it would not make sense if I was forbidden from posting a picture of the Prime Minister visiting a school for example. That's newsworthy and therefore the public interest outweighs his right to privacy.

The AI video of Trump/Musk made a bunch of headlines because it was hacked onto a government building. On top of that it's satire of public figures and – I can't believe that needs saying – is clearly not meant to provide sexual gratification.

Corpos and bureaucracies would have you believe nuance doesn't belong in moderation decisions, but that's a fallacy and an flimsy shield to hide behind to justify making absolutely terrible braindead decisions at best, and political instrumentation of rules at worst. We should celebrate any time when moderators are given latitude to not stick to dumb rules (as long as this latitude is not being used for evil), and shame any company that censors legitimate satire of the elites based on bullshit rules meant to protect the little people.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago

That's a really thin line. I have a hard time imagining anyone sticking to this same argument if the satire were directed towards someone they admired in a similar position of power. The prime minister visiting a school is a world away from AI generated content of something that never actually happened. Leaving nuance out of these policies isn't some corporation pulling wool over our eyes, it's just really hard to do nuance at scale without bias and commotion.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 39 points 11 hours ago (7 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

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 73 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

I'll just explain why that is a horrible idea with three simple letters:

A. O. C.

[–] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 43 points 11 hours ago

Fuck. Good point. Guess I'll just have to come to peace with me being a hypocrite when it comes to what I find acceptable.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 41 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

fwiw they restored the post and blamed it on a moderator being too strict in applying a policy regarding non consensual ai porn. It’s objectively good they have policies banning such things but it was completely obvious from context that this was not meant to be pornographic at all

As such, one could easily read it with cynicism as responding to backlash as they only reviewed said moderators actions after this article came out and the associated clamor

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 7 hours ago

That's because Aaron Rodericks is Jesse Singal loving garbage.

[–] sighofannoyance@lemmy.world 28 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Simple solution to all this crap:

MASTODON.

[–] Hack3900@lemy.lol 9 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

I do not understand why people use BlueSky We already had the alternative!!!!! It was here first and many had already created accounts.. Then just went back to Twitter

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 8 points 5 hours ago

because there is zero marketing for mastodon. zero sex-appeal to mastodon.

bluesky was a better car salesman selling the same old car twitter had.

[–] bloooooort@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 hours ago

Love mastodon but Bluesky has a lot of cool features like starter packs and lists and feeds + the ability to do your own moderation. It’s really customizable that way + there a lot of users… In the end people will go where people are. Besides, mastodon is cool because its still underground and is filled with nerds like the early internet. Do we really want all the normies to join?

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

It was far faster and easier to build up a feed of enjoyable content on BlueSky. My Mastodon feed has sat almost completely empty, and I've only been able to find a few news-reposters there.

And I'm tech-savvy. Imagine how it is for other social media users.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, exactly this. Like something might be technically better but unless it's doing its main job of actually connecting people it's not going to work.

I wish more FOSS nerds understood this.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don't agree that Mastodon is technically better, but it was first so it should have first mover advantage.

I think it largely comes down to marketing. Mastodon is marketed by word of mouth, and BlueSky has an actual marketing team.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

By "technically better" I mean it actually delivers on its technical promises of decentralisation, as opposed to bluesky that simply uses decentralisation as a buzzword without being actually open source and without allowing real competition for the main - centralised - instance.

I think mastodon has actual legs in that if bluesky fails to actually open up, it will enshittify and there will be another exodus. Mastodon has technical barriers to that kind problem, so it will still be there to pick up the pieces. The decentralised nature protects the network from enshittifying and means it will tend not to get exoduses like central platforms do. It's a matter of making that growth count.

If in that time mastodon has worked on its discovery features, it might be finally ready to capture that growth.

If bluesky manages to properly decentralise then I imagine mastodon will not need to pick up the slack and will either join the network or fade into irrelevancy.

Hard to say which way it will go. I don't hold out a lot of hope for bluesky changing its ways, and who knows when mastodon will improve in this way.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

My understanding is that BlueSky is distributed, meaning there's no single point of failure and nodes are independent. So scaling up should just mean adding more nodes, not having to scale vertically.

Distributed computing is a form of decentralization where the goal is resilience of the platform, not decentralization of control. The goal is very different from the Fediverse, which is to decentralize control, with resilience being a nice side effect.

Mastodon has technical barriers to that kind problem

It also has technical barriers to widespread adoption, hence why BlueSky is winning. I'lf BlueSky fails, people will just go to whatever alternative has a healthy marketing budget and low barrier to entry.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

It doesn't matter how distributed the servers are. You could say any centralised platform is "distributed" if it has at least one redundant server, which plenty of them do. Youtube has servers all over the world. That has nothing to do with enshittification and it's not the feature I was talking about.

The thing that supposedly set bluesky apart was that they would be using a decentralised protocol that allowed anyone who wanted to to operate their own server with full control over their data. You can actually see some people posting from different domains.

That's a nice idea and it trades on the rising popularity of the fediverse, but it's not doing it in an open manner because the software isn't open and separate instances are locked to 10 users maximum unless the central authority allows them more. That means it's not meaningfully decentralised, but it's still trying to capitalise on the concept. It can still be torpedoed by one company's bad business decisions.

That's what I was referring to.

And I said mastodon might be able to take in the exodus if they improve, so I guess I agree with your last point.

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

they would be using a decentralised protocol

Well, they have that, they just haven't opened it up to others yet. A lot of it is open source today.

I'm not saying BlueSky is ideal, just that it has a decentralized design and is currently quite distributed in practice. It's not like YouTube where it's largely just a CDN to keep things fast, but the core service is broken up into logical independent pieces instead of a top down system.

They just currently control most of the pieces. But the design is still decentralized.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 1 points 43 minutes ago

Right, my point is that they have the ingredients to meaningfully decentralise control, but until they do they are not meaningfully bettee than twitter, and it's just a branding exercise.

Maybe they'll fix that, maybe they won't but until they do I think the fediverse's resilience proves that platforms will keep turning over until a viable federated system arises, whether that's bluesky, mastodon or something else.

I can't even see where you disagree with this. You're just throwing out details withoit reference to how this affects my point.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 hours ago

We do need better onboarding. I wonder if you could make an equivalent of the "discovery" feed that wasn't abusive to the user

[–] MysticKetchup@lemmy.world 12 points 8 hours ago (1 children)
  1. Bluesky is more easily usable
  2. More people they want to follow are on Bluesky

Instead of complaining we need to work on making Masto more welcoming to new users and amplifying the advantages it has over Bluesky

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 9 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly, that ship has sailed, I think. When Musk first took over Twitter and everyone was bailing, if Mastodon was a viable alternative it could have taken off.

Now that Bluesky has overtaken them, and is seen as the alternative to Twitter, I think the opportunity has been lost.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

That's quite a good point. Here's a little thought experiment, though: If we woke up tomorrow and Mastodon looked just like Bluesky (but with a different color scheme) and featured 100% two-way integration with Bluesky...

Essentially, if Mastodon became hands down the most user-friendly and engaging option—would that be enough to make a meaningful difference in its adoption curve?

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 4 points 5 hours ago

Possibly, although anyone who already has an account on Bluesky would likely stay there, and Bluesky has the upper hand in name recognition, and there is the uphill battle of explaining the concept of federation to people who have little interest in technology.

And that's if, hypothetically speaking, Mastodon was as easy to use.

It's not happening. Also, if it's anything like here, the non stop Linuxposting would probably annoy people.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago

Same discussion in every single post on either Mastodon or Bluesky.

load more comments
view more: next ›