this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
597 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

63277 readers
4110 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
[–] disconnectikacio@lemmy.world 1 points 39 minutes ago

Bluesky will become just the same az elonx...

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 15 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (5 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.

[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago

I miss the early days of the internet when it was still a wild west.

Something like I hate you myg0t 2 or Pico's School would have gotten the creators cancelled if released in 2025.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

You do remember snuff and goatse and csam of the early internet, I hope.

Even with that of course it was better, because that stuff still floats around, and small groups of enjoyers easily find ways to share it over mainstream platforms.

I'm not even talking about big groups of enjoyers, ISIS (rebranded sometimes), Turkey, Azerbaijan, Israel, Myanma's regime, cartels and everyone share what they want of snuff genre, and it holds long enough.

In text communication their points of view are also less likely to be banned or suppressed than mine.

So yes.

Yet the forward-thinking people of today know better and insist that with their brave, new moderation they’ll paternalize better

They don't think so, just use the opportunity to do this stuff in area where immunity against it is not yet established.

There are very few stupid people in positions of power, competition is a bitch.

[–] noli@lemm.ee 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

You need some kind of moderation for user generated content, even if it’s only to comply with takedowns related to law (and I’m not talking about DMCA).

[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

Fuck it is & has always been a better answer

Sure. Unless you live in a place that have laws and laws enforcement. In that case, it's "fuck it and get burnt down".

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours 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 3 hours 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 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours 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 11 points 7 hours ago

Bluesky is BS

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)
[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 1 points 41 minutes ago
[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It's just premusk twitter at this point.

I mean, given that Jack Dorsey founded it as basically the "not Twitter Twitter" after musk bought the main one, I don't think it's surprising to see it face basically the same moderation issues in the name of being "even-handed"

[–] b3an@lemmy.world 31 points 10 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 🤣

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 2 points 5 hours ago

I don’t want to watch this video please

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world 234 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (24 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.

[–] GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Holy shit. A reasonable take from someone who clearly leaves the house.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 27 points 11 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 10 points 8 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›