- 0 Posts
- 6 Comments
Indefinite PTO.
Finally a sane comment with a reasonable argument and sources. I think people forget how slippery of a slope it is. There was another comment about where do we draw the line on works of art from over 100 years ago, should they all be destroyed to save children just because the current mindset of the day is different. It’s like destroying old statues from the American Civil War because they don’t align with today’s ideology. I could go on. That doesn’t even touch the fact that many of the people probably have old family photos that would meet the definition of CSAM. For example Google closed a persons account and reported him due to a twenty or thirty year old photo of his grandmother bathing him when he was a newborn. Meta also closed an account and reported a person for posting that famous photo of an unclothed girl running towards the camera that was shot during the Vietnam War. Just going to reiterate that it is still currently a messy situation that needs to be reevaluated. Over reporting makes it harder to find children in need and real bad actors. I blame the NCMEC for this, they have long since failed their mission to protect children.
That makes sense for a human reviewer of a photo or drawing, but when say Google or Meta have AI review photos or drawings, they caste a wider net. So all the examples above and what you gave would fall under the CSAM definition by their AI. Even that photo of the girl running from the Vietnam War was considered CSAM by Meta. Same has happened for family photos over the years as well as cartoons. In my opinion, it sounds good to do that on paper, but the reality is that calling everything like that as abusive makes it harder to find real victims and bad actors. The NCMEC is the clearing house for that, but they have been failing their objectives for years. Just my two cents.
These kinds of AI output should not be protected by anything like Section 230. It is their own words and they should not get a pass for what essentially amounts to libel. Google needs to be reeled in. The fines have been too small and the damage has been too great. This isn’t even the first time something like this has happened. They have made up claims like this against plenty of other people. Claiming that they get a pass because it is AI is just using the LLM, their own LLM, as a scapegoat.
Other examples https://www.theguardian.com/music/2026/may/05/canadian-ashley-macisaac-fiddler-musician-singer-songwriter-sues-google-ai-sex-offender-ntwnfb
https://londondaily.com/robby-starbuck-sues-google-after-its-ai-made-up-totally-fake-rape-and-crypto-fraud-claims-against-him-and-supported-it-by
Slightly different but related https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/08/googles-scans-private-photos-led-false-accusations-child-abuse