Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Commenters have repeatedly shown that they cannot behave or be respectful toward one another or the site when the topic is a hot button political issue. Rather than constantly policing it, we decided to shut down comments on those stories. The comments degrade the quality of the site (we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments), and it is not worth our time. There are plenty of other forums to discuss these matters, including Twitter. It's our house, those are our rules.
As for this story, I think it's pretty clear that anyone who would post "revenge porn" to hurt someone else is a despicable human being. Anyone here who disagrees with that basic assessment can feel free to let me know and get a swift ban.
I think abusing your power is despicable. I research gender inequality daily and see men treated like sh** in public, in law, in relationships, online, everywhere. I see comments like yours where it’s only bad because the “victim” is a female who did something first to hurt a man.
I won’t disclose my gender but it’s not fair to attack one gender while giving a pass to the other for whatever reason.
I'm not really sure what this comment is about, as I didn't even specify a gender in my comment, yet you seem to be accusing me of saying otherwise.
I did, however, specify a gender in the story, simply noting that younger women under the age of 30 are by far the most likely to be victims of "revenge porn." That's a fact backed by statistics.
In no way did I ever, at any point, suggest that "revenge porn" is somehow less of a crime if a woman were to do it to a man. Not sure where you got that idea.
Don’t sweat it Neil. This is today’s internet where many can not be bothered to read an entire article or response without trying desperately to read between the lines and then start to shoot from the hip. How many times have we seen the words “fanboy” or “hater” pop up in these forums?
WOW indeed. Surely, if the AI is smart enough to recognise naked t*ts or *ss for example, then should it not automatically block that content? They don't need to verify WHO the person was surely.
I don't get the whole sexting thing. Surely young people these days are clued up on how the internet works and putting something online is pretty much irreversible, regardless of where and to whom they sent it, and whether or not it was "meant to be private", as if there is such a thing.
Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Commenters have repeatedly shown that they cannot behave or be respectful toward one another or the site when the topic is a hot button political issue. Rather than constantly policing it, we decided to shut down comments on those stories. The comments degrade the quality of the site (we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments), and it is not worth our time.
Can you shed light on this Google warning? I’m a developer but I can’t think of what sort of warning Google would send your site, especially considering the type of political bickering is generally pretty tame and doesn’t contain graphic images of beheadings or whatnot. Surely the bickering is no different than on popular news sites all over the web, including other leading Apple rumor sites?
House-rules is fine, but I’m interested in what the Google concern is.
(we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments)
I understand fully, from a business perspective, why AI’s decision on this matter has occurred. I ask you (and others) personally, though: WHO THE FUCK IS GOOGLE TO SAY WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DISCUSS? Google is the arbiter of speech itself, with powers far beyond that of any government (yet dictated to them, in part, thereby). This is beyond reproach.
I wasn't involved in the receipt of the warning, but our developer mentioned it here:
You wouldn't believe the number of emails and tweets we receive from people who are outraged (usually incorrectly saying something about us stifling free speech) when they see that we have turned off comments on a political article. I think these people have some sort of vision of AppleInsider as being owned by a mega corporation, with a big headquarters and a huge staff and tens of millions of dollars backing us. That's just not the case.
The truth is, we have a small staff, we do the best we can, and we can't spend our time policing the forums. That's really all there is to it — no agenda and no conspiracy at play.
The forums were well moderated years ago...by members with moderator privileges. What you've done now is stifle discussion. And while I'm sure the staff is small, AI is indeed acting like a corporate conglomerate. "Corporate" is the perfect word. There was a time that the only things ever taken down were the result of Cease and Desist letters from Apple. Now Google sends you a nasty e-mail and you delete an entire forum with hundreds of thousands of replies.
Your error is assuming that it was "a" nasty email from google about forum-goer language and submissions -- mostly from regulars. You're off by several orders of magnitude on the quantity of complaints.
The letter cited was just the one that finally tipped the balance.
Not a Facebook fan. I seem to remember that the EULA for Facebook was that pictures posted to the site became their Intellectual Property. Do not know if that ever changed or is enforceable, but might that mean the pix would be the IP of Zuckerberg and Company.
I think the best answer to revenge porn is to not have it exist in the first place. Keep your bedroom activities in your bedroom (or your partner’s) and off of the camera.
Maybe that makes me a dinosaur, but the very thought of letting a Significant Other hold intimate photos just screams don’t do it.
Oh how nice. We can post comments here but the one yesterday on the locked phone for the Texas shooter was closed because it was too political. Porn is more appropriate than politics I guess.
Commenters have repeatedly shown that they cannot behave or be respectful toward one another or the site when the topic is a hot button political issue. Rather than constantly policing it, we decided to shut down comments on those stories. The comments degrade the quality of the site (we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments), and it is not worth our time.
Can you shed light on this Google warning? I’m a developer but I can’t think of what sort of warning Google would send your site, especially considering the type of political bickering is generally pretty tame and doesn’t contain graphic images of beheadings or whatnot. Surely the bickering is no different than on popular news sites all over the web, including other leading Apple rumor sites?
House-rules is fine, but I’m interested in what the Google concern is.
(we actually got a warning from Google regarding offensive content in the comments)
I understand fully, from a business perspective, why AI’s decision on this matter has occurred. I ask you (and others) personally, though: WHO THE FUCK IS GOOGLE TO SAY WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DISCUSS? Google is the arbiter of speech itself, with powers far beyond that of any government (yet dictated to them, in part, thereby). This is beyond reproach.
I wasn't involved in the receipt of the warning, but our developer mentioned it here:
You wouldn't believe the number of emails and tweets we receive from people who are outraged (usually incorrectly saying something about us stifling free speech) when they see that we have turned off comments on a political article. I think these people have some sort of vision of AppleInsider as being owned by a mega corporation, with a big headquarters and a huge staff and tens of millions of dollars backing us. That's just not the case.
The truth is, we have a small staff, we do the best we can, and we can't spend our time policing the forums. That's really all there is to it — no agenda and no conspiracy at play.
I'm with Neil here!
I was an AI mod for a while and it's a lot of work. You have to moderate threads with a lot of posts -- many of which are of no interest to you. It is difficult to be objective and not let your personal biases influence your actions.
There are lots of ways to troll these forums. IMO, two of the worst ways:
muddy the waters
hijack the thread
As to the latter, there was a poster who would post many posts to a thread denigrating Apple, Tim Cook, whatever... This poster began to do this on one thread, and I replied to his latest post as a mod: You are warned @xxxxx -- I'm not going to let you hijack this thread. Whoa, did I get called to task by other members for being heavy-handed, over-bearing -- stifling discussion, etc.
Anyway, after a while I found that being a AI mod was taking up too much of my time and asked to be removed as a mod.
What could possible go wrong with this whole idea.
Simple solution, girls do not let guys take pictures of you, all guys are idiots and their small head lacks any conscious. From day one of my kids of getting on the internet, I told them never let other people take pictures of them. I told them if they with people doing things they probably should not do and someone pulls out a camera get the hell out of there. I drove into them nothing good comes of pictures of doing things problem should not be doing. I told them as kid I did lots of things I should not have but no one had any pictures so it never happen.
Also revenge porn does not work if you do not care if other people see you. Blackmail only works if you care what others think and the other person knows you care.
Yeah, sending nudes to Facebook makes tons of sense. I mean, seriously. I'm not exactly a privacy freak, but you want to send naked pictures of yourself to a media giant? This might be the single dumbest idea ever in technology.
Did you not read my comments? This can be accomplished by generating the signature on the client side. It is extremely easy to monitor the traffic and make sure that the image data doesn't go to Facebook. Read up on crypto hashes if you still don't get it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function
Yeah, sending nudes to Facebook makes tons of sense. I mean, seriously. I'm not exactly a privacy freak, but you want to send naked pictures of yourself to a media giant? This might be the single dumbest idea ever in technology.
Did you not read my comments? This can be accomplished by generating the signature on the client side. It is extremely easy to monitor the traffic and make sure that the image data doesn't go to Facebook. Read up on crypto hashes if you still don't get it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function
Is Facebook talking about generating it on the client-side? Why would you trust them to do it as claimed? How many times have we seen software makers say "the data was transmitted to us by the app erroneously"...?
Packet-sniffing. If they sent the image to the servers, it would be as obvious as trying to cram a telephone book through a mail slot.
btw, I'm just saying it *could* work that way. That's how I would design it. But w/r/t messages being sent *via* Facebook Messenger, the thing is people are already sending them. The only difference between what's already going on and what they're proposing is that now images would have some sort of privacy flag.
Obviously I have no idea how they're designing this system, but one would expect that a company that has some of the best programmers money can buy wouldn't do it stupidly. And what I'm trying to get at is, what makes this functional isn't storing a ton of images, it's cryptographic hashes.
2004
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
maestro64 said: Simple solution, girls do not let guys take pictures of you
Girls, do not take pictures of yourselves, either.
Also revenge porn does not work if you do not care if other people see you.
You’re right about everything in your post; I’d just like to add that you should care. That’s what should prevent you from having the pictures in the first place.
I don't get the whole sexting thing. Surely young people these days are clued up on how the internet works and putting something online is pretty much irreversible, regardless of where and to whom they sent it, and whether or not it was "meant to be private", as if there is such a thing.
At the same time that people (young or otherwise) use technology every hour of every day and consider themselves to be so sophisticated about technology, they're actually not. If they were, they would understand that stealing content on the web and/or posting content that isn't yours is no different than shoplifting. But they don't. They believe that if it's virtual, it has no value. That's a clear lack of sophistication about technology.
Likewise, they're actually quite stupid about sexting and other such behavior because they don't think about tomorrow and the future ramifications in regards to college, employment, future relationships, family, etc. Some scientists believe that this risky behavior is because young brains aren't fully developed, but I know 10-year-olds who are incredibly responsible, so I think it's just people who were never properly taught responsibility and common sense.
(Although far fewer people smoke in the U.S. than they used to, there's still an incredible number of people, especially young women, who smoke. Even aside from the substantial health risks (how stupid do you have to be?), in NYC, cigarettes cost $13 a pack. Smoke two packs a day and that's $9500 a year!)
Similarly, there seems to be an awful lot of people who are wiling to participate in sex videos that get posted online. I don't criticize young people for having sex, but why would anyone think it's a good idea to do so publicly? Don't these people have family, friends, co-workers, bosses, etc?
How about start with educating children, youth, and adults alike to not take nude pics and share it digitally which can be duplicated into millions instead of being collected by social media company which may or may not be able to guarantee 100% that it can’t be hacked.
Im just doing crazy talk... educations people never ever worked.
Besides, you can’t fix stupid. Even with duck tape.
Comments
This is today’s internet where many can not be bothered to read an entire article or response without trying desperately to read between the lines and then start to shoot from the hip.
How many times have we seen the words “fanboy” or “hater” pop up in these forums?
But this has the potential to take that to a whole new level.
Perhaps we will see some kind of AI-generated amateur porn site coming from a FB subsidiary?
The gross stupidity just amazes.
The letter cited was just the one that finally tipped the balance.
I think the best answer to revenge porn is to not have it exist in the first place. Keep your bedroom activities in your bedroom (or your partner’s) and off of the camera.
Maybe that makes me a dinosaur, but the very thought of letting a Significant Other hold intimate photos just screams don’t do it.
I was an AI mod for a while and it's a lot of work. You have to moderate threads with a lot of posts -- many of which are of no interest to you. It is difficult to be objective and not let your personal biases influence your actions.
There are lots of ways to troll these forums. IMO, two of the worst ways:
As to the latter, there was a poster who would post many posts to a thread denigrating Apple, Tim Cook, whatever... This poster began to do this on one thread, and I replied to his latest post as a mod: You are warned @xxxxx -- I'm not going to let you hijack this thread. Whoa, did I get called to task by other members for being heavy-handed, over-bearing -- stifling discussion, etc.
Anyway, after a while I found that being a AI mod was taking up too much of my time and asked to be removed as a mod.
I enjoy AI much more now!
What could possible go wrong with this whole idea.
Simple solution, girls do not let guys take pictures of you, all guys are idiots and their small head lacks any conscious. From day one of my kids of getting on the internet, I told them never let other people take pictures of them. I told them if they with people doing things they probably should not do and someone pulls out a camera get the hell out of there. I drove into them nothing good comes of pictures of doing things problem should not be doing. I told them as kid I did lots of things I should not have but no one had any pictures so it never happen.
Also revenge porn does not work if you do not care if other people see you. Blackmail only works if you care what others think and the other person knows you care.
btw, I'm just saying it *could* work that way. That's how I would design it. But w/r/t messages being sent *via* Facebook Messenger, the thing is people are already sending them. The only difference between what's already going on and what they're proposing is that now images would have some sort of privacy flag.
Obviously I have no idea how they're designing this system, but one would expect that a company that has some of the best programmers money can buy wouldn't do it stupidly. And what I'm trying to get at is, what makes this functional isn't storing a ton of images, it's cryptographic hashes.
Why would anyone send images of themselves in the nude, if the head of the sodding company doesn't even trust his laptop?
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
You’re right about everything in your post; I’d just like to add that you should care. That’s what should prevent you from having the pictures in the first place.
Likewise, they're actually quite stupid about sexting and other such behavior because they don't think about tomorrow and the future ramifications in regards to college, employment, future relationships, family, etc. Some scientists believe that this risky behavior is because young brains aren't fully developed, but I know 10-year-olds who are incredibly responsible, so I think it's just people who were never properly taught responsibility and common sense.
(Although far fewer people smoke in the U.S. than they used to, there's still an incredible number of people, especially young women, who smoke. Even aside from the substantial health risks (how stupid do you have to be?), in NYC, cigarettes cost $13 a pack. Smoke two packs a day and that's $9500 a year!)
Similarly, there seems to be an awful lot of people who are wiling to participate in sex videos that get posted online. I don't criticize young people for having sex, but why would anyone think it's a good idea to do so publicly? Don't these people have family, friends, co-workers, bosses, etc?
And be of course, women can’t wait to upload their nude pics to Facebook, right?
At least the exhibitionist will be quite pleased.
Oh, what could possible go wrong...
Im just doing crazy talk... educations people never ever worked.
Besides, you can’t fix stupid. Even with duck tape.