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.
Personally I’d say a person who shares intimate photos without consent is unloving and immature, and took advantage of someone who shared themselves intimately under the assumption of trust. I’d feel the same way about someone who shares sexual details about someone else with their ‘buds’. I suspect that happens all of the time however. Would you call them despicable too? Would you ban those on AI who have done such a thing (which is probably far more than 50%)?
It sounds like you’re saying that the mere fact that someone tells you they don’t agree with you is reason to deliver a ‘swift ban’. I hope that’s not the case, but if it is that’s unfortunately unsurprising given the pretty obvious left-leaning coverage that has been on AI, and that is a common mindset on the left (i.e. political correctness as it is today is a product of the left and is meant to guilt or strong-arm those who disagree into silence).
You're suffering from some form of confirmation bias if you think that the AI staff is all "left-leaning." Slow your roll, and ease up on your wide brushes and indignation with somebody who may disagree with you politically.
AppleInsider-issued bans have never been about disagreement. They have always 100% been about violating the forum rules -- and nowhere in there is a political bent clause. There are several "don't be a jerk" clauses, though, and I'm sure that posting revenge porn in our forums violates at least one of our forum rules.
Yes, but georgie was responding to Neil’s comment that he would swiftly ban anyone who said they disagreed with his assessment of the story topic. That seems a bit much.
Fully aware -- but I also have no problems with a pre-emptive ban of somebody who says that revenge porn uploading is okay. Somebody getting uptight about that position because of some BS "left political correctness" is nuts.
Ok then banning is not “100% about violating the forum rules”, it can also be for other reasons. Not disagreeing with that, but pointing out the contradictory messages in even these last few posts on what is bannable. As users of a discussion forum, I think there’s a lot of value and importance in knowing, exactly, what’s what. The forum rules attempt to do this, but the interjection that other non-forum-rules things can result in bans too makes the ground a little less steady. Sure we can all agree revenge porn is bad, but now I know it’s possible disagreeing with the writers on other topics can result in bans.
You've got to be kidding me with this interpretation.
I'm done with this conversation in this thread, as it is no longer germane and has veered way off into crazytown. If you want to genuinely have it -- and I'm not sure you actually do, based on your last comment -- contact me in PM.
What I find odd about this, is that the non-blocked language and bickering on AI seems no different than on HuffingtonPost or MacRumors are anywhere people argue about things. I'm not sure how Google's advertising department would have an issue with AI but not the rest of the entire internet.
Google isn’t exactly known for their lack of bias. They dictate social acceptance just as much as any of the 6 (soon to be 5) media outlets which create all the news in the United States.
A country is not only what it does, but what it tolerates. – Kurt Tucholsky
It’s no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society. – Jiddu Krishnamurti
Societies are far gone in depravity when toleration is considered a good in itself, without regard to the thing tolerated. – A. K. Chesterton
There are lots of people who aren’t paranoid…
No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you can imagine. – William Blum, computer analyst at US DoD
don’t have an inflated sense of importance
Decadence in modern mass multicultural societies begins at a moment when there is no longer any discernible meaning within society. Meaning is destroyed by raising individualism above all other values because rampant individualism encourages the anarchical proliferation of egotism at the expense of the values that were once part of the national heritage, values that give form to the concept of nationhood and the nation state, to a state which is more than just a political entity, and which corresponds to a particular people who are conscious of sharing a common heritage for the survival of which they are prepared to make personal sacrifices. Man evolved in cooperating groups united by common cultural and genetic ties, and it is only in such a setting that the individual can feel truly free, and truly protected. Men cannot live happily alone and without values or any sense of identity: such a situation leads to nihilism, drug abuse, criminality, and worse. With the spread of purely egotistic goals at the expense of the altruistic regard for family and nation, the individual begins to talk of his rights rather than his duties, for he no longer feels any sense of destiny, of belonging to and being a part of a greater and more enduring entity. He no longer rejoices in the secure belief that he shares in a heritage which it is part of his common duty to protect - he no longer feels that he has anything in common with those around him. In short, he feels lonely and oppressed. Since all values have become strictly personal, everything is now equal to everything; e.g., nothing equals nothing. – Alain de Benoist
The exact opposite is true of your claims. The society that says “don’t give a fuck” about WHORING YOURSELF OUT IN PUBLIC is the one with an inflated sense of importance. How broken must your worldview be to look down on people who have a sense of privacy and respect the sanctity of their bodies? My stars.
Righteous nonsense. A lot of words, but very little said.
Further, your righteousness blinds to what I said. I didn't say you shouldn't value your privacy, I said who are you to judge those that don't care if their photos are online? We aren't all paranoids with an over-inflated sense of self-worth that leads us to preach asinine righteousness regarding online images. Facebook has my images and I don't care. It will make absolutely no difference to anything, both during my lifetime or after I'm dead. It's about as noteworthy as going to the archives and reading obituaries from a newspaper printed 100 years ago. Doesn't matter.
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.
Personally I’d say a person who shares intimate photos without consent is unloving and immature, and took advantage of someone who shared themselves intimately under the assumption of trust. I’d feel the same way about someone who shares sexual details about someone else with their ‘buds’. I suspect that happens all of the time however. Would you call them despicable too? Would you ban those on AI who have done such a thing (which is probably far more than 50%)?
It sounds like you’re saying that the mere fact that someone tells you they don’t agree with you is reason to deliver a ‘swift ban’. I hope that’s not the case, but if it is that’s unfortunately unsurprising given the pretty obvious left-leaning coverage that has been on AI, and that is a common mindset on the left (i.e. political correctness as it is today is a product of the left and is meant to guilt or strong-arm those who disagree into silence).
You're suffering from some form of confirmation bias if you think that the AI staff is all "left-leaning." Slow your roll, and ease up on your wide brushes and indignation with somebody who may disagree with you politically.
AppleInsider-issued bans have never been about disagreement. They have always 100% been about violating the forum rules -- and nowhere in there is a political bent clause. There are several "don't be a jerk" clauses, though, and I'm sure that posting revenge porn in our forums violates at least one of our forum rules.
Yes, but georgie was responding to Neil’s comment that he would swiftly ban anyone who said they disagreed with his assessment of the story topic. That seems a bit much.
Fully aware -- but I also have no problems with a pre-emptive ban of somebody who says that revenge porn uploading is okay. Somebody getting uptight about that position because of some BS "left political correctness" is nuts.
Ok then banning is not “100% about violating the forum rules”, it can also be for other reasons. Not disagreeing with that, but pointing out the contradictory messages in even these last few posts on what is bannable. As users of a discussion forum, I think there’s a lot of value and importance in knowing, exactly, what’s what. The forum rules attempt to do this, but the interjection that other non-forum-rules things can result in bans too makes the ground a little less steady. Sure we can all agree revenge porn is bad, but now I know it’s possible disagreeing with the writers on other topics can result in bans.
You've got to be kidding me with this interpretation.
I'm done with this conversation in this thread, as it is no longer germane and has veered way off into crazytown. If you want to genuinely have it -- and I'm not sure you actually do, based on your last comment -- contact me in PM.
What? Sorry but I don't understand your confusion. In one breath you said bans are 100% due to violating posted forum rules, and in another you said you will also ban if people disagree on a topic (in this case, revenge porn, which obviously we likely all agree on). So it the contradiction in these two messages is clear. To me, as forum user, it provides value to know when & what can result in a ban. As we've identified, it's not just 100% due to violating posted forum rules, by your own statement. That's fine. It's just good to know.
There's nothing crazy about that. As a tech writer I'd think the value of understanding the nuances of these rules would be clear.
That phrase should be required by law to appear with every display of the FB Logo as the FB tagline. I've seen that phrase used so many times around the 'net regarding this idea.
"It would be like sending yourself your image in email, but obviously this is a much safer, secure end-to-end way of sending the image without sending through the ether," Inman Grant said.
Something sounds really off with their descriptions. That statement sounds like it's just an electronic filter, in other articles it says they will have people looking at the photos:
"a “specially trained representative from [Facebook’s] Community Operations team” does need to first review the image before hashing it. Once the image has been hashed, Facebook notifies the person who submitted the photo and asks them to delete the photo from Messenger. At that point, Facebook will delete the image from its servers."
I wonder if that trained rep is Zuckerberg.
They got the suggestion to do the hashing locally i.e convert the photo into a hash on the local device which keeps the images safe and just sends the hash to Facebook and their reply was basically nope, we want to look at the nudes:
"Stamos responded to the idea to calculate the hash locally, saying “photo fingerprinting algorithms are usually not included in clients to prevent the development of circumvention techniques” and “humans need to review to prevent adversarial reporting.”"
While someone could circumvent the hashing, they'd have to first generate a hash from each original image and modify the image enough so that the modified hash didn't match but they wouldn't have any idea how the matching algorithms worked and they'd do this anyway if they were determined enough. If people try to censor images that aren't nudes but are popular images, that can be flagged and reviewed easily and they can block that person from being able to use the filter.
They could also auto-detect any nudity and hold the pictures for review. They can do face detection against other Facebook users and let them know that a user has tried to upload an image of them and let them investigate or if it's a hacked account, ask for confirmation that they uploaded sensitive images. The review period allows them to get law enforcement involved.
Comments
Further, your righteousness blinds to what I said. I didn't say you shouldn't value your privacy, I said who are you to judge those that don't care if their photos are online? We aren't all paranoids with an over-inflated sense of self-worth that leads us to preach asinine righteousness regarding online images. Facebook has my images and I don't care. It will make absolutely no difference to anything, both during my lifetime or after I'm dead. It's about as noteworthy as going to the archives and reading obituaries from a newspaper printed 100 years ago. Doesn't matter.
There's nothing crazy about that. As a tech writer I'd think the value of understanding the nuances of these rules would be clear.
It says it all.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/09/facebook-revenge-porn-pilot-details/
"a “specially trained representative from [Facebook’s] Community Operations team” does need to first review the image before hashing it. Once the image has been hashed, Facebook notifies the person who submitted the photo and asks them to delete the photo from Messenger. At that point, Facebook will delete the image from its servers."
I wonder if that trained rep is Zuckerberg.
They got the suggestion to do the hashing locally i.e convert the photo into a hash on the local device which keeps the images safe and just sends the hash to Facebook and their reply was basically nope, we want to look at the nudes:
"Stamos responded to the idea to calculate the hash locally, saying “photo fingerprinting algorithms are usually not included in clients to prevent the development of circumvention techniques” and “humans need to review to prevent adversarial reporting.”"
While someone could circumvent the hashing, they'd have to first generate a hash from each original image and modify the image enough so that the modified hash didn't match but they wouldn't have any idea how the matching algorithms worked and they'd do this anyway if they were determined enough. If people try to censor images that aren't nudes but are popular images, that can be flagged and reviewed easily and they can block that person from being able to use the filter.
They could also auto-detect any nudity and hold the pictures for review. They can do face detection against other Facebook users and let them know that a user has tried to upload an image of them and let them investigate or if it's a hacked account, ask for confirmation that they uploaded sensitive images. The review period allows them to get law enforcement involved.