5 ms·

Now if only they would make one that detected violent and hateful content. You know, things people should actually be concerned about children seeing.

pa7 16y ago
you're right but how would you define violent and hateful content? it's not easy. ok, somebody could build a neural network and train it with typical violent content, but violence has too many types
- netcan 16y ago
  Do you think there is any other type of potentially offensive content that could be filtered in this way?
- nailer 16y ago
  > you're right but how would you define violent and hateful content? For one subset of violence, gore pictures, you could identify body parts (already solved) then look for what appears to be wounds using color changes and edges. That's of course one small part of the concept of violence - you're totally correct in stating this is difficult. Also hateful is more objective/political so I don't think we have much chance there.
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  How do you define pornographic content? It's not easy, and this thing doesn't even do it well or cleverly. It just looks for large amounts of flesh. We've had systems that do this since the 90s. This doesn't seem to solve any of the flaws that were present in those older systems, it's only news because somebody coded it up in a popular language. I would wager it would be rather easy to make a system that detects bloody gore at a higher accuracy rate than this crap. Of course I have little interest in aiding any sort of censorship, so you won't see me attempting it.
sliverstorm 16y ago
It's just a sample reason, nobody says it's the only use case. What if you run library computers or an internet cafe, and don't want customers browsing porn on your machines? (ethics be damned, they are your machines, you make the rules!)
- burgerbrain 16y ago
  >What if you run library computers or an internet cafe, and don't want customers browsing kittens on your machines? (ethics be damned, they are your machines, you make the rules!) I'm not seeing either statement as more legitimate than the other. We all know porn is being singled about because of an absurd prudish attitude the west has towards nudity.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >We all know porn is being singled about because of an absurd prudish attitude the west has towards nudity. So you don't mind people jerking off whilst you're trying to enjoy a coffee and a cake or get a book in the library with your kids? I mind, call that absurd if you like. It's not nudity that is the problem in public spaces like libraries it's use of pornography. A simple way to avoid most masturbatory use of such spaces is to prevent people from being able to view pictures of other people who are naked. Even if it were prudishness, then what right do you have to dictate to the "prudish" what their attitude to nudity or sexual imagery in public spaces should be?
    - burgerbrain 16y ago
      >So you don't mind people jerking off whilst you're trying to enjoy a coffee and a cake or get a book in the library with your kids? We have public indecency laws to cover that. There's no reason to place further restrictions.
      - brc 16y ago
        That's ridiculous. Stopping the images being viewed is much, much easier than calling the police on a public nuisance. There are laws against car theft as well, but it's much easier to lock the car and set an alarm.
confuzatron 16y ago
I'm hoping someone will implement tiresomelyRightOn.js.
ben0x539 16y ago
I do not know, I see a more profitable or popular use case for a porn detector than for a violence filter.

pa7 16y ago

you're right but how would you define violent and hateful content? it's not easy. ok, somebody could build a neural network and train it with typical violent content, but violence has too many types

netcan 16y ago
Do you think there is any other type of potentially offensive content that could be filtered in this way?
nailer 16y ago
> you're right but how would you define violent and hateful content? For one subset of violence, gore pictures, you could identify body parts (already solved) then look for what appears to be wounds using color changes and edges. That's of course one small part of the concept of violence - you're totally correct in stating this is difficult. Also hateful is more objective/political so I don't think we have much chance there.
burgerbrain 16y ago
How do you define pornographic content? It's not easy, and this thing doesn't even do it well or cleverly. It just looks for large amounts of flesh. We've had systems that do this since the 90s. This doesn't seem to solve any of the flaws that were present in those older systems, it's only news because somebody coded it up in a popular language. I would wager it would be rather easy to make a system that detects bloody gore at a higher accuracy rate than this crap. Of course I have little interest in aiding any sort of censorship, so you won't see me attempting it.

sliverstorm 16y ago

It's just a sample reason, nobody says it's the only use case. What if you run library computers or an internet cafe, and don't want customers browsing porn on your machines? (ethics be damned, they are your machines, you make the rules!)

burgerbrain 16y ago
>What if you run library computers or an internet cafe, and don't want customers browsing kittens on your machines? (ethics be damned, they are your machines, you make the rules!) I'm not seeing either statement as more legitimate than the other. We all know porn is being singled about because of an absurd prudish attitude the west has towards nudity.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >We all know porn is being singled about because of an absurd prudish attitude the west has towards nudity. So you don't mind people jerking off whilst you're trying to enjoy a coffee and a cake or get a book in the library with your kids? I mind, call that absurd if you like. It's not nudity that is the problem in public spaces like libraries it's use of pornography. A simple way to avoid most masturbatory use of such spaces is to prevent people from being able to view pictures of other people who are naked. Even if it were prudishness, then what right do you have to dictate to the "prudish" what their attitude to nudity or sexual imagery in public spaces should be?
  - burgerbrain 16y ago
    >So you don't mind people jerking off whilst you're trying to enjoy a coffee and a cake or get a book in the library with your kids? We have public indecency laws to cover that. There's no reason to place further restrictions.
    - brc 16y ago
      That's ridiculous. Stopping the images being viewed is much, much easier than calling the police on a public nuisance. There are laws against car theft as well, but it's much easier to lock the car and set an alarm.

confuzatron 16y ago

I'm hoping someone will implement tiresomelyRightOn.js.

ben0x539 16y ago

I do not know, I see a more profitable or popular use case for a porn detector than for a violence filter.