3 ms·

Twitter Now Showing Ads for Nonconsensual 'AI Undress' Apps

15 points by arkadiyt 3y ago

hypnoosi 3y ago
These types of applications can be easily found through a simple Google search, it raises questions about the broader internet ecosystem's responsibility in hosting, promoting, or allowing access to such content. It's not just a Twitter-specific issue but a wider internet governance challenge... this article is yet-another-click-bait in the theme of "bashing Elon".
- halJordan 3y ago
  I hate to reduce everything down to one soundbite, but i think you're right it's a governance issue. So is the FISA issue, so are the many data breaches. So to reduce it all down to a single issue i could imagine a strong affirmative privacy law addressing all these issues at once
- oarsinsync 3y ago
  If they’re being found as sponsored search results through a Google search, then the comparison is apt - both Google and Twitter are being paid directly to promote these things. If it’s being found through organic search results, that then takes us down the road of wanting Google to censor things, and what is the arbiter of that stuff, which is a much more complex topic, and not comparable to Twitter getting paid to promote it. I don’t know which it is, and I don’t want that in my search history, so I’m not going to do that particular bit of research for myself
- thot_experiment 3y ago
  I think there's a big difference between serving an ad for it and searching for it. Isn't that what's at issue? AI inpainting has been around for a while and it's not going away. This has been trivially possible with opens source software on decade old consumer hardware for about a year now, much older hardware if you're patient. I just don't see what sort of governance can be realistically put in place to police the creation of such media, and we already have laws against disseminating it.
Ekaros 3y ago
So should each ad go through some sort of government appointed board that will evaluate is the product acceptable or is the advertisement itself acceptable?
- seo-speedwagon 3y ago
  Did I miss in the article where that was suggested?
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    It did not suggest that. But it did not do anything else than usual complaining. Present solution, if this ad is not acceptable there must be some absolutely clear solutions to decide what is and what is not and you should suggest a robust scalable system to apply that. It is most basic thing to expect in civil conversation. And I think maybe similar board should be applied to these sort of articles too.
    - seo-speedwagon 3y ago
      The article pointed out other platforms have at least attempted to block searching for such things on their platform (and presumably don’t allow ads for such products as well). Not sure why one would need some sort of universal content adjudication solution before taking action against obviously abusive content? The example ad in the article literally illustrated using the product to harass someone. This is like the lowest of low hanging fruit.
      - Ekaros 3y ago
        Who decides what is obviously abusive content? Who is the adjudicator? Should that not be the first question to make clear?
        verdverm 3y ago
        Twitter is a private organization, and like all private companies, they get to decide for themselves what is acceptable on their platform. Individuals also decide what they find acceptable and choose to be on a platform or not. Twitter is free to have such ads if they like and the journalist is free to report on what kind of content they find on Twitter. It helps more people know and decide if they want to stay on Twitter. I've left because of the content problem, generally, not just ads. Elon gutted the moderation team and went with a sorta free speech absolutism. The fallout from that decision is increase spam, hate speech, and toxicity. The good people and advertisers are in an exodus.
rsynnott 3y ago
Running out of depths to plumb, advertising-wise, really. But there’s one more step. Give it a month, and all the ads will be for ElonFans.

15 points by arkadiyt 3y ago

These types of applications can be easily found through a simple Google search, it raises questions about the broader internet ecosystem's responsibility in hosting, promoting, or allowing access to such content. It's not just a Twitter-specific issue but a wider internet governance challenge... this article is yet-another-click-bait in the theme of "bashing Elon".

halJordan 3y ago
I hate to reduce everything down to one soundbite, but i think you're right it's a governance issue. So is the FISA issue, so are the many data breaches. So to reduce it all down to a single issue i could imagine a strong affirmative privacy law addressing all these issues at once
oarsinsync 3y ago
If they’re being found as sponsored search results through a Google search, then the comparison is apt - both Google and Twitter are being paid directly to promote these things. If it’s being found through organic search results, that then takes us down the road of wanting Google to censor things, and what is the arbiter of that stuff, which is a much more complex topic, and not comparable to Twitter getting paid to promote it. I don’t know which it is, and I don’t want that in my search history, so I’m not going to do that particular bit of research for myself
thot_experiment 3y ago
I think there's a big difference between serving an ad for it and searching for it. Isn't that what's at issue? AI inpainting has been around for a while and it's not going away. This has been trivially possible with opens source software on decade old consumer hardware for about a year now, much older hardware if you're patient. I just don't see what sort of governance can be realistically put in place to police the creation of such media, and we already have laws against disseminating it.

Ekaros 3y ago

So should each ad go through some sort of government appointed board that will evaluate is the product acceptable or is the advertisement itself acceptable?

seo-speedwagon 3y ago
Did I miss in the article where that was suggested?
- Ekaros 3y ago
  It did not suggest that. But it did not do anything else than usual complaining. Present solution, if this ad is not acceptable there must be some absolutely clear solutions to decide what is and what is not and you should suggest a robust scalable system to apply that. It is most basic thing to expect in civil conversation. And I think maybe similar board should be applied to these sort of articles too.
  - seo-speedwagon 3y ago
    The article pointed out other platforms have at least attempted to block searching for such things on their platform (and presumably don’t allow ads for such products as well). Not sure why one would need some sort of universal content adjudication solution before taking action against obviously abusive content? The example ad in the article literally illustrated using the product to harass someone. This is like the lowest of low hanging fruit.
    - Ekaros 3y ago
      Who decides what is obviously abusive content? Who is the adjudicator? Should that not be the first question to make clear?
      - verdverm 3y ago
        Twitter is a private organization, and like all private companies, they get to decide for themselves what is acceptable on their platform. Individuals also decide what they find acceptable and choose to be on a platform or not. Twitter is free to have such ads if they like and the journalist is free to report on what kind of content they find on Twitter. It helps more people know and decide if they want to stay on Twitter. I've left because of the content problem, generally, not just ads. Elon gutted the moderation team and went with a sorta free speech absolutism. The fallout from that decision is increase spam, hate speech, and toxicity. The good people and advertisers are in an exodus.

rsynnott 3y ago

Running out of depths to plumb, advertising-wise, really. But there’s one more step. Give it a month, and all the ads will be for ElonFans.