4 ms·

How do you even come up with a conclusion like that?

bigfatkitten 2y ago
That would be a good question for Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Stanford Internet Observatory, the Wall Street Journal and numerous other organisations who have written at length about the problem. https://archive.is/ter4Y https://archive.is/ter4Y https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/07/meta-instagram-self-generated-child-sexual-abuse-materials https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/07/meta-inst... Their findings mirror my own experience. I've got a throwaway account that has no friends, and follows no groups. In the absence of anything else to go on as to my preferences, the "algorithm" fills my feed mainly with flat earth theories, anti transgender content and child sexual exploitation. When I report the latter, around 90% of the time I receive a response that says: We didn't remove this post To keep our review process as fair as possible, we use the same set of Community Standards to review all reports. We've taken a look and found that this content doesn't go against our Community Standards. We understand that this might be upsetting and so we recommend exploring the options available to control what you see. You can also request a review within 180 days if you disagree with the decision to not take this down.
- loeg 2y ago
  Your references do not support your claim that Facebook allows CSAM unchecked. It is certainly true that it struggles to address 100% of it. But not for lack of trying.
  - bigfatkitten 2y ago
    They actively refuse to take action on material brought to their attention via the trust and safety channels ostensibly provided for that very purpose. That isn't "trying", that is doing less than the bare minimum. > When a Journal research account flagged many such groups via user reports, the company often declared them to be acceptable. “We’ve taken a look and found that the group doesn’t go against our Community Standards,” Facebook replied to a report about a large Facebook group named “Incest.” Only after the Journal brought specific groups to the attention of Meta’s communications staff did the company remove them. WSJ had contacts in Meta's communication team that they could use to sidestep the process, but what is a normal user meant to do? Print copies and mail them to Zuckerberg at his house?

That would be a good question for Canadian Centre for Child Protection, Stanford Internet Observatory, the Wall Street Journal and numerous other organisations who have written at length about the problem. https://archive.is/ter4Y https://archive.is/ter4Y https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/07/meta-instagram-self-generated-child-sexual-abuse-materials https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/07/meta-inst... Their findings mirror my own experience. I've got a throwaway account that has no friends, and follows no groups. In the absence of anything else to go on as to my preferences, the "algorithm" fills my feed mainly with flat earth theories, anti transgender content and child sexual exploitation. When I report the latter, around 90% of the time I receive a response that says: We didn't remove this post To keep our review process as fair as possible, we use the same set of Community Standards to review all reports. We've taken a look and found that this content doesn't go against our Community Standards. We understand that this might be upsetting and so we recommend exploring the options available to control what you see. You can also request a review within 180 days if you disagree with the decision to not take this down.

loeg 2y ago
Your references do not support your claim that Facebook allows CSAM unchecked. It is certainly true that it struggles to address 100% of it. But not for lack of trying.
- bigfatkitten 2y ago
  They actively refuse to take action on material brought to their attention via the trust and safety channels ostensibly provided for that very purpose. That isn't "trying", that is doing less than the bare minimum. > When a Journal research account flagged many such groups via user reports, the company often declared them to be acceptable. “We’ve taken a look and found that the group doesn’t go against our Community Standards,” Facebook replied to a report about a large Facebook group named “Incest.” Only after the Journal brought specific groups to the attention of Meta’s communications staff did the company remove them. WSJ had contacts in Meta's communication team that they could use to sidestep the process, but what is a normal user meant to do? Print copies and mail them to Zuckerberg at his house?