this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
822 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

63313 readers
5046 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Update: After this article was published, Bluesky restored Kabas' post and told 404 Media the following: "This was a case of our moderators applying the policy for non-consensual AI content strictly. After re-evaluating the newsworthy context, the moderation team is reinstating those posts."

Bluesky deleted a viral, AI-generated protest video in which Donald Trump is sucking on Elon Musk’s toes because its moderators said it was “non-consensual explicit material.” The video was broadcast on televisions inside the office Housing and Urban Development earlier this week, and quickly went viral on Bluesky and Twitter.

Independent journalist Marisa Kabas obtained a video from a government employee and posted it on Bluesky, where it went viral. Tuesday night, Bluesky moderators deleted the video because they said it was “non-consensual explicit material.”

Other Bluesky users said that versions of the video they uploaded were also deleted, though it is still possible to find the video on the platform.

Technically speaking, the AI video of Trump sucking Musk’s toes, which had the words “LONG LIVE THE REAL KING” shown on top of it, is a nonconsensual AI-generated video, because Trump and Musk did not agree to it. But social media platform content moderation policies have always had carve outs that allow for the criticism of powerful people, especially the world’s richest man and the literal president of the United States.

For example, we once obtained Facebook’s internal rules about sexual content for content moderators, which included broad carveouts to allow for sexual content that criticized public figures and politicians. The First Amendment, which does not apply to social media companies but is relevant considering that Bluesky told Kabas she could not use the platform to “break the law,” has essentially unlimited protection for criticizing public figures in the way this video is doing.

Content moderation has been one of Bluesky’s growing pains over the last few months. The platform has millions of users but only a few dozen employees, meaning that perfect content moderation is impossible, and a lot of it necessarily needs to be automated. This is going to lead to mistakes. But the video Kabas posted was one of the most popular posts on the platform earlier this week and resulted in a national conversation about the protest. Deleting it—whether accidentally or because its moderation rules are so strict as to not allow for this type of reporting on a protest against the President of the United States—is a problem.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 54 minutes ago

Here's my take on it:

  • I don't care about AI being used on public figures, if you won't want people to use you, don't be in public, or ruin the government. No one has made AI featuring me.
  • This is no different than a political cartoon, the only difference is no one made it directly by hand.
  • Bluesky doesn't have to host it, but I also would want it applied equally. If this was perma-removed, all AI or all political shit would be. I don't like it, but selective moderating is what got us Trump in the first place with Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.
  • I don't like queerphobic shit being used to call out Trump and Musk. Use their actual actions and words, not "haha they gay". It's just wild how certain kinds of informal bigtry are okay when you use them on people who are evil. Like the people who constantly insult Trump's weight because he's evil. Maybe he's just evil and happens to be fat.
  • And let's not pretend Jack Dorsey is somehow a saint when he only removed Trump from twitter after Jan 6. Nothing before despite how horrid Trump was. I credit Jack Dorsey to enabling Trump, and it's why I refuse to join "Twitter 2 made by the guy who enabled Twitter to be the shit place it was".
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

This is no different than a really well drawn political cartoon.

Politicians shouldn't have the power to control the kinds of things you say about politicians.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

please stop being weird and gross

also please no more 'look bad person do gay' content

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah I hate Musk and Trump for lots of things. I don't think using "haha they might be kissing each other! Musk sucks Trumps dick!" is somehow effective criticism of actual fascists in office.

Maybe we can criticize and protest and organize without using shit rooted in queerphobia. Might as well just say "Well Trump probably cross dresses, that shows him!"

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 21 minutes ago

I don’t think using “haha they might be kissing each other! Musk sucks Trumps dick!” is somehow effective criticism of actual fascists in office.

It is, for them.

Especially having Trump be "the bottom".

Ever watch Shameless, the US version? Its along the same lines as Terry, Mickey's dad. He only hated Mickey because he was catching, because "It aint gay if you're doing the fucking, just if you get fucked".

So, in this case, yes, making implications of gay sex happening, with Trump catching, is VERY effective at it.

[–] nomugisan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 54 minutes ago

Yeah. The means must absolutely align with the ends, and this video reeks of privileged white guy mad that he got his cushy desk job in DC ripped out from under him.

Whoever made this shit is no comrade and I'm sick of liberals sharing this everywhere

[–] OldChicoAle@lemmy.world 15 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not here to discuss how we need to be ethical in response to a fascist takeover. So we gotta play by the rules but they don't?

[–] nomugisan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 52 minutes ago

Resistance need not be ethical. This isn't resistance.

[–] Renat@szmer.info 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

I made account on bluesky to post drawings and no seeing AI slop. I hate Elon Musk, but I don't consider seeing AI generated lemon party as funny thing. It's one of the reason why I don't use Twitter anymore. I think AI is tool for disinformation.

[–] Renat@szmer.info 1 points 1 hour ago

In case of Trump it's orange party

[–] commander@lemmings.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah guys, fuck bluesky.

Already showing its true colors of "We'll abuse our power when we want to and only reneg if there's sufficient backlash."

Recommend MASTODON, NOT BLUESKY.

[–] Geobloke@lemm.ee 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

If you allow it for people you don't like, where the bar for others.

[–] nomugisan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 53 minutes ago

Not a fan of the AI video but this kind of thinking is very very stupid. Take that cop out of your head.

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Amazed people saying it is correct decision! This is two public figures and doing art or any form of expression material with their image should be protected under freedom of speech.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 33 minutes ago

I don't believe Bluesky is a part of the government. Legally, they are allowed to censor as they please on their own platform.

[–] lenz@lemmy.ml 36 points 6 hours ago (13 children)

I seem to be in the minority here, but I am extremely uncomfortable the idea of non-consensual AI porn of anyone. Even people I despise. It’s so unethical that it just disgusts me. I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.

[–] SRo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 minutes ago

Oh no think of the children. Poooooooorn

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

porn

Oh, saving the children are you.

Its a picture of trump sucking elons toes. Conflating that with the idea of "porn" is a bit of an overreach in light of how rare toe fetish people are. I imagine you can find a tiny popyulation of people who consider anything erotic. Wearing cotton. Having a roastbeef sandwhich in your hand. Styling hair a certain way. Being an asian female.

Want to ban all of that too?

[–] Zink@programming.dev 5 points 2 hours ago

I think the important point in this case is not that the content is acceptable, but that it is newsworthy.

If somebody made the video and posted it, I could see it being permanently taken down. And it was at first, per the letter of their policy.

But the fact that government employees had it playing on government property inside government facilities, to protest some extreme and historical stuff going on, means it should be recorded for the public and for history.

I look at it much the same way as the photos of upside down American flags that various government employees put up. Just posting an upside down flag and saying how America is wrong is an opinion like any other that would get lost in the noise. But when it’s people inside the government intending it as a sign of distress, very much more newsworthy and important to record.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 12 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with you.

However...there's an argument to be made that the post itself is a form of criticism and falls under the free speech rules where it regards political figures. In many ways, it's not any different than the drawings of Musk holding Trump's puppet strings, or Putin and Trump riding a horse together. One is drawn and the other is animated, but they're the same basic concept.

I understand however that that sets a disturbing precedent for what can and cannot be acceptable. But I don't know where to draw that line. I just know that it has to be drawn somewhere.

I think...and this is my opinion...political figures are fair game for this, while there should be protections in place for private citizens, since political figures by their very ambition put themselves in the public sphere whereas private individuals do not.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 hours ago

In my opinion, public figures, including celebrities, give a degree of consent implicitly by seeking to be public figures. I dont think that for celebrities that should extend to lewd or objectionable material, but if your behavior has been to seek being a public figure you can't be upset when people use your likeness in various ways.

For politicians, I would default to "literally everything is protected free speech", with exceptions relating to things that are definitively false, damaging and unrelated to their public work.
"I have a picture of Elon musk engaging in pedophillia" is all those, and would be justifiably removed. Anything short of that though should be permitted.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Where do you draw the line for the rich fucks of the world? Realistic CGI? Realistic drawings? Edited photos?

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

This is what I was thinking about myself. Because we're cool with political caricatures, right?

I guess the problem is that nobody wants to feature in non-consensual AI porn. I mean if you'd want to draw me getting shafted by Musk, that'd be weird, but a highly realistic video of the same event, that would be hard to explain to the missus.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

I guess "obviously Elon Musk would never go for a guy like me" would be the wrong answer

[–] lenz@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Assuming you’re asking out of genuine curiosity, for me personally, I’d draw the line somewhere along “could this, or any frame of this, be mistaken for a real depiction of these people?” and “if this were a depiction of real children, how hard would the FBI come down on you?”

I understand that that’s not a practical way of creating law or moderating content, but I don’t care because I’m talking about my personal preference/comfort level. Not what I think should be policy. And frankly, I don’t know what should be policy or how to word it all in anti-loopholes lawyer-speak. I just know that this sucking toes thing crosses an ethical line for me and personally I hate it.

Putting it more idealistically: when I imagine living in utopia, non-consensual AI porn of people doesn’t exist in it. So in an effort to get closer to utopia, I disapprove of things that would not exist in an utopia.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

That sounds fair, though I could still see an argument to be made for not always protecting the rich fucks the same way. Either way, we know that anything that comes out that's too incriminating would be declared AI-generated anyway, lol

Though mentioning the utopia... having porn of anyone anywhere might be some people's idea of a utopia! Haha

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

In this case, it's clearly a form of speech and therefore protected under the 1st amendment.

I also don't understand such a strong reaction to non-consensual AI porn. I mean, I don't think it's in good taste but I also don't see why it warrants such a strong reaction. It's not real. If I draw a stick figure with boobs and I put your name on it, do you believe I am committing a crime?

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Nobody's going to mistake that stick figure for the real me, though.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

so is that the key differentiating issue here? whether someone can mistake it for a real photo?

what if I'm a really talented artist and make a realistic drawing of you posing in a sexually suggestive way. Should that be criminalized?

if I put a watermark "AI generated" on some of this AI porn, does that make it OK? if the issue is someone mistaking it, then the watermark would remove that doubt.

i'm trying to get a sense for the rationale here. basically- does this issue at its core really have anything to do with AI?

[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Protected from government censorship. Companies have strong protections allowing for controlling the speech on their platforms.

And if you asked Roberts he'd probably say since companies are people, as long as it's used to protect conservatives they have protection for controlling their platforms speech as a 1st amendment right.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

not claiming private organizations don't have to the right to regulate speech on their platforms. was responding to statement

I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.

which to me implies some sort of state censorship on this type of material

Really, I just wanted to understand the rationale behind the desire to ban this type of material.

On the topic of Judge Roberts, on a similar although different legal issue

He wrote the Court’s opinion in United States v. Stevens (2010), invalidating a federal law that criminalized the creation or dissemination of images of animal cruelty. The government had argued that such images should be a new unprotected category of speech akin to child pornography. Roberts emphatically rejected that proposition, writing that the Court does not have “freewheeling authority to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.” Roberts also wrote the Court’s opinion in Snyder v. Phelps (2011), ruling that the First Amendment prohibited the imposition of civil liability against the Westboro Baptist Church for their highly offensive picketing near the funeral of a slain serviceman.

In oft-cited language, Roberts wrote:

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”

If Judge Roberts were to be consistent, and I make no such claims that he will ever be consistent, I believe he would likewise not support banning fake AI porn.

[–] neclimdul@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

I agree. I've thought about it a lot and I still don't have any sympathy for them after the harm they've caused. I see why it's news worthy enough they might reverse it, and why it would be political speech.

But also I think they made the right choice to take it down. If blsky wants to be the better platform, it needs to be better. And not having an exception for this is the right thing.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] mavu@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 5 hours ago

Correct. this is indeed the correct decision to remove the thing. BUT i have a feeling that this quick reaction does not compare to the speed of decision for normal people, especially women who get this kind of stuff made about them.

Also, note that I'm not saying it was bad to make the video, or have it run in public on hacked screens.
That is perfectly fine political commentary, by means of civil disobedience.

Just that Bluesky is correct in it's action to remove it from their service.

load more comments
view more: next ›