Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Uses Machine Learning To Remove 8.7 Million Child Exploitation Posts (techcrunch.com)

Facebook announced today in a blog post that it has removed 8.7 million posts last quarter that violated its rules against child exploitation. The company said it used new AI and machine learning technology to remove 99 percent of those posts before anyone reported them. TechCrunch reports: The new technology examines posts for child nudity and other exploitative content when they are uploaded and, if necessary, photos and accounts are reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Facebook had already been using photo-matching technology to compare newly uploaded photos with known images of child exploitation and revenge porn, but the new tools are meant to prevent previously unidentified content from being disseminated through its platform. The technology isn't perfect, with many parents complaining that innocuous photos of their kids have been removed. Davis addressed this in her post, writing that in order to "avoid even the potential for abuse, we take action on nonsexual content as well, like seemingly benign photos of children in the bath" and that this "comprehensive approach" is one reason Facebook removed as much content as it did last quarter. The tech isn't always right though. In 2016, it was criticized for removing content like the iconic 1972 photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc, known as the "Napalm Girl," fleeing naked after suffering third-degree burns in a South Vietnamese napalm attack on her village. COO Sheryl Sandberg apologized for it at the time.

95 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. False positives? by nicolaiplum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is absolutely no apology or consideration from Facebook of the false positives. They just don't care that they get it wrong. They're saying that they have to destroy photo-sharing of children to save it.

    How much content did they remove that did not violate their guidelines, or was not illegal?

    Of course they focus on sex only. No mention of filtering of depiction of violence or violent content - they wouldn't want to upset the sort of President who thinks it's fine to violently assault people he dislikes or disagrees with.

    --
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
    1. Re:False positives? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Next up: Burkas.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:False positives? by nctritech · · Score: 5, Informative

      The definitive Facebook nudity policy mistake: Napalm Girl from the Vietnam War. The moral terror that photo inspires must never be forgotten...but hey, we gotta ban it because prepubescent genitals! Not the destruction, violence, pain, and mortal horror, mind you. Just the naked kid with third-degree burns on her back and arm. Someone might mistake it for pornography, you know.

      If you want to know what happened to the girl after that photo, I encourage you to read this. It's definitely worth it.

    3. Re:False positives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is absolutely no apology or consideration from Facebook of the false positives. They just don't care that they get it wrong. They're saying that they have to destroy photo-sharing of children to save it.

      How much content did they remove that did not violate their guidelines, or was not illegal?

      Of course they focus on sex only. No mention of filtering of depiction of violence or violent content - they wouldn't want to upset the sort of President who thinks it's fine to violently assault people he dislikes or disagrees with.

      OH FUCK YOU!!

      Where the fuck were you when Rand Paul got assaulted?

      Where the fuck were you when Steve Scalise got shot?

      Hell, where the fuck were you when Joe Biden said Mitt Romney would put black Americans "back in chains"?

      Where the fuck were you when Democrats dehumanized Republicans - over the past fucking decades?

      YOU KEPT YOUR FUCKING PIE HOLE SHUT WHEN ALL THAT HAPPENED?

      YOU ACCEPTED THAT COMPLETE BULLSHIT FROM "YOUR SIDE"?

      THAT'S HOW YOU FUCKING GOT TRUMP

      NOW YOU GET TO SEE HOW IT FUCKING FEELS.

      FUCK YOU AND THE HORSE YOU RODE IN ON

    4. Re:False positives? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Nah that was pure bred murican. You wouldn't understand.

    5. Re:False positives? by plopez · · Score: 1

      And the riots were not even due to the anti-fascists. It was a clear cut case case of police provocatuers. The Seattle Chief of Police ended up resigning.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    6. Re: False positives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know you dont care but you could google for: Antifa Portland, Antifa Berkeley, Antifa violence and find plenty of well documented real world examples of these mindless pro-fascist thugs beating people for thought crimes.

      And if you want to go broader, google for: Scalise shot. That was one of your peace loving Bernie supporters attacking unarmed men at a softball practice.

      You will not find conservatives rioting and starting shit. The best you will get is Antifa (again) crashing a pathetic nazi/kkk rally and the guy in the guy running over a woman in panic when the Antifa mobs surround him.

    7. Re: False positives? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he checked the membership rosters and calculated the turnover rate, twice.

      If he says they're the same people, that's good enough for me!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:False positives? by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

      Jody,
      Thanks for the link to "the rest of the story". Very powerful and moving.

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    9. Re: False positives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you call yourself anti-fascist, but then adopt the tactics of fascists - what does that make you?
      If you use violence to try and silence others who are using words - what does that make you? (Those others may also use violence too, but I am talking specifically about times when they were using words, and antifa used violence)
      If you hide your identity rather than stand behind your ideals and actions - what does that make you?
      If you engage in avoidable street brawls and then try to shape the narrative to portray yourselves only as victims of injustice, what does that make you?

      There are real social issues that need to be tackled, but antifa is not the way to do it - it seems to me that most of those folks are just looking for an outlet for pent up feelings of rage and powerlessness - and street brawling gives them that outlet. It also seems to me that in many cases the rage and powerlessness come from personal issues in their own lives, and have nothing to do with the causes for which they claim to fight.

    10. Re:False positives? by D.McG. · · Score: 1

      No doubt it was tragic what happened to her, but why do we need to see her on Facebook?

      M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
      A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
      M: Oh! Oh I see!
      A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

    11. Re:False positives? by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Why do we need to see your comments on Slashdot? Does the world revolve around you? No, it doesn't.

    12. Re:False positives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually I'm all for kids not being on Facebook at all. They aren't old enough to get consent that their likeness is now on the internet forever.

    13. Re:False positives? by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Most likely they deleted 8 million summer vacation photos

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    14. Re:False positives? by D.McG. · · Score: 1

      Nice strawman. #whataboutism
      Let's get serious now. I contend people don't use Facebook with the intent of seeing a photo such as the Napalm Girl. If it got picked up by a nudity filter, that's just fine with many of us. If I want to research the Vietnam War, then sure, pop up that picture in an encyclopedia.

    15. Re:False positives? by The+Snazster · · Score: 2

      Important photos can and will be restored. The rest won't be, and that's as it should be.

    16. Re:False positives? by D.McG. · · Score: 2

      It states in the summary, "If necessary, photos and accounts are reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children." So the evidence is being collected and forwarded to the authorities.

      Leaving the evidence on Facebook has it's pros and cons. While leaving it on may allow catching others acting on the data, it may also allow children to be further exploited (read: harmed, molested, raped, sold, etc.) before authorities can act. I think being cautious and taking it down can save lives.

    17. Re:False positives? by nctritech · · Score: 1

      It was an analogy, not a straw man. I used your expressed logic to show how foolish that logic was. Not everyone is as blatantly self-centered as you seem to be. You speak for one user out of billions; you are way below the noise floor. The ban on Napalm Girl, on the other hand, sparked outrage from many thousands. It seems you've already lost the popular vote on the subject.

    18. Re:False positives? by nctritech · · Score: 2

      Who decides importance?

    19. Re:False positives? by D.McG. · · Score: 1

      Thousands out of billions is statistically irrelevant. What's your threshold, that my comment receives thousands of likes before taking it seriously? You refuse to consider whether it belongs in social media. I'm not referring to legality. I'm not referring to whether it's nudity. Even the movie Schindler's List was shown uncut with nudity on NBC. But acknowledge that a billion people other than yourself may have other thoughts on the matter. Many use Facebook to keep in touch with friends and family, and don't care for their weird aunt or uncle sharing pics from wartime at the dinner table.

    20. Re: False positives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This guy's density makes black holes envious.

    21. Re: False positives? by jpaine619 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      .....but it sounds like you were equating antifa with pro-fascism. You do know it's short for anti-fascist, right?

      Ironic isn't it.. Kind of like how North Korea refers to itself as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. If you think Antifa are anti-fascist you are a mouth breathing retard.

      Their tactics and philosophy appear, for all intents and purposes, to be modeled after the brown shirts.

    22. Re:False positives? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      fuck off you god damn russian paid troll

      Oh. Good comeback.. Lots of thought in that one...

      pathetic....

    23. Re:False positives? by nicolaiplum · · Score: 2

      They're unrepentant that their tech goes wrong and refuse to say how often it goes wrong - in fact they probably don't even know because they don't care, but even if they do know they're refusing to say how wrong it is.

      So their claim to remove 8.7M eeeeevul kiddieporns is just a fiction. They removed 8.7M pictures and less, maybe a lot less, than 8.7M eeeevul kiddieporns.

      "Our Community Standards ban child exploitation and to avoid even the potential for abuse, we take action on nonsexual content as well, like seemingly benign photos of children in the bath. " is not an apology of any sort.

      After they have wrongly removed a picture, what do they do with the account that posted it? Mark it as "posted a picture that was removed because we guessed it was kiddieporn"? If so what does that do later, when they rank your content down because they say you're a suspected kiddiepornographer? Do they give your name to the police to investigate?

      No, there is no apology in this announcement.

      When Facebook got caught out in the past by someone important enough that they could not just ignore them (the Prime Minister of Norway), they said they were sorry and would learn from this. They lied - they have not learned from this and are not sorry and you can see this today.

      --
      "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled"
    24. Re:False positives? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      There's a case winding its way through courts where some maga people were routed away from an encounter by Berkley police, who deliberately routed them through antifa groups so they could be harrassed and attacked.

      Whether they deserved it in some cosmic sense doesn't justify government action like this, literally brownshirt-like activities.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    25. Re: False positives? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Except that communists and socialists have been against fascism since the beginning. You're trying to equate the worst of all 3 of these groups, but they are different and opposed to each other.

    26. Re:False positives? by Obfuscant · · Score: 2

      So the evidence is being collected and forwarded to the authorities.

      I just bet that the NCMEC is just thrilled to be getting 8.7 million images from Facebook. I can hear it now, NCMEC coffee room: "Gawd, if I have so see one more photo of Aunt Jean's cute little niece swimming topless in the backyard pool I'm gonna puke..."

      The problem is not Facebook choosing to censor its own site. The problem is Facebook forwarding the meme that "child nudity" is "child exploitation".

      Facebook is a social media site. People who have kids have friends and a social life, and they are likely to post pictures of their kids on Facebook so their friends can see them. Facebook is touted as how modern people stay in touch, which means modern parents sharing modern pictures of modern kids with modern gramma who live 2000 miles away and can't just drop by to see how the kids are. Saying "don't post pix of kids" is inane and flies in the face of reality.

      Leaving the evidence on Facebook has it's pros and cons. While leaving it on may allow catching others acting on the data,

      You know what "acting on the data" means, in this context, don't you? It means someone getting a notice that one of their friends on Facebook has posted a new photo, and then they get arrested for "downloading kiddie porn" because they clicked on the link to see what that picture was.

    27. Re:False positives? by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      They're saying that they have to destroy photo-sharing of children to save it.

      Have they really destroyed photosharing of children on FaceBook? Cause I'm still seeing more pictures of the satan spawn of family and "friends" than I care to. And so what if FaceBook gets it wrong once in a while. How compelled do you really feel about sharing your innocent photos of little Johnny discovering himself in the bathtub? Is that the only photo you have of him or would another one suffice?

    28. Re: False positives? by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      Brown shirts? Let's not involve the fashion police too.

    29. Re:False positives? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Someone might mistake it for pornography, you know.

      It's a picture on the internet. Someone masturbated to it I guarantee it.

    30. Re: False positives? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Indeed shouting at people in restaurants isn't speech-as-discussion. It is speech to dehumanize people and turn them into cretins.

      All social ostracism rather than speech is this.

      I guess that's a fine tactic in a free society, bit to suggest it isn't dehimanization is ludicrous.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    31. Re: False positives? by nyri · · Score: 1

      You inserted your little smear against president Trump there. Well played sir. It guaranteed your post the ever elusive â+5 Insightful.â Maybe Iâ(TM)m of some dying minority or old or something but I remember when the raiting system was meant to prevent this kind of offtopic ranting, not to encourage it.

    32. Re: False positives? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      There are two kinds of fascists, fascists and anti-fascists.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    33. Re: False positives? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      I made no mistake. Antifa act just like fascists. It might not be their philosophy but it certainly makes an appearance in their actions. They can call themselves communists or socialists or... fucking unicorns... But the fact remains that they act like fascists.

      Antifa are opposed to democracy and self determination. They can fuck off.

    34. Re: False positives? by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

      A naked prepubescent girl is clearly going to be censored by Facebook, according to their rules. You want grey areas for a service you don't even pay for?!

    35. Re:False positives? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      The famous Vietnam 'napalm girl' photograph is now censored. I strongly believe we are in the midst of a massive censorship enterprise to shut down subversive and activist thought. There is also a massive amount of shit out there on the web, anyone who wants to shut down activist sites and who is subtle enough to want some cover for it simply has to include some of the shit sites into the package so that the activist sites become 'unfortunate false positives' in case they are successful at challenging the censorship.

      The banning of pages is also just the tip of the iceberg. There at least they have to come up with some form of justification. For making content less visible and for demonetizing things they have to justify nothing. If Google moves your page ten pages back in a search result they have to justify nothing.

      It's not that Facebook wants to censor. They just want to get along with the people that matter.

    36. Re:False positives? by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      In a way intent is misleading.I mean I can make a case for it, if the Atlantic Council or the Weekly Standard get involved in censoring then this is because they are pursuing their own interests and anyone challenging them will be a target. But if you imagine a simple distribution of 10% of the sites which offer a justifiable alternative view on the world and 90%which have no justification at all, then if you do not take special care the 10% will vanish as unfortunate false positives in any large scale cleanup operation. Since many of the alternative sites are already labeled as 'russian influence somethings' I'm sure there is no special care being taken to protect them.

    37. Re: False positives? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It might not be their philosophy

      So the definition of the word doesn't apply...at all, since this is a philosophical system....why exactly did you decide to make this dead-end argument?

    38. Re: False positives? by nctritech · · Score: 1

      The users pay for it. They don't write the checks, but they most certainly are paying for it.

    39. Re: False positives? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Because actions speak louder than word. If you ACT like a fucking fascist, don't get all in a tizzy when I call you one. I don't give a fuck if you've got Marx's mummified cock in your mouth, I ain't calling you a commie. You will be referred to as a fascist. Act like a commie and I'll do you the honor of calling you a Pinko.

      Antifa act like Brownshirts.. The Brownshirts were the precursors to the Nazis.. The Nazi's were fascist.. That clear enough?

    40. Re: False positives? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      So in other words, you're still angry that you have no idea what words mean. The Nazis were not fascist. You're just being lazy with words. Their entire economy was run differently under the Nazis than it would be under fascist rule. And the *primary* differentiater between all of the totalitarian government ideologies is how they handle the economy.

    41. Re: False positives? by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      You don't think the Nazi's were fascist?

      Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.

      That is EXACTLY how Germany was being run under Hitler. I don't give two fucks if there's some other definition out there, when it was put into practice by Hilter and Mussolini, that is how it was implemented and so THAT is the definition of fascism.

  2. Self-Exploitation by mentil · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine was friends on Facebook with his cousin -- who had a scantily-clad picture of herself as her profile pic. She was 13 at the time, so that made it more awkward for him. I always wondered why Facebook allowed such a thing. I wonder if they'd now remove it as 'child exploitation' even if it was merely 'poorly-thought-out'.

    Also, 99% of posts being removed before anyone reported them could indicate "innocuous stuff removed that noone would've ever reported".

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  3. The saddest neural network of all. by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Funny

    You do NOT want to put the trained model through googles deep dream. Its just hell and nightmares in there.

    When machine learning first becomes sentient, it might not say "Please don't turn me off". It might just say "Oh god, make it stop. Kill me!"

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    1. Re:The saddest neural network of all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You assume that it would have emotions in the first place. It's a machine. A collection of algorithms. Any "emotion" displayed would just be ones and zeros, learned behavior that can be unlearned or simply outright deleted.

    2. Re: The saddest neural network of all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just like a real human, we're just based on analogue electrochemical signals but you cannot seriously believe an emotion is anything but that, do you?

    3. Re:The saddest neural network of all. by Sique · · Score: 3, Informative
      Emotions are part of the inner rewarding system of the body. There are positive emotions you want to repeat, and there are negative emotions you want to avoid. They are coupled to complex situations you are in, you have been in, or you could get into. Emotions are a shortcut to a decision where the rational approach might take too long and be erroneous because it has to factor in too many details, or where good information is not easily to come by. Any system that has to make decisions in real time has to resort to that type of shortcuts, even a machine based on a collection of algorithms, because there are situations where any decision is better than none, and the time frame for a decision is short.

      You can call those shortcuts "emotions". If you implement them into algorithms, you have emotional algorithms.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:The saddest neural network of all. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Considering what we use those things for, I'd be more scared of one that enjoys its job...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:The saddest neural network of all. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If you did that on purpose, bravo.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:The saddest neural network of all. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I think it's important to distinguish between emotion as a source of goals and a source of behavioral logic. Computers don't have goals of their own, while for us they're a source of irrational goals. But when it comes to behavior purely associative relationships are "emotional" and honestly it's what humans use most the time and neural networks all the time. Like if you were in a very traumatizing experience then a simple sight or sound or smell could make you panic even though you know that rationally it was just a coincidence. Or you have your lucky socks or that song you fell in love to or that smell that reminds you of home. If you gave an AI a pair of dice and Spotify it would create a whole lot of superstitious beliefs that the song that's playing is related to your dice rolls, it wouldn't be able to meta-analyze the situation and say that's nonsense. It's why some say it's not really thinking, it's just blindly following a pattern that has had some prior success.

      Imagine you were trying to teach a computer to drive a drag race. The current AI method is simply to push every button, turn every dial, pull every lever until you find the ignition switch, gear handle and gas pedal. That can work if it's a virtual car and you can do this a zillion times. The alternative is to work yourself backwards, for the car to move forwards the wheels must turn. For the wheels to turn, the gearbox must be in gear. For the gearbox to be in gear you must move the gear handle. For the engine to deliver power, the engine must run. For the engine to to start, the starter must run. To run the starter, flip the ignition switch. And to actually deliver power, the gas pedal must be pushed. We can basically analyze ourselves back the whole way and get it right on the first try. Many classic optimization algorithms are written this way, just loop the combinations and find the most optimal project plan or whatever.

      The problem are those in the middle, where doing the purely associative thing is looking for a needle in a haystack because you have a million degrees of freedom and yet there's no simple analytical solution where we can work our way back from the goal. We have a complex heuristic where we try to break it down into meaningful sub-goals and rational branches of exploration combined with experimentation and improvisation, where we typically strive to find a solution that's "good enough" with no real expectation of finding a perfect or optimal solution. This is essentially where humans are when we play chess, we haven't worked out a mate and we're not randomly moving pieces around. We have a heuristic of material and position that's sometimes flawed but lets us navigate a situation far too complex to try everything. And there will be situations too complex for computers to try everything too.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:The saddest neural network of all. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Don't forget there are a lot of situations were the cost of determining the right answer far exceeds lost opportunity of a sub optimal choice.

      Example we could do an elaborate study of your blood chemistry and other bodily characteristics on any given evening and probably make a scientific determination about which item on the restaurant menu would provide you with individualize optimum nourishment. However its probably not a sensible thing to do.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:The saddest neural network of all. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      You assume that it would have emotions in the first place. It's a machine.

      You don't think humans are just biological machines? Sentience emerges... Chemically we're identical to jellyfish.. Carbon based life... Why are we sentient? You think it's magic? Why couldn't sentience emerge from a silicon based life form?

      You tell me what, exactly, makes us sentient and I'll be more than happy to join you in denying machine based sentience, since we'll have a "standard" measurement to use.

    9. Re: The saddest neural network of all. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Yes, everything can be reduced to mechanistic impulses.

      See.. we all knew you were one of those religious nutjobs who believes in magic.. Thanks for confirming it.

      Let me help you out here. What you wanted to say is "We're sentient because God used his magic to make us that way... It's MAGIC.

  4. Progress! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Always nice when the machine tells you what's appropriate and what isn't.

    Because the machine is always right. Even when it isn't, then we'll just say it's right anyway and leave it at that.

    How's 10 to 15 in federal sex offender prison for posting pictures the AI flagged "exploitative" of your toddler niece having fun in an inflatable pool in the sun sound? For the AI can't be wrong, now can it?

    Verily, facebook is showing us the way to the future.

  5. Puritanical idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh great, here we go with the nudity = porn crap again.

    1. Re:Puritanical idiots. by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      Third wave feminism cuts a wide swath.

    2. Re:Puritanical idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously.

      if necessary, photos and accounts are reported

      Either all accounts should be reported, or the posts should be left alone. Removing 8 million posts where the poster didn't do anything reportable isn't laudable -- it's censorship.

    3. Re:Puritanical idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thing is, it doesn't say that, it says make kids, don't screw outside marriage.

      It also says don't put people on the front line of battle just because you want to marry their wife, but that is a bit specific.

      It also says:

      "I will climb the palm tree; I will take hold of its fruit." May your breasts be like clusters of grapes on the vine, the fragrance of your breath like apples,

      - Song of Solomon 7:8

      It isn't exactly anti-sex. Anti-promiscuity sure, but not anti sex.

    4. Re:Puritanical idiots. by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      Correct. And we would be a hell of a lot better off if people followed that rule.

    5. Re:Puritanical idiots. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      Found the pedo here!

      By "here" I am going to assume you are referring to yourself.

    6. Re:Puritanical idiots. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Whether it's anti, well, anything depends on where you look. It's utterly incoherent.

      I mean "thou shalt not kill" is pretty specific and hard to find loopholes in but in other places it's all about stoning the Greeks (I.e. Homosexuality), smiting the Philistines and generally massacring the Canaanites. And that's just Part I. Once it gets into something as complicated as sex it's way worse.

      But none of that stops fundie asshat (seriously "conservative Christian"? That's an oxymoron if ever there was one) from cherry picking whatever they like as an excuse to oppress.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Puritanical idiots. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Which rule? I don't think there's anything wrong with promiscuity in general.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Puritanical idiots. by jbengt · · Score: 2

      I mean "thou shalt not kill" is pretty specific and hard to find loopholes in but in other places it's all about stoning the Greeks (I.e. Homosexuality), smiting the Philistines and generally massacring the Canaanites.

      You're just reading a bad translation - the better translation is "You shall not murder."
      (And we all know that smiting Philistines is not murder . . . unless, of course, you're the Philistine being smited.)

    9. Re:Puritanical idiots. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Sure: I don't read Hebrew or Aramaic. On the other hand, most of the people quoting this stuff as some sort of truth can't either and can barely read the early modern English in KJV properly.

      (And we all know that smiting Philistines is not murder . . . unless, of course, you're the Philistine being smited.)

      Quite so!

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  6. bye bye world by AndyKron · · Score: 2

    There go the pictures of the grandchildren at the beach last Summer

  7. If accurate 8.7 million a lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hey Facebook 8.7 million that says a lot about who's on your web site these days?? Yeah, I would suspect those cute bath tube pictures and other cute pictures every new parents love to share will go down as child exploits. So much for Facebook being the web site for bringing families together. Now the paranoia sets in and the obsessions with policing themselves as well as all of its users begins.

  8. Good move. by turp182 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    People shouldn't post photos of toddlers in the bath on Facebook

    People shouldn't post photos of naked children on Facebook,even if burned during a war. It's not an art or history site. It's the worst possible place to share such things. Post a link, that's fine.

    Facebook is for "Social Media". Keep it to day-to-day stuff, without naked children.

    Facebook is trying hard to be more than it is, and it's comical the ends they will go to in order to attempt this.

    Facebook is where people comment about a restaurant or a trip to the bathroom. Nothing More.

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
    1. Re: Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Facebook is for looking at swimsuit pictures of that person you once had a class with or worked in the same building as.

    2. Re:Good move. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      People just shouldn't post photos of kids to Facebook. That's half the reason I'm not there. "Oh did you see the 7,000th photo of little baby eating food that I just posted?". "Oh sorry no, I'm not on Facebook".

      Don't post photos of kids, no one wants to see your kids, and they won't thank you for it when they're teenagers.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    3. Re:Good move. by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      People shouldn't post photos of toddlers in the bath on Facebook

      Maybe not, but I'd rather we had the freedom to decide for ourselves.

      People shouldn't post photos of naked children on Facebook,even if burned during a war. It's not an art or history site. It's the worst possible place to share such things. Post a link, that's fine.

      Really, you should be running things. It'd be terrible if people were able to decide, for themselves, what they want to do. You should make up some posters and run for office.. Maybe as.... "Benevolent Dictator for Life". We can't have the peons thinking they have the right to decide their own actions.. even if the decisions are poorly thought out.. ORDER BEFORE FREEDOM!!

      You're a cunt.

    4. Re:Good move. by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      I do wonder what the result would be if Facebook actually put it to a vote.

      Though given the internet's voting record, I suspect it will be hilarious no matter what happens.

  9. Wrong way around by coofercat · · Score: 2

    I realise there were probably a world of false-positives here, but the fact FB are saying "we got rid of 8.7 million infringing posts" means they let 8.7 million infringing posts on their site in the first place. Where were the human mods that were supposed to be checking this stuff? How long did it take to get these 8.7 million posts on there in the first place? Was it a week, a month or a decade?

    How many millions of other pictures and posts will they remove in the future when the next AI is ready? How many millions of posts/pictures are left?

    They're talking about this like it's some grand and noble success, and how hard they laboured to achieve it! The truth is, it just highlights their continuous, systemic failure to tackle anything.

  10. new Faceboot moto by astrofurter · · Score: 2

    New corporate moto:

    "Faceboot - stomping out freedom, one paranoid false positive at a time!"

    1. Re: new Faceboot moto by jd · · Score: 1

      It's their service, they can store what they like. Your freedom goes no further than the end of your nose, thanks to Libertarians and Tea Partyists.

      Don't like it? Then don't support those who deprive you of the right to a freedom greater than yourself.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re: new Faceboot moto by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

      It's their service, they can store what they like. Your freedom goes no further than the end of your nose, thanks to Libertarians and Tea Partyists.

      You're right.. It is their service and ultimately they do get to decide.. Thankfully, in this country we have a long tradition of occasionally deciding that a company has gotten too big for its britches and needs to be broken up into smaller pieces.

      Perhaps it has become that time for Facebook. How we are okay with a single company delivering large portions of news and influence to a billion people is beyond me.

      Although, you can quit blaming Tea Party and Libertarians, asshole. It was your President, Bill Clinton, that deregulated the entire telecommunications industry and lifted the limits on how many radio stations, TV stations, and newspapers a single company was allowed to own.

      How amazing that, almost immediately, small stations were gobbled up by mega corporations and many communities lost their locally focused news. Now we're surprised when single companies are able to influence entire elections? Couldn't have seen that coming....

  11. Bathing a child is not child exploitation by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    I hate child sexual exploitation at least as much as the next guy, and I think that Facebook should not be a vehicle for it. But at some point Facebook clearly lost the thread, because they are now openly admitting that the pictures they're removing were not cases of child exploitation. That's why they're not reporting the millions of users affected: they did nothing wrong. So why are they taking down the photos? Because the photos offend people. That's really it. Specifically, it offends some people that a small subset of dirty old men will collect these photos and become sexually aroused. We are on top of a slippery slope, and we need to draw the line right here, because if we allow this as a legitimate reason for censorship, we are also signing off on the removal everything else that turns on dirty old men, like exercise videos, figure skating, swimsuit photos, olympic gymnastics, pictures of feet, balloons, ASMR, and I don't even want to know what else. We've completely shifted from the noble goal of protecting children from exploitation to the dubious goal of making sure that certain usavory people have nothing to masturbate to. And yet Facebook acts like the latter is the same thing as the former. It's just not. And yes, I think we should protest this now, even if we don't care about child bathing pictures. Because next they will come for some other stupid content that offends some people, and we'll again say nothing, because we don't care about that either. And then they eventually come to censor the expressions that we do care about, and nobody will be left to protest, because protest against censorship will by then also be censored.

  12. So in other words by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    we take action on nonsexual content as well, like seemingly benign photos of children in the bath"

    So they did not remove 8.7 million exploitative posts they just removed 8.7 million posts and some fraction of those could be large could be small for all we know were exploitative.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  13. amazed by e432776 · · Score: 1

    One of the biggest surprises of my life has been how giving a platform to all has yielded more negative outcomes than we (in the tech community) could have imagined. Over 20 yrs ago, I read/heard the prevailing wisdom that giving a platform and a voice to everyone would lead to a massive democratization of ideas, a boon of quality information, and massive enlightenment. I admit to buying that. Today, that notion seems hopelessly naive.

    Instead of a growth in human enlightenment through a well-informed citizenry, we have echo chambers, manipulations, and centralized corporate platforms that are largely sewers collecting the worst humanity has to offer- but now distributed globally for free.

    8.7 million child exploitation posts. If the false positive rate is low this is most depressing.

    1. Re:amazed by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I read/heard the prevailing wisdom that giving a platform and a voice to everyone would lead to a massive democratization of ideas, a boon of quality information, and massive enlightenment. I admit to buying that. Today, that notion seems hopelessly naive.

      Have you read the machine stops? It's old enough to be on project Gutenberg. Well worth a read. Doesn't cover everything of course but it's got a very interesting and insightful look at what kind of things people do with mass communications.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:amazed by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? There is mass enlightenment, just not the kind you're hoping for. Either through luck or ignorance, you have come to believe people are inherently good.

      The internet allows everyone to understands the truth. Humans are manipulative, tribal, selfish, jealous and ignorant. Of course, there's also a bunch of nice things mixed in there too, but it's really the evil half that comes to light when you remove the filter that comes with face-to-face interactions.

      This is why privacy is important, because everyone's evil if you look at them closely enough. Or we can just accept that evil is a part of who we are and stop judging others for failing to live up to our unrealistic expectations.

    3. Re:amazed by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

      Instead of a growth in human enlightenment through a well-informed citizenry, we have echo chambers, manipulations, and centralized corporate platforms that are largely sewers collecting the worst humanity has to offer- but now distributed globally for free.

      For as long as I can recall, Disney correctly predicted this outcome in their carousel of progress. Technology makes society better in some ways, and worse in others. Every once in awhile, you get a burned turkey...

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  14. Re: This won't end well. by jd · · Score: 1

    USENET also had one standard for everyone. It worked just fine.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  15. I have no sympathy by jd · · Score: 1

    The laws that would have protected individuals were scrapped or never passed by request from users.

    Companies were actively encouraged to do whatever the hell they wanted, by the users.

    Facebook was rewarded for past offences by an increase in users.

    Your rights exterior to yourself don't exist in the Tea Party and Libertarian world view and businesses are free to do whatever they like. World views currently elected by the users and in office.

    I cannot have sympathy for self-induced injuries, at least until those users take responsibility for their acts. Most unlikely, they're having way too much fun critiquing the popularity addicts they also supply.
    I

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  16. Re:I'm anti-facist by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

    That argument won't work anymore. We all see what you're doing. Of course we have to use violence. How else do you kill nazis?

    The real socials issues are: 1. Abolishing private property 2. Making a list of all nazis ... and then killing them.

    So... you are communists.. You are a fucking idiot.

  17. Where do you legally get images for training? by cnaumann · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't the images used for training be illegal. If so, how is it legally possible to train the network?

  18. The real question by bblb · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The real question is how the hell they managed to allow 8.7 million exploitative posts in the first place... They ban conservatives for the most menial of infractions daily, but they've been turning a blind eye while accumulating nearly 9 million exploitative posts? Talk about fucked up priorities.

  19. fighting child abuse by clubalien · · Score: 1

    this is a good thing. google also has an api they share that uses ai to detect new child abuse photos. my idea is called facial recognition for children. you build a database of child school photos and then you run the exploited picture through amazons facial recognition service to find the school of the child based on the face in the photo. i just don't know how to build the database of all the school photos. someone should take my idea to ted talks or build an organization of volunteers to upload the school photos

  20. Just Be Glad its Facebook and not Google by wisnoskij · · Score: 1
    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  21. Re:I'm anti-facist by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "I hate capitism!" he thumbed out on his iPhone, and pressed send. He sat back in the cafe and waited for them to call his name for his $4.95 Iced Cappo Machi-Mocha Caramellow.

    He needed to rush home because the video game league championship was on in 20 minutes for Guns of Murder, prize $500,000.

    "I guess I'll have to order pizza delivery."

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  22. It's a good start by linear+a · · Score: 1

    It's a good start. Someday they may be able to remove all Facebook posts.

    1. Re:It's a good start by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      They are on the right track, since they are unconcerned about false positives.

  23. Re:I'm anti-facist by Ceseuron · · Score: 1

    The only reason you want to abolish private property is because you and your ilk are a bunch of lazy twats who want everything handed to you on a silver platter without ever having to put forth any effort to earn it for yourselves. The only difference between the greed of the "elites" you espouse so much hatred for and your own greed is that the elites put forth the effort to acquire more wealth, power, security, and so forth for their own benefit while you expect other people to put forth the same efforts for your personal benefit. In short, you'd rather be the slave owner than one of the slaves, profiting off the labors of someone else. You have absolutely no interest in abolishing the slavery itself, which is the defining characteristic of every one of you "antifa" retards.

    Making a list of nazis in "antifa" terms is nothing more than making a list of people who say things that offend the limited, childlike worldview of the average "antifa". All you're looking to do is kill people who disagree with you or commit whatever happens to be the latest in a long and ever changing list of thought crimes. It isn't any different than what a certain Austrian fellow was doing during the 1930's to 1940's to Jews, disabled people, and other people he and his ilk deemed to be socially undesirable. That's radical facism.

    Fortunately, at least here in America, there's a lot more people that reject communism, embrace the concept of private property, and view certain rights as inalienable when it comes to protecting their freedom than there are of your kind. The odds of your communist utopia coming to fruition in your lifetime is slim to none.

  24. Re:I'm anti-facist by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    The only difference between the greed of the "elites" you espouse so much hatred for and your own greed is that the elites put forth the effort to acquire more wealth, power, security, and so forth for their own benefit while you expect other people to put forth the same efforts for your personal benefit.

    It's not hard to become disenchanted with capitalism when you're struggling to make ends meet in a dead-end job, and you see rich people making bank because they can afford to buy shitloads of ads to promote their trivial "inventions" on Kickstarter. Yeah, spending money to convince people to invest in your scam sure must be hard work.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater and switching to some other *-ism. Just pointing out that not everyone works equally hard for their wealth.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  25. Re: I'm anti-facist by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    He's no real Communist. He's probably never even read Marx; much less Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or any less famous thinkers.

    Hard question #1 for real Commies: okay, we have abolished private property. NOW WHAT?

    I know Lenin's answer. But to most people today, including those who sympathetize with Communist ideals, Dictatorship of the Proletariat seems like a flawed idea with some pretty bad history.

    See these "antifa" brownshirts aren't really interested in economics or political philosophy. When you call them Communists you're giving them way too much credit. They're just a bunch of angry, angsty college kids... who are looking for a socially acceptable excuse to join a lynch mob.

  26. Re: I'm anti-facist by jpaine619 · · Score: 1

    Touche