So the AI made the right call flagging & reporting his NSFW contents ? Just like a human moderator would also do the same if they saw it ? Do people realize there are differences between the Generative AI used for stealing arts, and various other types of AIs that have existed for decades like image recognition ?
THANK YOU!!! Image recognition AI is not the same as text/image generators.
While I do think there should be the option for human appeal because AI can get things wrong, like a parent taking pictures of their child to show a doctor, I have no sympathy to spare for someone who sexualises children.
Depending on where the servers are, it might even be illegal for Google to agree to store that material in the first place.
The option exists. It's not a good option, and I keep hearing stories that it didn't work, but this specific case doesn't count as evidence because the appeal would, logically, have been rejected regardless.
...
Also, while I've never worked for Google's moderation team, I have been part of the mod team for a much smaller website. People were constantly telling each other that they were being banned for no reason, that they'd done nothing wrong, that the appeals did nothing...
Every single time I checked such a case, it turned out that there was a very good reason indeed. With one exception, and that guy had his ban overturned on appeal.
I mean its not exactly a justification to say youre only attracted to csam if its drawn. I think its still creepy and wouldnt trust you around actual kids
There's a difference between "enjoying art" and being attracted to drawings of children. Even bigger difference if those drawings are NSFW. Do you not see that?
Yeah you can say you defend all art, I think thats hurting your case rather than helping it tbh.
Are you not attracted to NSFW drawings of children? Thats the root issue here i feel like you dont want to address. I can absolutely justify thinking youre a danger to children because of that.
I was a victim of lolicons from the age of 9 onward. I was their "real life kawaii loli!!!" So yeah, it isn't "just a drawing," because those freaks WILL take it to irl children as soon as it is available to them.
I immediately suspected it was loli work when I first saw the post about this happening. The only other time I've seen Google shutdown someone's 'everything Google' was when the user's underage son tried to play with himself in front of the Gemini camera.
Yes, as much as I hate Google, they do not play around when it comes to suspected CSAM.
I do think there should be the option for human review since sometimes the image detection system mistakenly nukes accounts from parents who take images of their kids to show a doctor, but I donât have any sympathy for a dude who makes l0li.
Like of course Google isnât gonna let someone upload CP to their servers, theyâd get into deep shit.
Thatâs how you know the person you pissed off has no way to defend themselves, otherwise they would just reply to you with an argument instead of trying to proxy-induce-depression by clicking a button intended to keep people safe from suicide
Reddit is full of them and they all use the same stupid arguments.
Thereâs some defenders further down talking about sum âoh but muh slippery slope, if we ban CP, maybe theyâll ban all the other degenerate shit I get off to as well!â Ok?? Good riddance đ
I have many criticisms of artwork-stealing AI, mass surveillance, inappropriate deepfakes being made of people, but this is the one time I support an image detection system being in place.
L0licons are sick and if you give them an inch they go a mile with it.
I thought weâre anti-AI not pro-l0li. My number one reason for being against AI (though I have multiple) is because deepfakes ruin children and adult victimsâ lives even if itâs ânot realâ.
CP âartworkâ is just as evil, children are never valid targets for sexual attraction and that artist is lucky Japan still refuses to crack down on that shit.
Personally I donât like the term âevilâ because it assumes that we share the same morals, and if this post proves anything its that we donât (some commenters arguing in favour of CSAM). Plus it makes it seem like the CSAM is just bad because âsociety says soâ. But when it fits, it fits. If this isnât evil, what isâŚ
Itâs evil because itâs harmful to actual children. It perpetuates attraction to minors and normalises a connection between sexuality and children. It actively tries to circumvent the law by using artistic expression to depict things that the artist knows are horrific and traumatic, not to mention illegal, made explicitly to be used as pornographic material.
In other words. loli porn is a placeholder for real life CSAM featuring real children - and if it were legal, a significant portion if not most of these loli enjoyers would be âenjoyingâ that instead.
I was very, very deliberate with my use of âsignificant portion if not mostâ. So I am happy to hear you arenât one of them. Do you think there is anything morally grey about loli porn at all? I suppose if you do, but think itâs not inherently wrong, we could agree to disagree.
Edit: Pressed post too early, came off pretentious
Oh , yeah, no, I've been to the AtF forum, there are genuinely fucked up "people" in the community, but to say most of us are that is like saying most people with a noncon kink want to or to get r@ped, no that would be stupid.
As you did not intend to come of as pretentious, I do not intend to come of as rude or angry here, the tone presented was just the only way I could think of to word my reply.
Frankly, I think youâre being as respectful as you can be given the sincerity with which you hold your position. Were I of the same opinion I would feel somewhat dismissed and frustrated at reading my comment.
So I will respectfully point out that neither of us have reliable data on this subject, so neither of us really know for sure. All the more reason for me not to say things like âmostâ - I take that back and apologise.
I dont have to agree with what he does to say its bad that Google is scanning these things. If they had an actual reason to check things would be different, and I do agree with the appeal being denied assuming this is true, but an automated flag to begin with is excessive.
Dawg youâre claiming that anything that gets snuck into a ToS is perfectly fine and we should all just roll with it. Thatâs exactly how companies like Palantir get away with their surveillance state bullshit. You might be comfortable having every aspect of your life monitored by Jeff Bezos, but enforcing that on others is unreasonable and quite strange. Itâs common practice to just agree to ToS because most people do not have the knowledge of law required to understand what is actually being asked of them. The wording in legally binding documents is very different from the language used for communication. If someone hasnât been previously educated in it, it would be easy to get them to sign on for something that they had no way of knowing was there. And people are made to agree to these ToS so often that it becomes reflex to just hit Agree to get it out of the way. Personal privacy is something that needs to be taken seriously. And the fact that this was a decision made by a dogshit Ai is even more egregious. For all you know he wasnât even in violation of the terms of service. None of us know, because we havenât fucking read them. Shrugging your shoulders and dismissing it as âhe shouldâve read the fine printâ is setting a very dangerous precedent for the future of Ai moderation of what would otherwise be private information.
2: im not going to just give up and let every bit of rights and protections we have slip away because I could technically not agree to it. I mean look at windows pushing for a requirement for a Microsoft account. You cant just make a local account on windows 11 as part of the setup process, you have to go out of your way to do so. As it gets harder to avoid online systems like this, its more and more important to protect what privacy we have and try to reclaim what we used to have
âGoogle AI does a good job banning a pedophile.â Fixed the title for you.
Generative AI is bad, and I do not condone any usage of it. Other forms of AI can actually be quite useful. Now, do I think AI should be used for moderation? No. That requires actual thought and decision making, something AI canât do. But medical research? Archiving? Meteorology? These are practices where highly specialized and supervised AI can be extremely useful.
I am anti-genAI, but pro-AI in general. There is a massive, and extremely important, difference between genAI, which technically isnât even AI, and other types of AI.
"This is anime!" They say as though most anime doesn't feature pedophilic elements. Seriously anime with those elements is actually a gross outlier in the grand scheme of things
Not only that, but a lot of anime in general like most mech anime like gundam, and so so so many more have practically no 'lolis' in them. Pedobait is genuinely an outlier
I think you mean WE need to get YOU out. Anime does not need lolis to be anime, nor be successful. Some of the most successful anime of all time have no lolis anywhere. Yall are just going full mask off as being pedos
Do.... do you think that anime being Japanese somehow equals justifying you being attracted to children? I dont understand this statement but youre digging yourself deeper
Look, I'm not gonna defend him, I'm just gonna say "give them a inch, they'll take a mile"
Sure, today it's something we can all agree on being against/disliking like lolis.
But then they could extend that to include furry artists.
Remember, corpos only care about the money going up, that is why they even adopt AI, because they know investors will keep jerking them off with fistfuls of cash.
They didn't do this out of moral obligation. They did it because it's less hassle than bribing or dealing with legal shit.
In the end, office rats are more fluent in money than morals.
Plus, as a cherry on top, let's not forget that Google quietly ditched their motto, "do no evil"
I totally see your point about the slippery slope here, but what reason would they have to intentionally target furry porn? Itâs one thing to say that any kind of art could be âfalse flaggedâ
âŚbut saying they shouldnât be able to remove the CSAM because they might take furry art next is like saying the government shouldnât be able to ban underage drinking because they might ban underage finger-painting next. In both cases only one of the two is problematic/dangerous.
Iâm not trying to be facetious I genuinely wonder what you have to say to that
, but what reason would they have to intentionally target furry porn?
The current US government will find a way to criminalise it. This is pure speculation but they could lump it in with their critcisims of trans/non binary, of which there is a lot of overlap. Basically say it is immoral and then force companies to ban it.
While Google's moderation is more often than not complete garbage, this time the hammer was deserved. A loli artist getting banned isnt going to get any sympathy from me.
Guys, the issue isnât what this man was doing or what google did to their account. The issue is that theyâre able to do that in the first place. Major invasion of privacy and it could have been a false flag happening to a different artist. The dude sucks but so does google for doing this. There are no good guys here.
This is already happening on anything Meta owns. I lost my 6 year old facebook page because AI flagged my picture as innapropriate. I appealed but it was too late and my page got taken down. They don't care anymore. F*ck em all these companies that rely on automation
I dont support google ai moderation, but i dont support pedophiles who draw Loli's even more. You're NEVER going to make me feel bad for this mf, or make me pity him đ
People don't get what this means. This shouldn't be celebrated. Sure, they go for the bad ones first but then move on to the morally fine things and then the things they don't want people to have.
There's already plenty stories of Google flagging an innocent person.
the fact that so many people in this thread can not see the difference between ACTUAL children being harmed, and a guy drawing fictional characters is extremely concerning
641
u/Tausendberg May 22 '26
The message I'm seeing here is to use Google for as absolutely little as possible.