Real photos of young girls were in nudify-app ads on Facebook, Instagram

Posted by Bender 3 hours ago

Counter33Comment4OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by cactacea 1 hour ago

> In captions, ads enticed Meta users to click with claims like “I can show you more” or promises that “our AI transforms your hidden desires into hypnotic videos. Dark, seductive, unforgettable.” Another boasted, “there are no restrictions. All the characters are real people and there are many options. This is the AI men actually use.”

> Even more troublingly, TTP emphasized in a press release that these findings came after the group teamed up with Wired and flagged an earlier batch of 53 ads in August. At that time, Meta claimed that it had “recently rolled out new systems to better detect child exploitation.” But TTP “found hundreds of new CSAM ads ran after Meta boasted about its new technology.”

Prison is too good for the people responsible for this.

Comment by bsoqk 57 minutes ago

>the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) reported that Meta failed to detect 332 ads containing CSAM this year

Considering the amount of ads they handle that seems... reasonable?

Not to mention the stupidity of calling the result of nudify apps "CSAM" when no minors in situation of sexual abuse are used in any way to generate those photos.

Comment by washadjeffmad 4 minutes ago

This is one of those topics that gets radioactive quickly, so I'm trying to parse this comment under the recent ruling by a judge that certain obscene products of generative AI are protected under the First Amendment.

"We now live in an age where GenAI [generative AI] models can render images depicting the abuse of virtual children that are virtually indistinguishable from those depicting the abuse of actual children. This case illuminates how this evolving technology complicates the lines drawn by the Supreme Court in Stanley, Osborne, and Free Speech Coalition. Indeed, in Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of First Amendment protections for virtual CSAM, but that was nearly twenty-five years ago, and the image-generation technology available today was likely unimaginable back then. Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/judge-ai-child-sex-abuse-r...

Despite the source images not being CSAM, the products of nudify services may be CSAM but not child pornography. Because nudifying minors involves generation of material intended to depict real people who cannot give consent on computers outside the home, I'd consider them not to be protected speech.

Comment by hollow-moe 13 minutes ago

"Not sorry, it will happen again."

If only they were as liable for this kind of stuff as they are for DMCA'ble content lmao