4 ms·

you don't think one of the world's biggest media platforms disseminating CSAM is causing meaningful harm to society?

by mplewis 1mo ago

Dylan16807 1mo ago
First let's not use an unqualified label of "CSAM" when talking about generated images. But if a thousand people see some ad then the amount of damage is not much compared to their overall business. I'd go for a healthy penalty on top, and adding in more transparency to make sure they don't hide the real extent of the problem, but it's still probably small to them. Getting Facebook to put in a reasonable amount of blocking effort is good. But it wouldn't fully fix the problem.
- happymellon 1mo ago
  They could also put in place a real reporting button to remove CSAM. Instead it's a "I don't like this" and they will continue to ignore it.
Ajedi32 1mo ago
Yes it's meaningful, and the fine amount should reflect that. But hypothetically, if it's (just throwing a random number out there) 1 image in 50 billion, and Facebook gets more benefit from the 50 billion good images than society loses from the 1 bad one, and society recovers its loss from Facebook via a fine, but the fine isn't big enough to make them change their behavior, how exactly is that a problem?
- callc 1mo ago
  The problem is equating profitability with what societies want and don’t want. Morality exists outside of the business world (and it should inside as well). Further, it is a societies’ right to enforce the boundaries of what business are allow to do / not do. For example: banning ads along roads and scenic areas. Idk, the whole idea of “how much fines will I get doing X shitty business practice” is just gross. I’d rather see harsher enforcement to keep businesses on the straight and narrow more often than not.
  - nathan_compton 1mo ago
    Pretty sure this isn't what they are teaching at the best business schools.
  - Ajedi32 1mo ago
    Perhaps, but when you're operating at any significant scale accidents become a statistical certainty. 0 screw ups, ever is not a realistically achievable goal. And if some limited number of screw ups is allowable, that necessarily becomes an insurable cost that amounts to "just the cost of doing business", so I don't really see the complaint. Concrete example: If you run a construction business, even if you take all the required precautions, statistically you're going to get 9.2 of your employees killed for every 100,000 man-hours they work.[1] Is that proof all construction companies are evil, and we should shut them down for murdering their employees? Is it a problem that having to buy life insurance is "just a cost of doing business" for these companies? [1]: https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/number-and-rate-of-fatal-work-injuries-by-industry.htm https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-inju...
    - happymellon 1mo ago
      This is the reaction to the FAANGs obviously not caring that they are publishing CSAM. They will be given more leeway for small scale "screwups" if they can show that they are working to reduce large scale issues. As it is we are dealing with organisations that don't give a shit, so peoples attitudes reflect that back at them.
      - Ajedi32 1mo ago
        I don't see anything here to suggest that they don't care. Is the fact that 9.2/100,000 full time workers keep getting killed every year in the construction industry proof those companies don't care that they're getting their workers killed? Or is it just that at scale, bad things inevitably happen whether you care or not? Maybe it's true Facebook doesn't care about this and if so that would be a problem, but I also think HN has an anti-FANG bias that causes people to give far too much weight to every negative news story that comes out about these companies. The only real issue with FAANG IMO is just the way software copyright and network effects grant them local monopolies in certain spaces. Overall I don't think they're as a whole any better or worse than any other company, large or small.
inigyou 1mo ago
I think we should restrict the term CSAM to M created by CSA, not AI hallucinations.

you don't think one of the world's biggest media platforms disseminating CSAM is causing meaningful harm to society?

by mplewis 1mo ago

you don't think one of the world's biggest media platforms disseminating CSAM is causing meaningful harm to society?

First let's not use an unqualified label of "CSAM" when talking about generated images. But if a thousand people see some ad then the amount of damage is not much compared to their overall business. I'd go for a healthy penalty on top, and adding in more transparency to make sure they don't hide the real extent of the problem, but it's still probably small to them. Getting Facebook to put in a reasonable amount of blocking effort is good. But it wouldn't fully fix the problem.

happymellon 1mo ago
They could also put in place a real reporting button to remove CSAM. Instead it's a "I don't like this" and they will continue to ignore it.

Ajedi32 1mo ago

Yes it's meaningful, and the fine amount should reflect that. But hypothetically, if it's (just throwing a random number out there) 1 image in 50 billion, and Facebook gets more benefit from the 50 billion good images than society loses from the 1 bad one, and society recovers its loss from Facebook via a fine, but the fine isn't big enough to make them change their behavior, how exactly is that a problem?

callc 1mo ago
The problem is equating profitability with what societies want and don’t want. Morality exists outside of the business world (and it should inside as well). Further, it is a societies’ right to enforce the boundaries of what business are allow to do / not do. For example: banning ads along roads and scenic areas. Idk, the whole idea of “how much fines will I get doing X shitty business practice” is just gross. I’d rather see harsher enforcement to keep businesses on the straight and narrow more often than not.
- nathan_compton 1mo ago
  Pretty sure this isn't what they are teaching at the best business schools.
- Ajedi32 1mo ago
  Perhaps, but when you're operating at any significant scale accidents become a statistical certainty. 0 screw ups, ever is not a realistically achievable goal. And if some limited number of screw ups is allowable, that necessarily becomes an insurable cost that amounts to "just the cost of doing business", so I don't really see the complaint. Concrete example: If you run a construction business, even if you take all the required precautions, statistically you're going to get 9.2 of your employees killed for every 100,000 man-hours they work.[1] Is that proof all construction companies are evil, and we should shut them down for murdering their employees? Is it a problem that having to buy life insurance is "just a cost of doing business" for these companies? [1]: https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-injuries/number-and-rate-of-fatal-work-injuries-by-industry.htm https://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupational-inju...
  - happymellon 1mo ago
    This is the reaction to the FAANGs obviously not caring that they are publishing CSAM. They will be given more leeway for small scale "screwups" if they can show that they are working to reduce large scale issues. As it is we are dealing with organisations that don't give a shit, so peoples attitudes reflect that back at them.
    - Ajedi32 1mo ago
      I don't see anything here to suggest that they don't care. Is the fact that 9.2/100,000 full time workers keep getting killed every year in the construction industry proof those companies don't care that they're getting their workers killed? Or is it just that at scale, bad things inevitably happen whether you care or not? Maybe it's true Facebook doesn't care about this and if so that would be a problem, but I also think HN has an anti-FANG bias that causes people to give far too much weight to every negative news story that comes out about these companies. The only real issue with FAANG IMO is just the way software copyright and network effects grant them local monopolies in certain spaces. Overall I don't think they're as a whole any better or worse than any other company, large or small.

inigyou 1mo ago

I think we should restrict the term CSAM to M created by CSA, not AI hallucinations.