> 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.
I got ads, reels that were not-at-all veiled hints at CSAM. "Report: CSAM" "We reviewed your report and determined that the content does not breach our policy."
"In cases of kompromat during the early 21st century, Russian operatives have been suspected or accused of placing child pornography on the personal computers of individuals they were attempting to discredit." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompromat
The only real question is how easy it would be to target the undesired via the ad placement targetting options on social media platforms. On the one on which I've run ads (LinkedIn), pretty hard. At least on a technical level, because if your audience size is too small it asks you to expand your criteria. Maybe other platforms are less strict?
For sure would be a more comfortable approach for state operatives than physical access.
--
Aside. Watch the movie with the same name. Use an ad blocker, religiously.
If only they were as liable for this kind of stuff as they are for DMCA'ble content lmao
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.
Why reasonable? Don't these ads pass through pre-publication review, and Meta makes money off of it? Any number above zero is a serious problem. If they can't run an ad business that doesn't publish and profit off of CSAM, they shouldn't run it.
I don't think we should distinguish between 'fake' and real CSAM based on if kids are hurt; this ad machine shouldn't be able to publish it, regardless. The moral question of if it's real or kids were directly harmed seems separate to me.
They identified them after the fact and appear to have disclosed that. This is what they needed to do to be able to be held accountable and to do better detecting them in the future.
I block ads and ad services at the device and network level and don't use any Meta services (outside of facebookresearch models), so while I'm fortunate not to have been able to be served any of these, it's also kind of unfortunate that I'm in a relatively rare category to know to report them and how.
Just accept money for CSAM ads without accountability, it's fine. No ethical issue here. Why is everyone so angry? /s
If a company can't operate within the law due to the scale it chooses to operate at, then it should choose not to operate at that scale.
It doesn't become acceptable to break the law because your scale means there a lots of times you don't break the law either.
"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.
Every time they disseminate one of these ads, they commit a serious criminal offence. What threshold of criminality is reasonable to you?
In my mind there are two components of this that are in direct tension though, regardless of numbers:
1. Humans having to review ad content is legitimately traumatizing and awful
2. Automated systems can miss obviously harmful content, which should never be allowed
To me this means we probably shouldn't permit these systems to scale as they do, because the company profits from harms to its own workers and/or ad viewers. I worry that we've normalized a business that shouldn't exist in its current form, but it prints so much cash that no one is willing to stop it.