1086
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
1086 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck AI
7136 readers
1467 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The obvious implication is copyrighted" content flagging, considering the account was banned after uploading a manga. Google drive used to be a source for links to Linux ISOs, so it's unsurprising that they're cracking down on it in the dumbest and laziest way possible.
copyrighted*
That's the implications the narrative tries to create by saying the content is "his own", and yet never spells it out, which is why it seems like a red herring to me.
Like, if it was his own CSAM, it doesn't make it any better he is the author.
If Google didn't give a reason, then it would be poor journalism to speculate. Providing enough context for the reader to come to their own conclusions isn't a red herring, it is the correct way to report on it.
What journalism? This is the banned author posting on Twitter, they are the primary source, and could have said anything, including that Google didn't give a reason, if they didn't.
Are you one of those people who thinks all japan is pedo or something
I don't think so, and I also don't agree with AI moderation nuking someone's cloud backups...
But also I wouldn't find it surprising if it was marked as CSAM when the artist's cover art can look like this (NSFW). The material inside is probably much more explicit.
It certainly caters to a... specific audience.
EDIT: Link fixed. Thanks for mentioning.
Broken link. No idea which cover art you were referencing, but here's a couple: Not explicit, but still NSFW
Took a quick peek and it's uhh, definitely porn. Hot take: doesn't matter to me. There's people out there using Gmail to facilitate the torture and murder of real literal children. Why are we focusing on drawings instead of the people doing actual harm?
Oh, I agree. For Google to act like a paragon of justice on this front, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the actual harm they facilitate is a joke. I guess as long as it's not relevant to training their AI image recognition, it doesn't call for the same level of moderation.
No, why? I came up with an extreme example to illustrate my point: It's suspicious that they didn't say the reason for the ban, because if it's a bad reason they would have said what it is.
I don't imply any reason, especially the example I have given.