To address your two points, where did people get the idea that the word porn implies artistic merit or consent?

I didn’t say merit (or consent, though I assume that one’s a typo), I said artistic intent. Which every creative work by definition has.

There is nothing ethically wrong with porn in a vacuum, so categorising CSAM as a category of something that isn’t inherently ethically wrong in my opinion makes it a bad term. CSAM clearly and strictly be delineates it from consensual porn.

CP can stand for a lot of things but it’s common parlance now. CSAM just causes confusion.

Ah yes. The Acronym with MORE common definitions somehow causes less confusion. That makes perfect sense. Of course. That explains why so many people in this thread were confused by it. Oh no wait. They weren’t.

Also really? Now you’re stooping to the old “why so mad bro?”. You’re the one having a meltdown, I’m wasting time at work by sharing an opinion.

You’re the one who got upset enough about me using a common abbreviation, that no one in the thread was remotely confused by, to kick off this entire shit. You decided you needed to pedantically comment on this. I’m simply defending myself from your pedantic grammar nazi shit.

I’m not comparing you to Ben Shapiro, I’m comparing your grammar nazi pedantism to a single specific instance of his grammar nazi pedantism.

I also gave several explicit reasons why using CP over CSAM is idiotic, not just “my friends say so”

So that’s 2 for 2 for wildly and dishonestly misrepresenting my points.

But hey, if you want to be like that sure.

You’re right, everyone else is wrong, you do you and keep using CP instead of CSAM, and keep getting irrationally upset and angry at people who think CSAM is a better term. Happy now ?

Big “Ben Shapiro ranting about renewable energies because of the first law of thermodynamics” energy right here.

And your point is literally the opposite. Lolita could be argued to be child porn, as it’s pornographic material showing (fictional/animated) children. It is objectively NOT CSAM, because it does not contain CSA, because you can’t sexually abuse a fictional animated character.

CP is also a common acronym that can mean many other things.

Porn also implies it’s a work of artistic intent, which is just wrong for CSAM.

The majority of people can be wrong.

No they can’t, not with regards to linguistics. Linguistics is a descriptive science, not a prescriptive one. Words and language, by definition, and convention of every serious linguist in the world, mean what the majority of people think them to mean. That’s how language works.

Also, the data set wasn’t hosted, created, or explicitly used by Google in any way.

It was a common data set used in various academic papers on training nudity detectors.

Did you seriously just read the headline, guess what happened, and are now arguing based on that guess that I, who actually read the article, am wrong about it’s content ? Because that’s sure what it feels like reading your comments…

So you didn’t read my comment then did you ?

He got banned because Google’s automated monitoring system, entirely correctly, detected that the content he unzipped contained CSAM. It wasn’t even a manual decision to ban him.

His ban had literally nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the CSAM was part of an AI training data set.

Material can be anything. It can be images, videos theoretically even audio recordings.

Images is a relevant and sensible distinction. And judging by the downvotes you’re collecting, the majority of people disagree with you.

Which of the letters in CSAM stand for images then ?

They didn’t get mad, they didn’t even know THAT he reported it, and they have no reason or incentive to swipe it under the rug, because they have no connection to the data set. Did you even read my comment ?

I hate Alphabet as much as the next person, but this feels like you’re just trying to find any excuse to hate on them, even if it’s basically a made up reason.

The article headline is wildly misleading, bordering on being just a straight up lie.

Google didn’t ban the developer for reporting the material, they didn’t even know he reported it, because he did so anonymously, and to a child protection org, not Google.

Google’s automatic tools, correctly, flagged the CSAM when he unzipped the data and subsequently nuked his account.

Google’s only failure here was to not unban on his first or second appeal. And whilst that is absolutely a big failure on Google’s part, I find it very understandable that the appeals team generally speaking won’t accept “I didn’t know the folder I uploaded contained CSAM” as a valid ban appeal reason.

It’s also kind of insane how this article somehow makes a bigger deal out of this devolper being temporarily banned by Google, than it does of the fact that hundreds of CSAM images were freely available online and openly sharable by anyone, and to anyone, for god knows how long.

They reacted to the presence of CSAM. It had nothing whatsoever to do with it being contained in an AI training dataset, as the comment I originally replied to states.

They didn’t react to anything. The automated system (correctly) flagged and banned the account for CSAM, and as usual, the manual ban appeal sucked ass and didn’t do what it’s supposed to do (also whilst this is obviously a very unique case, and the ban should have been overturned on appeal right away, it does make sense that the appeals team, broadly speaking, rejects “I didn’t know this contained CSAM” as a legitimate appeal reason). This is barely news worthy. The real headline should be about how hundreds of CSAM images were freely available and sharable from this data set.

Did you even read the article ? The dude reported it anonymously, to a child protection org, not google, and his account was nuked as soon as he unzipped the data, because the content was automatically flagged.

Google didn’t even know he reported this, and Google has nothing whatsoever to do with this dataset. They didn’t create it, and they don’t own or host it.

Has this dude never heard of the tobacco, alcohol or gun Industry ?

He’s talking about commercial heroin like it’s some outlandish and unthinkable idea that a harmful thing would become a billion dollar industry

Yes you can. And yet I bet you’ve ordered pre made food before, or food delivery.

You’ve probably bought plenty of things you could’ve done yourself for cheaper. You’ve probably hired handymen to do things like install washing machines, or movers to transport your stuff, or painters or roofers or cleaners. All of those things are cheaper to do yourself. Do you portray people paying for those things as idiots in memes as well ?

Convenience has value, and it’s not weird, or inconsistent or stupid for people to be willing to pay a premium on the convenience of someone else doing things, even if you could do them yourself. Especially because a large convenience factor is that if someone else does it, someone else is responsible for fixing it if it goes wrong.

Also, if something isn’t working, you can RMA the whole machine. If you build a PC yourself, and it’s not working, it then becomes your job to troubleshoot and figure out exactly which component is causing the issue, so you can then RMA just that.

If you gave your AI permission to run console commands without check or verification, then you did in fact give it permission to delete everything.

What the hell even is the point mandating a back up alarm for self driving cars ? Backup alarms literally only exist because visibility to the rear is worse, and to warn pedestrians that a vehicle nearby is moving with very poor to no visibility, but that only applies to human operated vehicles. Autonomous vehicles use 360° sensors, they can “see” just as well in reverse as in forward. Be that good or bad, it’s equal in every direction, so mandating an alarm just for reverse seems enormously pointless. Especially since the cars tend to be slower in reverse, so if anything it’s less necessary then, vs. when they’re moving forward.

Not to necessarily defend the idea in the article, but that comment screams that you just read the headline and not the article.

If you had read the article, you would know that the author doesn’t want to get rid of routable addresses, they want to replace the current system of IP address assignments with an automated cryptographic address system, allowing network size to rapidly increase, and self organise without reliance on a central address authority. So your analogy of having no address at all is massive misrepresentation of the authors idea.

Wildly misrepresentating ideas is never good. Even if you dislike it, by wildly misrepresentating the idea, it just discredits your own stance, because it’s (seemingly) based on falsehoods.

Pretending like the author just wants to just abolish all types of routing addresses is dishonest.

Führer might only mean leader in Germany, but it’s rarely used outside of refering to Hitler nowadays.

Leader, in modern German, would be translated as “Anführer”, not “Führer” specifically because of the connotations. Also, using the term fuhrer in English, instead of translating as leader, clearly means it’s being used as a title, rather than a factual descriptor of what he was.

You can use Führer in context, but as it’s a title that was specifically created by and for Hitler, and never used before or since, it’s generally not used as a title for him, because people don’t want to give him the post mortem respect of addressing him by this title.

And for context, the entire German language Wikipedia entry of Hitler, calls Hitler Führer a total of 17 times. 8 of those are in direct quotes, 3 in indirect quotes, 2 of them are describing his official title “Führer und Reichsanzler” (outside of quotes only, to prevent double counting), 2 use the literal meaning of “leader” in the context of the party, NOT his title as dictator, 2 of them are talking about how he saw himself, and one is drawing a linguistic analogous link between “Führer” and “Geführten” (Leader and Followers).

Outside of quotes, there is not a single use of the term “Der Führer” as an actual honorific title (“The Führer”) for Hitler in the entire German language Wikipedia page (which is 30-40k words long).

In general it can be said that poor people do not have the capital to make upfront investments which become profitable over time. Not even just literal investing, but investing in things like a more fuel efficient car, upgrading the insulation in your house/apartment to save on heating, buying non-perishables in bulk when there’s a good deal, buying a dish washer instead of hand washing…

So many things that let you save tons of money in the long run, require relatively large upfront investments, that poor people can’t afford. That’s a big reason why poverty can be such an insidious vicious loop, that can be extremely hard to escape from.

Two identical households, with identical income could have vastly different financial situations, just based on if their income was previously low, and they weren’t able to afford any of these investments, vs. If their income was previously high, having allowed them to previously make these large investments to reduce their long term monthly costs, and secure enough liquidity to be able to continue occasionally making these investments.