Per the original article:
Update: After this article was published, Bluesky restored Kabas’ post and told 404 Media the following: “This was a case of our moderators applying the policy for non-consensual AI content strictly. After re-evaluating the newsworthy context, the moderation team is reinstating those posts.”
Wait, you mean to tell me this meme didn’t have the full context included? Am I to believe that I shouldn’t take memes seriously and get into fights on the internet with strangers?!
Newsworthy context?
It was playing on all the screens in a govt. building for 5 minutes. The staff didn’t know how to stop it so someone was running around manually unplugging screens. I’d say that’s pretty newsworthy
In essence i agree but in context of the strategy of flooding the media i cant help but feel like for every something like this, which is funny and In some way hopeful but not a ongoing major issue we are missing something else.
It was playing on a ton of government TVs and no one knew how to turn it off. That leads to some articles.
deleted by creator
404media is great as always. Interesting comments about the legality of this.
that’s kinda understandable tbh
You’re right and I hate it. The rich and powerful should have fewer protections. Not more
Everyone should be protected from having their consent violated, regardless of how despicable of a human they are. Human rights extend to all. The right to consent is non negotiable. We should just guillotine them instead. Quick and painless, but gruesome enough to set a good example.
I agree with you, but I wish I didn’t. I don’t want to have empathy for these horrible people
I find it becomes more palatable if you see it as not setting a bad precedent for human rights, or defining who counts as human, rather than empathy for the parasites
We can’t post to sucking videos, but he can spew hatred and lies? And his videos of Trump Gaza? Makes sense.
He never posts on bluesky. That kind of hatred gets you banned there as well. The standards are there.
That’s good to know
Some people get off on toe sucking and porn is produced featuring it. If you put someone else’s face in porn that they didn’t consent to be in you’re on the wrong side of ethics.
Those horrible bastards are more wrong and should be stopped, but nonconsentual porn isn’t right.
If you put someone’s face in anything they didn’t consent to.
This isn’t porn specific and even if it was, almost everything is someone’s “thing”.
We could make a copypasta. Long. Detailed. Horny.
I very much dislike moral exceptions
The question is how quick they’re to remove non consensual porn of the rich and powerful.
Middle schoolers are doing this shit to harass each other and it destroys lives. Lots of platforms are pretty negligent.
I think it is fair to say that the two are not the same. The trump thing probably had millions of views. They didn’t have to look hard to find it. Now I agree, they need to do better with moderation that involves kids, especially. Such things should actually be stopped before they are even posted. But I am not going to ding them for taking quick action on something that was brought to thier attention.
Womp womp, that didnt take long. Only downhill for Bluesky from here on.
Relax they put it back up
What does that change? Its about the system and their ability to do so from a central control point. Bluesky was doomed before it started with how it is set up and governed.
deleted by creator
The fact it was taken down tells you everything you need to know about BS.
All it means is that one moderator made a dumb decision. But I’m sure that’s never been a problem on the fediverse.
Nope, never
Dunno why blow it out of proportion, either a moderator with bias or mass reports from fans of their daddy being made fun of, which in return triggered an automatic removal of the post.
To think people are joining Bluesky like it’s totally different to Xitter…
The sooner the enshittification happens the more likely they are to learn
Its not explicit and it is a public figure AND a current news story. Imo, it seems like poor judgement.
Which is probably why the decision was reverted.
Its not explicit
I could see people going either way on that. I think it’s safe to say few people want to see that and the vast majority don’t want to see it more than once.
it is a public figure AND a current news story.
true
Imo, it seems like poor judgement.
Probably, but it’s also pretty understandable. Generally how that kind of stuff is handled in media is to report on it, link to it and tell people what’s in the link, let them decide.
I guess this normalizes foot fetishes. They’re gonna be fucked when people start sexually fetishizing people who are fully clothed in photographs
Start?
Yeah, I live in Utah and that shit has been going for years here. Thirsty people gonna thirst.
What
How do we really know it was nonconsensual though?
Just the doubt is enough to not do it. Unless you ask the same question about the myriad of porn videos which circulate the internet
Would the fediverse be able to handle something like this differently?
It just depends on the instance you’re on. The tankie instances, it’s gone.
Yea, but users on the tankie instances would still be able to see it in their federated feed, right? I think the majority of federated instances would need to all agree to censor it.
It was tho there has to be a line. Feet stuff is literally a fetish.
Well, someone link it already!
