The DMA (Digital Markets Act) has clauses that force big companies that are considered “gatekeepers” to allow interoperability with other services.

Images aren’t federated through ActivityPub so I don’t really see how deleting media is supposed to work.

Yes, they are. Every instance downloads everyone’s images for a “cached” version that is currently never used. This is what makes this problem especially insidious and straight up dangerous in cases like CSAM.

It’s a basic curl command, that shouldn’t be “arcane” if you’re setting up a server.

This is the equivalent of saying that any instance admin needs to know how to use curl while most people have never used a commandline. Not only that but you need machine access to know the api key which I would wager instance admins do not necessarily have.

I think this is the result of not prioritising work that makes moderation possible by non-technically inclined people and it is genuinely a failure of the system.

The priorities of development on Lemmy are decided by developers and the people who are not are simply pushed away. Most community leaders and moderators are not developers. The mental gymnastics to justify this lack of tooling is tiring.

They can, if they read the manual. Mods can’t, but instance admins can.

Yes. If you use arcane commands using the docs that are in a pull request that is not yet merged. This is not accessible to many instance admins and it is only “technically supported” which is the worst kind of support from my point of view.

In what way are those better? Don’t they still suffer from the privacy problems that come with federation?

Yes, the issue is that Lemmy does not even attempt to allow you to delete the image. There is no control for the user to do this. It’s literally not possible.

I think this is a pretty clear example of what I mean when I say that my work was never valued.

I did do work that was non-code - I labeled tons of issues, closed duplicates and those which had already been fixed.

I did try to write code contributions (here and here). One of which was rejected based on purely aesthetic preferences and whose follow-up PR was made dormant forever afterwards.

I tried to help and contribute in the ways I could - apparently this work is just “negativity and complaints”.

But are my priorities not my own? Why is this such an affront that I choose what I think is important? Would you like it if I did the same to you, demanded that you change your priorities to do what I want you to do? What if there are thousands of other people asking you the same thing?

When you accept donations and grants for Lemmy’s development and when you work with other people, I think it is normal and good to think about priorities in a more collaborative fashion. I cannot write rust code and many other people cannot do that. When their issues are left ignored, dismissed and repeatedly told that they have no input towards Lemmy’s direction - people tend to not want to work with you because they feel that their work is pointless.

Why make an issue if developers admit to not reading them and not changing priorities? Why help towards a collective goal if everyone is just working on their own personal thing? As someone who is not good at writing code - it just feels like shit. My work felt entirely pointless because there was no way for my effort to amount to anything I wanted. Only people who can write code can actually influence the Lemmy project.

I understand feeling burned out but I tried contributing, I tried making things better and all I was met with was “I will not change my priorities” or “I do not think it is valuable to try to bring direction in the Lemmy project” or straight up dismissal or silence. If what you wanted all this time was for you to work on your own thing with no outside input, well, all I can say is you’ve done good work to make that happen.

I don’t think there’s anything left for me to tell you.

To put so much demands on so few people, entitled to their free labor while contributing nothing back, is a terrible thing to do to a person.

I don’t know how you managed to do this in one thread but I’ll leave these two contradictions here:

• Lemmy devs claim to both “work full time” on the project because of donations and NLNet grants so sublinks could never reach parity in a reasonable timeframe
• Lemmy devs claim that Lemmy is all a labour of love and that asking for a change in leadership and priorities is just “entitled”

Like, I’m not going to deny that entitlement in open source is a thing - it is a thing and it is awful.

However, people are giving you their time, effort and money - you keep dismissing that and doubling down on erasing this work.

I mean, unless you want to tell me how I’m acting entitled to your work despite spending countless hours trying to support my community, spending hours sorting through issues that Lemmy has to label them, spending countless hours advocating for people to make issues and for change in the Lemmy project.

And after all that, trying to have any input on prioritising moderation was met with : (paraphrasing) “I will not change my priorities”, “I think you’re exagerating moderation issues, they work fine” and plain out refusing to acknowledge lolicon pornography as CSAM, refusing to acknowledge my request to put moderators in Lemmy’s matrix channels despite obvious problems during weekend.

Seriously, I kinda expected better from you. I have no trust in Lemmy’s leadership and your response here just examplifies that.

How do I put this? If this is how you respond to criticism, and that’s what you’ve clearly shown repeatedly to do, then you should not be in any leadership position.

You do not apologize even when you admit to be wrong, you blame others instead of taking responsibilities for anything that was said here. It’s entirely a dismissive response. You might not have noticed but people do not feel valued at all when they speak to Lemmy’s developers. Their input is dismissed, they are told to make issues that you do not care for and when they ask for something to be better prioritized, you effectively tell them to fuck off. You make people feel that their time and effort towards Lemmy is worthless.

With the way you’ve acted, you have pushed back people from making issues, from contributing in code or otherwise, from wanting to host Lemmy and wanting to be associated with the project. Sincerely, all I can hope at this point is for Lemmy to be forked by better people or to be forgotten about.

I remember hearing this story a long time ago, It’s still so shocking that this happened.

This is just enlightened centrism. No. Nobody needs to defend the harms done by technology.

We can accept the harm if the good is worth it - we have no need to defend it.

LLMs can work without the harm.

It makes sense to make technology better by reducing the harm they cause when it is possible to do so.

I mean, I don’t understand the point of an encryption that people can decrypt without it being intended. Just seems like theatre to me.

But yeah, obviously the intended parties have to be able to decrypt it. I messed up in my wording.

This is a false equivalence. Encryption only works if nobody can decrypt it. LLMs work even if you censor illegal content from their output.

I personally think it’s likely. Facebook is one of the companies that will be targeted by EU’s DMA and since they co-authored this standard, it seems likely they’d want to use it to respect the DMA. If Facebook uses it, others will adopt it because of their sheer control over messaging services.

they are.

We can try to rationalize it, sure but I think that doing that generally is a disservice. I don’t want to make decisions based on this severity scale. The people who suffer from these problems are all equally deserving of help.

I mean maybe calling it evil is part of the problem ?

I call it evil because it is intentional and premeditated.

There are degrees in everything. Punching somebody is less bad than killing somebody.

Trying to put everything on degrees is bound to show ignorance and imply that certain things are more acceptable than others.

I don’t want to hurt people with my ignorance and I do not want to tell someone that what they experienced is less bad than something else. They are bad and we’ll leave it at that.

Btw its totally humane because we invented the shit.

I am working with this definition : “Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion”. There is a difference between human-made and humane.

No. I think that it would still be bad if it were self-use because it is ultimately doing something that someone doesn’t consent to.

If you were to use this on yourself or someone consenting, I see no issues there - be kinky all you want.

Consent is the core foundation for me.

The reason why imagining someone is different is that it is often less intentional - thoughts are not actions.

Drawing someone to be similar to someone you know is very intentional. Even worse, there is a high likely chance that if you are drawing someone you know naked, you likely never asked for their consent because you know you wouldn’t get it.

I don’t like grading evil for this very reason so I think I will refrain from doing so - thank you for catching me doing that. I will refrain from doing that.

That said, AI CSAM could enable other forms of abuse through blackmail. I can also see very harmful things happening to a child or teenager because people may share this material in a targeted way.

I think both are inhumane and disgusting.

Does imagining a different partner while having sex or masturbating count? I would imagine most people would say, “no”.

You can’t share that though so while I still think it is immoral, it is also kind of impossible to know.

Now a highly skilled portrait artist paints a near replica of somebody he knows, but has never seen in the nude. They never mention their friend by name, but the output is lifelike and unmistakably them.

Maybe a digital artist finds a few social media pictures of a person and decided to test drive Krita and manipulates them into appearing nude.

Those would be immoral and reprehensible. The law already protects against such cases on the basis of using someone’s likeness.

It’s harmful because it shares images of someone doing things they would never do. It’s not caricature, it’s simply a fabrication. It doesn’t provide criticism - it is simply erotic.

Taking that a step further, is it illegal to find somebody’s doppelganger and to dress them up so that they look more like their double?

If the goal is to look like you, I would imagine it is possible to defend by law. Otherwise, it is simply coincidence. There’s no intent there.

I don’t think it is a stretch or slippery slope. Just as a picture is captured by a camera, a drawing is captured by a person or a machine.

Both should be the same and it is often already the case in many jurisdictions around the world when it comes to CSAM.

How is ai pedophile stuff worse than actual pedophile stuff?

It’s not worse - it’s just as bad.