779
google's AI moderation deleted artist's entire google account for uploading his own old manga to gdrive
(lm.kluge.cafe)
https://xcancel.com/AyakaMods/status/2057438125203296642#m
this needs to stop man
The obvious implication is copywrited 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.
Are you one of those people who thinks all japan is pedo or something
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.
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.
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.