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.”
Bluesky deleted a viral, AI-generated protest video in which Donald Trump is sucking on Elon Musk’s toes because its moderators said it was “non-consensual explicit material.” The video was broadcast on televisions inside the office Housing and Urban Development earlier this week, and quickly went viral on Bluesky and Twitter.
Independent journalist Marisa Kabas obtained a video from a government employee and posted it on Bluesky, where it went viral. Tuesday night, Bluesky moderators deleted the video because they said it was “non-consensual explicit material.”
Other Bluesky users said that versions of the video they uploaded were also deleted, though it is still possible to find the video on the platform.
Technically speaking, the AI video of Trump sucking Musk’s toes, which had the words “LONG LIVE THE REAL KING” shown on top of it, is a nonconsensual AI-generated video, because Trump and Musk did not agree to it. But social media platform content moderation policies have always had carve outs that allow for the criticism of powerful people, especially the world’s richest man and the literal president of the United States.
For example, we once obtained Facebook’s internal rules about sexual content for content moderators, which included broad carveouts to allow for sexual content that criticized public figures and politicians. The First Amendment, which does not apply to social media companies but is relevant considering that Bluesky told Kabas she could not use the platform to “break the law,” has essentially unlimited protection for criticizing public figures in the way this video is doing.
Content moderation has been one of Bluesky’s growing pains over the last few months. The platform has millions of users but only a few dozen employees, meaning that perfect content moderation is impossible, and a lot of it necessarily needs to be automated. This is going to lead to mistakes. But the video Kabas posted was one of the most popular posts on the platform earlier this week and resulted in a national conversation about the protest. Deleting it—whether accidentally or because its moderation rules are so strict as to not allow for this type of reporting on a protest against the President of the United States—is a problem.
Correct. this is indeed the correct decision to remove the thing. BUT i have a feeling that this quick reaction does not compare to the speed of decision for normal people, especially women who get this kind of stuff made about them.
Also, note that I’m not saying it was bad to make the video, or have it run in public on hacked screens.
That is perfectly fine political commentary, by means of civil disobedience.Just that Bluesky is correct in it’s action to remove it from their service.
Yeah guys, fuck bluesky.
Already showing its true colors of “We’ll abuse our power when we want to and only reneg if there’s sufficient backlash.”
Recommend MASTODON, NOT BLUESKY.
If you allow it for people you don’t like, where the bar for others.
Not a fan of the AI video but this kind of thinking is very very stupid. Take that cop out of your head.
Amazed people saying it is correct decision! This is two public figures and doing art or any form of expression material with their image should be protected under freedom of speech.
I don’t believe Bluesky is a part of the government. Legally, they are allowed to censor as they please on their own platform.
Their moderation has been garbage lately. They’re wrongly banning people for things they didn’t do. It’s just premusk twitter at this point. The real fediverse is a better vet medium and long term
It’s just premusk twitter at this point.
I mean, given that Jack Dorsey founded it as basically the “not Twitter Twitter” after musk bought the main one, I don’t think it’s surprising to see it face basically the same moderation issues in the name of being “even-handed”
Bluesky is BS
I’m confused as to why this 404media story neglected to link to the post in question.
to get from this article to the post that it is about, i had to type in the bsky username from the screenshot and scroll through the timeline. to save others the effort:
https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3liwlwvvq6k2s is the post which was removed.
https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lj3yrzc6is2p is the thread about it being removed and later restored.
Bluesky will become just the same az elonx…
WTF bluesky.
More trash
Ah, the rewards of moderation: the best move is not to play. Fuck it is & has always been a better answer. Anarchy of the early internet was better than letting some paternalistic authority decide the right images & words to allow us to see, and decentralization isn’t a bad idea.
Yet the forward-thinking people of today know better and insist that with their brave, new moderation they’ll paternalize better without stopping to acknowledge how horribly broken, arbitrary, & fallible that entire approach is. Instead of learning what we already knew, social media keeps repeating the same dumb mistakes.
I think there’s a huge difference between fighting bullying or hate speech against minorities. Another thing is making fun of very specific and very public people.
You need some kind of moderation for user generated content, even if it’s only to comply with takedowns related to law (and I’m not talking about DMCA).
Well, yes: gotta comply with the law. Legal violations are often quite clear, and removing illegal content is justifiable. Can’t fault anyone for following the law.
It’s the extra moderation that’s problematic. People yearning for their corporate authorities to command the right words & images to appear on a screen & calling that progress feels quite backward like our ancestors fought so hard to gain these freedoms that our spoiled generation will so easily cede away to some nobodies at the slightest often imaginary inconvenience.
I feel like it’s a balancing act and you can’t make everyone happy. I, personally, don’t hang around unmoderated communities because they are often worse: hostile, full of spam and questionable content… so basically /b/. But even 4chan is moderated to an extent shrug
Elon acts like a new Reddit mod drunk on power. He is the guy screaming in the comments that he knows how to run a forum better and seized the chance, and now he cannot fathom why people hate him.
I don’t want to watch this video please
Hopefully this amplifies the videos exposure. Is it because it is considered explicit that it’s not tolerated like other forms of parody?
yeah it’s basically deepfake porn.
Yeah. I think it was hilarious to “hack” government displays to show this in protest.
I am REALLY uncomfortable with sharing it on a wider basis. Because, at the risk of sounding like DNC leadership, it is opening a huge can of worms. Imagine if instead this was musk posting a deepfake of him and AOC similar to how he offered to rape taylor swift a while back?
oh it WILL happen on both sides. it’s just going to be part of our lives now, and social media is fully justified in removing it from their platforms.
It’s probably not AI, and could be considered revenge porn.
I seem to be in the minority here, but I am extremely uncomfortable the idea of non-consensual AI porn of anyone. Even people I despise. It’s so unethical that it just disgusts me. I understand why there are exceptions for those in positions of power, but I’d be more than happy to live in a world where there weren’t.
I agree with you.
However…there’s an argument to be made that the post itself is a form of criticism and falls under the free speech rules where it regards political figures. In many ways, it’s not any different than the drawings of Musk holding Trump’s puppet strings, or Putin and Trump riding a horse together. One is drawn and the other is animated, but they’re the same basic concept.
I understand however that that sets a disturbing precedent for what can and cannot be acceptable. But I don’t know where to draw that line. I just know that it has to be drawn somewhere.
I think…and this is my opinion…political figures are fair game for this, while there should be protections in place for private citizens, since political figures by their very ambition put themselves in the public sphere whereas private individuals do not.
In my opinion, public figures, including celebrities, give a degree of consent implicitly by seeking to be public figures. I dont think that for celebrities that should extend to lewd or objectionable material, but if your behavior has been to seek being a public figure you can’t be upset when people use your likeness in various ways.
For politicians, I would default to “literally everything is protected free speech”, with exceptions relating to things that are definitively false, damaging and unrelated to their public work.
“I have a picture of Elon musk engaging in pedophillia” is all those, and would be justifiably removed. Anything short of that though should be permitted.
Where do you draw the line for the rich fucks of the world? Realistic CGI? Realistic drawings? Edited photos?
Assuming you’re asking out of genuine curiosity, for me personally, I’d draw the line somewhere along “could this, or any frame of this, be mistaken for a real depiction of these people?” and “if this were a depiction of real children, how hard would the FBI come down on you?”
I understand that that’s not a practical way of creating law or moderating content, but I don’t care because I’m talking about my personal preference/comfort level. Not what I think should be policy. And frankly, I don’t know what should be policy or how to word it all in anti-loopholes lawyer-speak. I just know that this sucking toes thing crosses an ethical line for me and personally I hate it.
Putting it more idealistically: when I imagine living in utopia, non-consensual AI porn of people doesn’t exist in it. So in an effort to get closer to utopia, I disapprove of things that would not exist in an utopia.
This is what I was thinking about myself. Because we’re cool with political caricatures, right?
I guess the problem is that nobody wants to feature in non-consensual AI porn. I mean if you’d want to draw me getting shafted by Musk, that’d be weird, but a highly realistic video of the same event, that would be hard to explain to the missus.
Anything bad that happens to a conservative is good. The world will only get better if they are made to repeatedly suffer.
No, we cannot think like that. It is true that fascism cannot be beat peacefully, but we should never want them to suffer. We should always strive to crush their fascist oligarchy with as little suffering ss possible.
“Whoever would be a slayer of monsters must take heed, or they may become the very monsters they slay… For when one peers into the abyss, the abyss peers back into thee” -FN
but we should never want them to suffer
No, we should, actually. It’s what they want for others and is the only way they might come to an understanding with what’s wrong with them.
Sympathy for the fascists is almost equal to support of them afaic
They don’t believe anything they aren’t experiencing first hand is actually a problem.
As much as I don’t like it, they have clearly made their own personal suffering a prerequisite for any solutions being allowed to move forward
In my country the laws about publishing photos etc are different for anyone an “people of public interest”. So yeah imo it should be okay to create cartoons or whatever of politicians without their permission - not porn ofc. Including ai generated stuff, but that one should be marked as such , given how realistic it is now
I think the important point in this case is not that the content is acceptable, but that it is newsworthy.
If somebody made the video and posted it, I could see it being permanently taken down. And it was at first, per the letter of their policy.
But the fact that government employees had it playing on government property inside government facilities, to protest some extreme and historical stuff going on, means it should be recorded for the public and for history.
I look at it much the same way as the photos of upside down American flags that various government employees put up. Just posting an upside down flag and saying how America is wrong is an opinion like any other that would get lost in the noise. But when it’s people inside the government intending it as a sign of distress, very much more newsworthy and important to record.
porn
Oh, saving the children are you.
Its a picture of trump sucking elons toes. Conflating that with the idea of “porn” is a bit of an overreach in light of how rare toe fetish people are. I imagine you can find a tiny popyulation of people who consider anything erotic. Wearing cotton. Having a roastbeef sandwhich in your hand. Styling hair a certain way. Being an asian female.
Want to ban all of that too?
Thank you for your thoughtful and considered comment, which definitely did not strawman my rather mild position or blow it out of proportion at all.
Also this wasn’t meant to be a “save the children” argument. Screw that. Can’t I just be uncomfortable with something and express it without people acting like I’m a puritan wanting to ban porn?
You’re the one who used the loaded, connotative “porn” word first bud. To recap, I disagreed with your flippant, facile use of the word in this particular instance. We all know what porn is when we see it, and that wasnt it.
Sometimes when you try to jump the shark you fall short. Now you know.
Are you arguing that toe sucking is not porn / not meant to be sexual in nature? Because I disagree. Honestly I think you’re being pedantic. I also disagree that “we all know what porn is when we see it” because I think the definition of what counts as porn is more nuanced than you think. And clearly since we disagree, it must be. Of course you can just argue that I don’t know what I’m talking about. But I don’t really care. I think it counts as a non-consensual sexual depiction of two people: porn. You don’t.
So. Whatever, honestly?
Here’s my take on it:
- I don’t care about AI being used on public figures, if you won’t want people to use you, don’t be in public, or ruin the government. No one has made AI featuring me.
- This is no different than a political cartoon, the only difference is no one made it directly by hand.
- Bluesky doesn’t have to host it, but I also would want it applied equally. If this was perma-removed, all AI or all political shit would be. I don’t like it, but selective moderating is what got us Trump in the first place with Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.
- I don’t like queerphobic shit being used to call out Trump and Musk. Use their actual actions and words, not “haha they gay”. It’s just wild how certain kinds of informal bigtry are okay when you use them on people who are evil. Like the people who constantly insult Trump’s weight because he’s evil. Maybe he’s just evil and happens to be fat.
- And let’s not pretend Jack Dorsey is somehow a saint when he only removed Trump from twitter after Jan 6. Nothing before despite how horrid Trump was. I credit Jack Dorsey to enabling Trump, and it’s why I refuse to join “Twitter 2 made by the guy who enabled Twitter to be the shit place it was”.
Re-upload it 100 times over…fuck em
Throw it on peertube/other platforms. haha
First part yes, upload it anywhere and everywhere. Second part no, they’re not required to leave it up and accept any legal liability, so just keep putting up new copies expecting they’ll get removed.
This is no different than a really well drawn political cartoon.
Politicians shouldn’t have the power to control the kinds of things you say about politicians.
