AdShield: AI Abuse Detection

> but as Wired notes, it relies on "automated tools" as part of the process, which may have been how the more than 50 ads TTP discovered made it through.Again, and again, and again, these technologies have proven ineffective to moderate content. User posted and otherwise. Until we have a legal mechanism in place to hold these companies meaningfully liable for this, it will not stop.Every single one of these has the same damn list of excuses about cost of hiring human moderators, but I promise everyone reading this if you make the executives of a social network legally liable for distributing

Yeah and/but also the case it's not bidirectional enoughThe eternal question of tech platforms - should we be responsible for what users post? (Ads are not user posted, so we can eliminated that factor. Even if posted by 'users' it's a separate pipeline) But with companies like Meta it doesn't even have to go that far - the philosophical conversation - because it's so hostile to users. People get banned for mild things all the time (apparently extra the case, since the 'pivot' to AI) while the absolutely horrible things you report never get taken down

it can take awhile for things to work their way from NCMEC (national center for missing & exploited children) to the appropriate local agency, then have that agency do their investigation, get a warrant (if they can), etc. and that is assuming that there is even a cooperative jurisdiction for NCMEC to send the initial report to.but, plenty of people do end up in prison, especially if its facebook/dropbox/gmail/etc... they just dont make the headlines (especially nationally) unless its especially heinous.

So according to you 60% of Americans are all pedophiles and “retarded” because they use AI. Glad to have such constructive discourse with you bud.

Reported an obvious sexual ad the other day and got a very AI generated response that started with "Dear Username" stating that they reviewed the ad and found nothing wrong with it.

Part of me would like to stop paying for a youtube premium family subscription because they keep raising the price, but my mom watches it a lot and I don’t want her to see (or have to see) those ads. They’re so unbelievably bad. It can’t be good for your brain to watch, the few times I’ve seen them on my work computer I can’t help but watch part of them.

Meta is better than anyone at anti-ad-blocking. Even the best ad blockers struggle to keep ahead of the ever-changing structure served up by their websites, and the websites are intentionally bad to make you use the apps instead. But the apps are nearly immune to ad-blocking.“Just stop using meta properties then”. Sure but some of us have wives, friends, etc

Human moderators? Sure, but Meta products have approximately half the worlds population using them.It doesn't matter how many people are consuming the ads, it matters how many companies are placing the ads.Let's not invent excuses for the trillion-dollar tech companies. Meta has plenty of money to put humans in the loop. It just chooses not to because some upper manager needs to buy a fifth house, or a third private island.

It's not everyone else's fault that executives etc. decided to grow their userbase/business/profits at all costs, i.e. with no concerns for the harms they've been causing. It's similar to how adding more and more code, more and more features, more and more stuff into software increases technical debt. Apparently "growth at all costs" for a business equates to ethical/moral debt, quite obviously in this case. Which shouldn't be surprising to anyone who understands/recognises the mechanisms of greed.For software, sometimes paying off that debt means getting rid of some of your features/code/stuf

Beyond these obviously deplorable ads, my wife got sniped by an ecommerce lookalike ad on Google the other day: a near-identical match of the vendor she was looking for, with a paid for sponsored ad (that was clearly linked to some chinese firm upon further review). Site had prices that were just a bit too good to be true, and a slightly different TLD that _I_ would've caught, but she missed because the price was a bit too good to be true. Only caught it when Citi asked me if I was spending 9000EGD on some random website.And my point here is, we're in this great revolution of AI empowered ever

We used to say computers can't make decisions because they can't meaningfully be held responsible for those decisions. Now the vibe seems to be that computers should make decisions because instead of anyone being held responsible we can just say "the computer made a mistake and it is very sorry" and effectively shield anyone from being responsible. But the thing is, machines don't do stuff. Not from a responsibility standpoint. My car doesn't drive, I do. It may provide the means, but I decide where we're going and how we're going there. Even with the active cruise on, the car didn't speed, I

As it should be. If the cost of fixing the problem is greater than the amount of harm the problem is actually causing to society, then it shouldn't be fixed. Set fine amounts accordingly. (Whether we actually do set fines this way is, of course, questionable. And probably this particular problem would get fixed even if there were no fine merely because of the reputational damage it's causing, but I'm speaking in generalities here.)

no age verification is not ID verificationthrough meta might have lobbied on bothbut they lobby for specific (often pretty bad) forms of age verification to be able to- spy on people better- have a regulatory moat where due to beady designed laws new alternatives have a much higher hurdle/initial investments and in turn never get anywhere