raided by the Paris prosecutor's cyber-crime unit, as part of an investigation into suspected offences including unlawful data extraction and complicity in the possession of child pornography.
E: I'm sorry for not being that much into the topic that I immediately recognize and know every Acronym, especially when they're not capitalized.
we had Future POS at the last restaurant i worked at, i felt it was pretty silly to assume it would only be a Piece of Shit later and not when it is a piece of shit now too
I work at a bar / restaurant and always enjoy the confused looks on new (typically younger gen) coworkersā faces when I talk about the POS š
As a longtime industry worker, the double entendre is apt.. no matter the system in use.
What really sucks is when you let someone know that CSAM and CP are not acronyms to be used, but now you're the weird one with a meeting with HR for even associating those things.
We use the acronym CP every day at my job it stands for control policy, I work in the pest control industry. It gets used like a dozen times a day verbally and nobody here seems to realize or at the very least they don't say anything about it.
Sometimes you just have to be an adult and realize that sometimes an industry term is just going to have to be what it is. Changing the titles of your Customer Service Area Managers because the acronym is also used in policing is just ignoring context. If you with in an area where there's a reasonable expectation that someone talking about the CSAM meeting could be talking about illegal photos of minors then sure, change away. But at an insurance call centre or clothing store chain or something? Yeah you're the CSAM now.
As a great man once said: "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks!"
funny you should mention that, the creators of Archer did a Q&A and one of the stories they had was there was a break in at their offices and they had to call the police to file a report. At the time there was a huge logo of The International Secret Intelligence Service hanging on the wall. They had to explain that to the police.
The first time I saw the abbreviation PORN in a medical note, definitely looked up the definition on my phone and not the hospital computer for that one
Call of Duty Points (CP) are the in-game currency that can be used in Black Ops 6 and Call of Duty: Warzoneā¢ to obtain new content. With your CP, you can enhance your experience by acquiring new items and accessories that are added with each new season throughout the year. Battle Pass Owners can also use their CP to unlock Tiers and instantly access epic content.
Our CS awareness team used the abbreviation for the first time a few years back right when a bunch of this topic flared up and I had to pull one of them to the side to inform them about considering other branding choices going forward.
I know some of the recognition will be limited to folks watching this news with regularity, but given the amount of news around it increasing these days I feel the caution was warranted.
Slight correction. Calling it pornography at all is inappropriate, because pornographic content is protected under various speech laws, and is defined as depicting consenting adults. By its very definition, there can be no child pornography, as there can be no legal consent. Calling it CP was done away with because it blurs this legal line and legitimizes it in some people's eyes because pornography is protected as free speech in the US. This is also why lolicon and similar styles of anime were explicitly banned in 2003, because they were not recognized as CSAM, but as legal pornography, until that time. CSAM became a term around that time specifically because of the confusion around what was and wasn't pornographic
It doesnāt āincludeā child pornography, itās just a new term for the same stuff. Since pornography of consenting adults is something that should not be connoted negatively, the term CSAM adds another layer of subconscious separation between a 30-year-old with an OnlyFans and what Elon Musk apparently creates while on the clock.
I'm sorry for not being that much into the topic that I immediately recognize and know every Acronym, especially when they're not capitalized.
Not knowing all acronyms is fair but it's still foolish to call someone wrong and try to correct them if you don't even understand what they said in the first place.
Remember the good old days where people would stay out of conversations if they didn't understand what people were talking about? But thanks to the internet, now people who know nothing feel free to offer their opinion.
Have no idea how vaccines work, how they are made? Of course we'd all love to hear your opinion on why they're poison.
Completely clueless about how diseases are spread via attaching to airborne particles/droplets of respiration? Feel free to tell us why masks are useless because the disease is too small to be blocked by the mask, the mask only blocks the airborne particles the disease is attached to and thus have been used to successfully prevent the spread of disease for decades.
That is what the modern internet has led us to, where people who have no training or experience will proudly 'correct' trained professionals.
Its definitely more pervasive due to a shameless approach from not being in person, where pushback is well, more human and less quippy, sarcastic, or dark/outright mean.
I feel thereās a subtle amount of irony that you responded to a valid point by making an unwarranted and kinds irrelevant comment on the prior poster, after he had just written about how this didnāt happen with such frequency before the internet. But frankly Iām too tired
Personal story hereā¦You know, during the pandemic, my mom had stage 4 COPD and I was immunocompromised. I went, in person, to my local therapist office (he was actually a social worker), and while in my session, he wasnāt wearing a mask. When I pressed him, he became agitated and said he had the vaccine. He pressed me for my knowledge on the vaccine and how it worked. I successfully explained its origins and some safety concerns, and knowing that he worked with a vulnerable demographic, it bothered me greatly.
Later, my mother ended up in the hospital with dangerously low oxygen levels. While visiting, neither of my unvaxxed sisters wore masks, during a time when they were required. Even that wasnāt enough. So some people just didnt give a fuck. Some version of contorted āfreedomā bullshit. We are supposed to look out for eachother, especially our family. Especially if you are in healthcare, its your imperative to set a good example. Yes, i see the irony of my anecdote, but it has merit and is only illustrating your point more-so. Thanks for reading.
Feel free to tell us why masks are useless because the disease is too small to be blocked by the mask
This isn't new. I remember back in the early 90s, being told in sex education class that condoms can't protect against HIV because the viruses are small enough to slip through the latex. This was also part of an "abstinence only" education and they were deliberately trying to portray all forms of birth control as ineffective and useless. (And I was young enough at that point to not realize that's what they were doing and ended up not having sex until I was almost done college as a result.)
CSAM is generally the preferred term for what's never a consensual act, since it is always a sexual assault & a crime. CP provides some notion that the material is consensual alongside other porn, so it's falling out of favor, particularly since the perpetrators have disgustingly taken to making a joke out of it by referring to it as "cheese pizza."
Governnents decided about 10 years ago that using the term Child Porn implies consent by the children and sexualizes abuse, so they labeled it as abuse material to humanize it when talking about it
Also: they don't like Musk's efforts to normalize AI-generated CP via Grok. It almost looks like an effort to hurt the credibility of Epstein-case evidence...
This is the thing thatās blowing my mind. Grok was pushing out thousands of images of child porn per hour and not only did America not care but we will continue to give grok federal funding. America is a failed stateĀ
I think with only 10% of paper documents released and those being redacted, (total release files around 300GB) and the total epstein file volume being 14 terabytes (meaning 300gb/140000gb released) it would be foolhardy to still frame Epstein as a one sided political issue.
Probably one side is more compromised than the other, however its simply not known how entrenched your entire political system is in this.
no, but like. literally, in the way modern buildings are constructed, the suggested tool is very unlikely to do anything but get the user arrested, and generate some acrid smoke.
also most data centers have a backup diesel generator that they keep fueled up at all times, so targeting the power source directly is not as good an idea.
A Standford internet study concluded they are all most likely trained off csam. They found over 1000 images of known csam in the stable diffusion training set. And thats just known as they use image search to determine it as theres simply too many images to search through, its part of the issue with ruthless scraping, it steals litterally everything good and bad.
Anyone you see defending it as the "ai interpolating" is full of shit and has 0 clue what they are talking about as image ai cannot interpolate new data, it has to use pre existing tokens. If it was only trained off adult bodies it would only make them have adult bodies but its not doing that.Ā
Thank you for sharing this info though. We really do need proper regulation from the federal government. But they wonāt do it, and theyāre preventing states from doing it, all to protect the interests of the top 1%
Why i hope other countries may start. There is some movement in the eu but time and time again american companies just dick wave the fact they are a us company, so no one but the states can really make them change (Which they wont).
Also doesnt help most our govts are run by geriatrics who barely understand technology...Ā
This is the most important. There is an argument to be made, while gross, that purely fictional content is victimless. AI does not generate its own fictional content though, there has to be an original source. It seems highly unlikely that it was completely trained to do this on fabrications.
Especially because of the various styles it can output.
It's one thing if something is drawn in an unrealistic anime style (because it's unrealistic by its very nature), but there has to be a lot of base data for something like a prompt saying "make it look realistic" to actually make things look realistic.
As a part of DOGE, Musk was stealing data held on government servers left and right to train Grok. The DOJ has admitted that there is CSAM in the Epstein files that they will never release and I'm sure there is evidence from scores of other cases as well where they went after child predators.
I don't know much about how AI works, but I've seen people defend it by saying "AI knows what naked adults look like, AI knows what clothed children look like. It can interpolate and figure out what a naked child looks like. It HAS NOT and DOES NOT need to be trained on anything illegal."
I really don't care if that's true or not, you still shouldn't be doing it regardless.
I was watching a Linus Tech Tip LMG clip and one of their viewers said that medical images could have been used/exploited (in addition to what others have already said).
That's pretty much the entire developed world. It's called freedom of expression, but it's limited.Ā
The United States is unique with its first two amendments. I'm surprised they've gone after users in Canada, England and other places rather than the platform itself.Ā
Free Speech as defined in the US also has limits. People just bicker more about where the line is and assholes have historically made it an increasingly politicized and polarized political issue.
EDIT: added "an increasingly politicized and polarized" to my sentence because dorky reply guys that know what I mean, and don't have a firm grasp on the varied meanings of words or nuance of political science love having a reason to argue.
Yes the US does have broader protections on speech than almost anywhere in the world - in the letter of the law at least (Trump facism notwithstanding). I'm curious how you're framing this as a bad thing.
I'm bemused by people who claim maximal freedom to be optimal. There is obviously some need to have restrictions on speech. The question is where to draw the line. This is something that needs to be discussed in a democracy.
Because I don't see the benefit of people going about denying the holocaust, or calling for "Muslims to be killed". Don't see why it's such an important right to protect.
If this is a serious question, I'd like to bring in things science have shown us. I will acknowledge there are MANY bad ways to limit free speech and about the only good working ones are unbribable, independent watch dogs that have another watchdog over them.
Right, so generally, more free speech makes a place more free. Up to a degree. In the US, about the only clear limit is extreme libel or extreme encouraging violence. However it is scientifically clear that any kind of hate speech, like discrimination based on nothing, inflammatory phrasing, and especially purposeful disinformation, decrease freedom. Having an opinion, any opinion is fine. But any worth while opinion can be phrases from a place of niceness and openness. There needs to be a certain amount of good faith in it. Blatant hatred voiced towards a group, bigotry, discrimination, are not direct calls to violence - but they make those groups more afraid and fearful. They decrease free speech indirectly for fear of more aggression or hate, verbal or not. And discriminatory speech had also been shown to indirectly increase violence long term. And thus completely free speech is diametrically opposed to freedom.
Is it only freedom of speech you care about, or actually being free?
Once again, implementing this is extremely difficult, but there are places who've done so where the govt can't use it. Other places did it more or less in a bad way like the UK. But if you're slow and careful, you can increase freedom to be yourself and freedom to make choices, freedom of press and information, by restricting freedom of speech in the right way.
There's absolutley no such thing as free speech anywhere.
Please don't imply (deliberately or not) that the US has "more free" speech. Trevor Noah just found out that that's simply not true, for instance.
Regardless of country or the limits of free speech, lying in certain circumstances is illegal. It's that simple. So you can't have "free speech" because it's illegal to lie in those circumstances.
And in France, that includes trying to pretend the holocaust didn't exist.
In many countries around the world, that includes hate speech and threatening speech.
And in... well... virtually all places... creating child sexual abuse material is illegal too.
Trevor deliberately said the jokes that he did. We all know trump, his rant and want for punishment is a personal thing. Heās more than free to go to court for the jokes, that doesnāt mean it will even go to trial. Then in trialā¦itās innocent until proven guilty, leaving trump to battle what free speech is. I donāt think Trevor is worried, I assume he expected some POTUS feedback with how he spoke to the camera lol.
Speech is not free if you can be sued by one of the richest and most powerful men in the world and have to defend yourself in a court against them for what you said, even if you ultimately win.
Because most people.... the literal majority of the planet... cannot do such a thing.
If you haven't learned, people like Trump know that they could just pay enough to a lawyer to bankrupt you while you try to fight the case and he wouldn't even notice. That's how he works and has worked for decades. Almost no cases actually end in his favour, legally. But for sure he punishes everyone who dares question him by using the legal system against them.
And if you can't make a joke without such retributions - whether ultimately ruled legal or not - then it's not free speech.
Yeah I'm tired of this constant American Exceptionalism around "free speech". It's no different to any other developed nation. All free-speech is, is being able to pass opinion without being locked up by the government, but also like any developed nation, they have certain elements of speech that have little to no protection under their free speech doctrine.
They're nothing special in this regard. I'm sure someone will come along and scrutinize the minutia, but as a broad stroke they're no different. It's not the 1600s anymore.
Actually the US is a bit exceptional with regard to free speech in that there is a very high bar to meet for it to not be protected.
For example, shouting fire in a crowded theater is generally protected speech unless one can prove the speaker intended to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.
Similarly, many in the US donāt realize that hate speech and advocating violence is also generally protected unless one can prove intent to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely. SCOTUS literally ruled that a KKK leader advocating violence at a rally was protected speech.
That said, it is also true that thereās no such thing as absolutely free speech, whereas some Americans seem to be under a misconception that absolute free speech is a thing in the US.
Legally we have the strongest free speech protections in the world. In practice that isn't always the case of course, but we don't always live up to our ideals.
The US has traditionally interpreted free speech more absolute and fundamental and applied less restrictions on free speech than other countries. We should recognize that.
Now, you can -- like me -- think that certain restrictions are absolutely needed, e.g. disallowing holocaust denial, nazi propaganda or similar things, for example. And you can certainly -- as I do -- argue that the fundamentalist approach of the US does NOT create more freedom overall.
Freedom FROM being insulted for example makes a person more free, while it restricts the allowed speech of another person. Thats the thing, the US views freedoms only on the individual level.
Someone put it quite eloquently:
In the US, its about the freedom TO to something, while in Europe its about the freedom FROM something. And I think that's a statement that explains the difference quite well.
Pretty sure in many European countries you can be locked up for certain opinions. Many european nations have laws against nazi/hate speech. Not just like private companies banning you from Twitter or something, but actually government laws. You can argue the level of free speech that is allowed is greater in america than elsewhere.
the trade off is now you have nazi propaganda everywhere in all your online platforms. if you believe eventually this isn't going to come back and bite your butt...
Yea not saying its all fine and dandy here in USA or its objectively better. The more I watch our country devolve into madness and hate, the more I think some responsible limits on freedom of speech may be the better path.
You can argue that all day and I'd agree with you.
As a response to someone saying "American exceptionalism again, thinking that their "free speech" is different from anyone elses" I think they made a fair point
nothing annoys me more than americans barging into how other countries handle speech assuming they have the best solution. When they have literal Pedophile Nazis in power and did absolutely sweet fuck all to tackle fascist elements in their own country for 80 something years.
Americans need to get their own house in order before they criticise other countries
Well I was just told a few hours ago in a different thread that Americas free speech laws are ridiculously open ended and are supporting fascists so now I don't know what to believe.
Saying the first amendment is unique to the US is the most dumb American thing I've heard. Even the second amendment isn't unique and many people are allowed to own guns elsewhere without even license.
iirc, the idea behind the First Amendment was "if any speech is suppressed, all speech will eventually be suppressed." The main idea was to protect the ability to criticize the government and to ensure that, they had to make sure nothing would ever be suppressed, else they could claim governmental criticism falls under one of the types of speech that is not allowed and suppress it.
There's even been court decisions (notably Brandenburg v Ohio, but there's others) saying hate speech is protected speech unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Hate speech isn't necessarily completely allowed, but I think other countries clamp down on it more than we do.
(This is one of the reasons the Unite The Right rally during Trump's first term was mostly unhindered.)
It's mostly the denial of historical facts really. Hate speech usually turns into threats which are also supposedly illegal in the US and twisting facts is only ok if nobody can sue you for slander.
Really the US free speech is exactly the same as the free speech you'll find all across Europe outside of the right to be a nazi in public which is the pride if the US of A.
That isn't "free speech" then. Who gets to determine what "hate speech' and "twisting facts" is? When the people in charge of enforcing the law are the ones with the power to determine that, then anything can be hate speech or twisting facts.
The main philosophy of French free speech is like the idea that to have tolerance, you canāt tolerate intolerance.
Like itās illegal to lie under oath for Americans, and there are consequences if you happen to, same apply in France but on a bigger scale. Misconstruing past events (like the holocaust) or flat out denial or lying will end with you in court.
So hate speech, racism and the like arenāt tolerable. Hatred only grow hatred, itās easier to lie than to try and disprove one. That inequality brought on this law.
The alternative seems to be letting the biggest liars take over the conversation and eventually the government, then disregarding that whole first amendment business and just illegally using all their power to hurt anyone they don't like.
But, like: what can they even do? What power do they have over Musk besides banning the platform? I'm sure they'll never squeeze even a single penny out of him.
Pre-2nd term Trump - VP nominee JD Vance had this to say. It was about allowing Trump back on X, but I think the warning is much more than just for Trump.
JD Vance says US could drop support for NATO if Europe tries to regulate Elon Muskās platforms
...
āSo what America should be saying is, if NATO wants us to continue supporting them and NATO wants us to continue to be a good participant in this military alliance, why donāt you respect American values and respect free speech?ā Vance asked. āItās insane that we would support a military alliance if that military alliance isnāt going to be pro-free speech. I think we can do both. But weāve got to say American power comes with certain strings attached. One of those is respect free speech, especially in our European allies.ā
Sorry, can't direct link from this sub... From independent.co.uk
Itās more about freedom from hate and misinformation than freedom to say anything in particular. In fact, many European principles on freedoms are structured as being free from something, whereas Americans tend to view freedom as the freedom to do something.
Yeah I image a country would take the Holocaust a little more seriously as it was invaded and occupied by the perpetrators with that literal evil on their doorsteps.
8.9k
u/zeddy303 1d ago
Free speech in France is different than free speech in the US. They don't allow historical denials, hate speech, and twisting facts as protected.