112 images out of 325,000 images scanned over two days, is about 0,03% So we are doing pretty well. With more moderation tools we could continue to knock out those sigmas.
it says 112 instances of known CSAM. But that’s based on their methodology, right, and their methodology is not actually looking at the content, it’s looking at hashtags and whether google safesearch thinks it’s explicit. Which Im pretty sure doesnt differentiate with what the subject of the explicitness is. It’s just gonna try to detect breast or genitals I imagine.
Though they do give a few damning examples of things like actual CP trading, but also that they’ve been removed.
We do know they only found, what, 112 actual images of CP? That’s a very small number. I’d say that paints us in a pretty good light, relatively.
112 images out of 325,000 images scanned over two days, is about 0,03% So we are doing pretty well. With more moderation tools we could continue to knock out those sigmas.
it says 112 instances of known CSAM. But that’s based on their methodology, right, and their methodology is not actually looking at the content, it’s looking at hashtags and whether google safesearch thinks it’s explicit. Which Im pretty sure doesnt differentiate with what the subject of the explicitness is. It’s just gonna try to detect breast or genitals I imagine.
Though they do give a few damning examples of things like actual CP trading, but also that they’ve been removed.
How many of those 112 instances are honeypots controlled by the FBI or another law enforcement agency?