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.

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      If they don’t it is only because they are waiting to obtain a higher share of the social media market.

      Jumping ship from one corporate owned social media to another corporate owned social media isn’t a smart move. There is nothing about Bluesky that will prevent it from becoming X in the future. People joining now are only adding to the network effect that will make leaving more difficult in a decade or two.

      The problem of social media won’t be solved by choosing which dictator’s rule you want to live under. You don’t have the freedom to speak and express yourself if you give someone veto power over what you write.

  • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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

    • Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 minutes ago

      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”

  • bean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Put it on Facebook! Ol’ Zuck decided all the guardrails pretty much needed to go so. Post and do whatever. Plus, the people who should see it most are those still hanging around on Facebook 🤣

  • MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    224
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    I guess I get it. They would not like to set precedent to allow non-consensual AI generated porn on the platform. Seems reasonable. That said, fuck Donny. The video is hilarious. It’s fine if Bluesky doesn’t host it though.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Well, looks like they put it back up. I think I agree with you though. It might be better for them to restrict this. Frankly republican incels excel at generating this kind of content and this sets the precedent that Bluesky will welcome such AI garbage. I’m not arguing that this stuff shouldn’t be made in good spirit, but for a serious platform to not moderate it out I think invites chaos.

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        There’s plenty of legal precedent for newsworthiness to supersede some rules in the name of the freedom of the Press. It makes sense that I’m not allowed (at least where I live) to post a non-consensual pictures of someone off the street. But it would not make sense if I was forbidden from posting a picture of the Prime Minister visiting a school for example. That’s newsworthy and therefore the public interest outweighs his right to privacy.

        The AI video of Trump/Musk made a bunch of headlines because it was hacked onto a government building. On top of that it’s satire of public figures and – I can’t believe that needs saying – is clearly not meant to provide sexual gratification.

        Corpos and bureaucracies would have you believe nuance doesn’t belong in moderation decisions, but that’s a fallacy and an flimsy shield to hide behind to justify making absolutely terrible braindead decisions at best, and political instrumentation of rules at worst. We should celebrate any time when moderators are given latitude to not stick to dumb rules (as long as this latitude is not being used for evil), and shame any company that censors legitimate satire of the elites based on bullshit rules meant to protect the little people.

        • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          That’s a really thin line. I have a hard time imagining anyone sticking to this same argument if the satire were directed towards someone they admired in a similar position of power. The prime minister visiting a school is a world away from AI generated content of something that never actually happened. Leaving nuance out of these policies isn’t some corporation pulling wool over our eyes, it’s just really hard to do nuance at scale without bias and commotion.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Exactly.

          Content featuring public figures should be given extra lenience, because if we can’t openly criticize our leaders, we aren’t free. So as long as it’s either factually correct or clearly parody/satire/etc, it should be allowed. Defamation and libel rules should have a very high bar for conviction when it comes to public figures.

          This was obviously satire, and well done at that. Good on BlueSky for restoring it, I hope they fix whatever process got it pulled.

    • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      13 hours ago

      Only because I find these specific videos to be quite funny, maybe there can be a “satire/criticism of a public figure” exception that could exist

        • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          49
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Fuck. Good point. Guess I’ll just have to come to peace with me being a hypocrite when it comes to what I find acceptable.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Satire is already legal and right wingers have already called for her to be shot or worse and gotten away with it. Pandora’s box isn’t closed, it’s long been open.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I don’t like AOC, but any threat of of call for violence is unacceptable regardless of the target. I don’t care if it’s despicable people like Trump, violence against an individual isn’t the answer. Violence against ideas, however, is fine.

            There are politicians that I kind of like, and they should also not be above reproach. Bring all their bad takes into the light and let’s talk about them.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        13 hours ago

        That’s a pretty big loophole. I mean, imagine the same exact video with Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi. It takes a significantly different subtext when the subjects are women. But the subtext doesn’t really matter to the morality of the act.

        Either involuntary AI generated pornography is wrong or it isn’t. I think it’s wrong. Do Trump and Musk deserve it? Sure, but it’s still wrong. Do I feel bad for them? No, because they deserve it. But it’s still not something I would do, or suggest anyone else do, and if the creator is prosecuted, I’m not going to defend them.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          It’s satire, and yeah, I think satire of Harris skipping the primary process through “backroom deals” could be criticized with a similar video.

          As long as there’s a point to the video, it’s speech. Make it clear that it’s AI gen satire and I think it’s fine, just don’t make more explicit than necessary to get the point across.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Except you know that sexual exploitation has a different effect on women than men. Trump revels in his playboy reputation. Harris was accused of using sex to get ahead in politics. And you know that conservatives would believe that the video was real while they jerk off to it. Those dipshits still think Michelle Obama was a man.

            Trump rapes women. He’s not entitled to the same level of respect as almost anyone. He is entitled to the same laws, on that we agree.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 hours ago

              And you know that conservatives would believe that the video was real while they jerk off to it

              It doesn’t matter what they believe, what matters is that it’s explicitly parody or satire. Idiots will be idiots despite your best efforts to prevent it.

          • zecg@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 minutes ago

            Good thing you put a permissive license on that so the whole of humanity can benefit.

          • 野麦さん@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            These uh… aren’t laws. They’re community guidelines. I think one does not have to get so anal about preserving the rights of vulnerable people while also maintaining an “even application” because they’re two different situations.

            Not even the law is black and white, it’s still tweaked and interpreted by judges and lawyers. It’s obvious that AI-generated pornography of women in political office is completely different from a video of a fascist dictator making out with the feet of another fascist. Get your head checked.

          • Oozy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Your analogy doesn’t hold. Words aren’t human body parts.

            • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Ryan Gosling as Ken, semi-shirtless

              Is this considered porn? I am certainly, along with at least hundreds of millions of people, into shirtless Ryan Gosling. Specifically his pecs and abs.

              Look, I am taking the piss, but not everything that might turn someone on for one reason or another is porn. The AI video of Trump is clearly satire and meant to disgust. What’s next, we can’t make satirical drawings of him grovelling at Putin’s feet because some people have a humiliation fetish?

  • ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    13 hours ago

    fwiw they restored the post and blamed it on a moderator being too strict in applying a policy regarding non consensual ai porn. It’s objectively good they have policies banning such things but it was completely obvious from context that this was not meant to be pornographic at all

    As such, one could easily read it with cynicism as responding to backlash as they only reviewed said moderators actions after this article came out and the associated clamor

    • Hack3900@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I do not understand why people use BlueSky We already had the alternative!!! It was here first and many had already created accounts… Then just went back to Twitter

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        because there is zero marketing for mastodon. zero sex-appeal to mastodon.

        bluesky was a better car salesman selling the same old car twitter had.

      • bloooooort@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Love mastodon but Bluesky has a lot of cool features like starter packs and lists and feeds + the ability to do your own moderation. It’s really customizable that way + there a lot of users… In the end people will go where people are. Besides, mastodon is cool because its still underground and is filled with nerds like the early internet. Do we really want all the normies to join?

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        It was far faster and easier to build up a feed of enjoyable content on BlueSky. My Mastodon feed has sat almost completely empty, and I’ve only been able to find a few news-reposters there.

        And I’m tech-savvy. Imagine how it is for other social media users.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Yes, exactly this. Like something might be technically better but unless it’s doing its main job of actually connecting people it’s not going to work.

          I wish more FOSS nerds understood this.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 hours ago

            I don’t agree that Mastodon is technically better, but it was first so it should have first mover advantage.

            I think it largely comes down to marketing. Mastodon is marketed by word of mouth, and BlueSky has an actual marketing team.

            • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 hours ago

              By “technically better” I mean it actually delivers on its technical promises of decentralisation, as opposed to bluesky that simply uses decentralisation as a buzzword without being actually open source and without allowing real competition for the main - centralised - instance.

              I think mastodon has actual legs in that if bluesky fails to actually open up, it will enshittify and there will be another exodus. Mastodon has technical barriers to that kind problem, so it will still be there to pick up the pieces. The decentralised nature protects the network from enshittifying and means it will tend not to get exoduses like central platforms do. It’s a matter of making that growth count.

              If in that time mastodon has worked on its discovery features, it might be finally ready to capture that growth.

              If bluesky manages to properly decentralise then I imagine mastodon will not need to pick up the slack and will either join the network or fade into irrelevancy.

              Hard to say which way it will go. I don’t hold out a lot of hope for bluesky changing its ways, and who knows when mastodon will improve in this way.

              • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                33 minutes ago

                Bluesky will never be able to properly decentralize, since the costs are prohibitive and cannot be afforded by normal users. The shared heap concept used is currently somewhere around 10-15 TB storage, which is already pretty expensive to host for a single person, and that’s only the STORAGE for a single host NOW - no redundancy, no backups, no traffic and no worldwide infrastructure to keep the response time down. That’s a huge difference to a Mastodon instance, which can be run from a pretty cheap setup and is afforable for most people.

                Also, the way Bluesky implements how user identities are handled makes account migration more a theoretical possibility than a believable “decentralization”. Theoretically Bluesky gives a credible exit strategy, where the shared heap can be copied by another organisation in case of loss of user trust or bankruptcy of the company and everyone can just switch over and carry on without losing a single post, but there are a lot of big if’s in that theory.

                Here’s the source, from Christine Lemmer-Webber who worked on ActivityPub: https://dustycloud.org/blog/how-decentralized-is-bluesky/

                • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  22 minutes ago

                  Oh, I didn’t realise the technical barriers were that steep. In that case I think I’m right to say that Mastodon is technically better for achieving the decentralisation it promises.

                  That’s a great resource, I’m going to follow them. Plus the link to Spritely was really interesting. Looks like it’s meant to be a successor to ActivityPub, which is quite exciting. From what I’ve seen activity pub is pretty limited in the ways it can enable interaction, like how mastodon posts look so funky on lemmy.

                  Plus, holy web 1.0, that’s a motherfucking website.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                My understanding is that BlueSky is distributed, meaning there’s no single point of failure and nodes are independent. So scaling up should just mean adding more nodes, not having to scale vertically.

                Distributed computing is a form of decentralization where the goal is resilience of the platform, not decentralization of control. The goal is very different from the Fediverse, which is to decentralize control, with resilience being a nice side effect.

                Mastodon has technical barriers to that kind problem

                It also has technical barriers to widespread adoption, hence why BlueSky is winning. I’lf BlueSky fails, people will just go to whatever alternative has a healthy marketing budget and low barrier to entry.

                • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 hours ago

                  It doesn’t matter how distributed the servers are. You could say any centralised platform is “distributed” if it has at least one redundant server, which plenty of them do. Youtube has servers all over the world. That has nothing to do with enshittification and it’s not the feature I was talking about.

                  The thing that supposedly set bluesky apart was that they would be using a decentralised protocol that allowed anyone who wanted to to operate their own server with full control over their data. You can actually see some people posting from different domains.

                  That’s a nice idea and it trades on the rising popularity of the fediverse, but it’s not doing it in an open manner because the software isn’t open and separate instances are locked to 10 users maximum unless the central authority allows them more. That means it’s not meaningfully decentralised, but it’s still trying to capitalise on the concept. It can still be torpedoed by one company’s bad business decisions.

                  That’s what I was referring to.

                  And I said mastodon might be able to take in the exodus if they improve, so I guess I agree with your last point.

        • Fluffy Kitty Cat@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          We do need better onboarding. I wonder if you could make an equivalent of the “discovery” feed that wasn’t abusive to the user

      • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago
        1. Bluesky is more easily usable
        2. More people they want to follow are on Bluesky

        Instead of complaining we need to work on making Masto more welcoming to new users and amplifying the advantages it has over Bluesky

        • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Honestly, that ship has sailed, I think. When Musk first took over Twitter and everyone was bailing, if Mastodon was a viable alternative it could have taken off.

          Now that Bluesky has overtaken them, and is seen as the alternative to Twitter, I think the opportunity has been lost.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 hours ago

            That’s quite a good point. Here’s a little thought experiment, though: If we woke up tomorrow and Mastodon looked just like Bluesky (but with a different color scheme) and featured 100% two-way integration with Bluesky…

            Essentially, if Mastodon became hands down the most user-friendly and engaging option—would that be enough to make a meaningful difference in its adoption curve?

            • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Possibly, although anyone who already has an account on Bluesky would likely stay there, and Bluesky has the upper hand in name recognition, and there is the uphill battle of explaining the concept of federation to people who have little interest in technology.

              And that’s if, hypothetically speaking, Mastodon was as easy to use.

              It’s not happening. Also, if it’s anything like here, the non stop Linuxposting would probably annoy people.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        13 hours ago

        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?

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          If it’s actual satire, it should be allowed, but to be satire, it needs to criticize something instead of just being offensive. Satire is free speech, the latter is defamation or libel (not a lawyer, so not sure which it is).

        • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          13 hours ago

          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.

    • db2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 hours ago

      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.

  • Kokesh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    13 hours ago

    Where can I download a copy? I would upload it again, hate any sort of censorship?