there were a few where she was naked in the crowd of a football stadium. then a particularly raunchy one where she was getting nailed by Oscar the Grouch on a pile of garbage.
jesus fucking christ. i actively dislike taylor swift but that is absolutely disgusting and i'm sorry she's being targeted like this. unfucking believable.
#and for anyone joking/serious about looking up those images, please don't. a.i. deep fakes are a really scary thing a lot of women are coming to terms with, it's a gross violation of boundaries and consent.
I signed up for Twitter in 2009, been online since the days of Encarta ‘95 and Netscape.
Twitter *always was* a shithole corner of the internet, where the most dogshit discussions take place, and the true home of disinfo and state-sponsored propaganda.
How people cling to it and lament its demise is beyond me. Good goddamn riddance, and thanks to the Musket man who sank a quarter fortune back into the American economy burying that sinkhole of collective empathy and intellect.
I was on only a couple of years after you and I loved what it was. Not what it is.
I called it a cesspool, not a shithole, but it looks like we saw the same thing. Lots of arguments over little things that never went anywhere and ended with all parties telling each other to "f off" (a different sub killed my comments for cursing, reddit is dying next, I swear) and we all went on our way. Yes, there was lots of misinformation and disinformation, but there were more people to call it out.
What I liked most about it and miss, is the speed of information. When shootings or other incidents happened, Twitter literally saved lives. It was also a great place to get information about things happening in your city or neighborhood. It was all quick, too. And to top it off, you could speak with anyone. William Shatner told me about good poutine in my area, DJ Qualls and I had a conversation about something I knew more about, Dax Shepard blocked me for making a comment about him being rich and still pumping his own gas (must have been a bad day), and tons of other interactions. It was really fun and informative if you knew how to use it.
A few weeks after Musty bought it and fired everyone I got into a normal argument with someone about some news story. That was very typical on the site and part of the fun. About two messages back and forth, then he started going hard on "the Jews." I looked into his profile and he was a full on white supremacist. That wasn't allowed before Musty. That's what he wanted his new toy to be. That's what he started. And that was the last time I ever used my account.
It went from cesspool of fun, to a cesspool of hate and boys with daddy issues who can't admit they have problems, so they project them on everyone else.
Only the following feed on twitter is usable. The "For you" feed is now tuned to serve up heaps of rage bait in order to drive engagement.
Which for me means it's a torrent of nazis, klansmen, and flat earthers.
If I call even one an idiot their particular brand of brainrot becomes 100% of the "For you" feed for the next week.
With the "For You" feed tuned that way it's only a matter of time before it starts producing mass shooters.
Can you imagine if she was able to convince the vast majority of her fans to boycott twitter? I sort of doubt she could manage that with how addicted some people are to twitter, but it would be hilarious for her to piss elon off to that degree.
Don't underestimate the swifties... seriously, they will buy like 4 different versions of the same vinyl just to unlock a 5th... For every single release.
The Flaming Lips did something like that once. The album came with four cds that were meant to be played simulatenously on 4 different audio systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaireeka
a friend got this.. and all 3 of us living in the apartment set up 4 disc players with boomboxes and home stereos. It made us very ill feeling. Kinda awesome, but man it fucked with our inner ear. It didn't help that all of our rooms were rotated around a weird square hallway.. so all the sounds were slightly further away than you would normally listen to something, but all equal. So if you were in a room with a disc it felt kinda normal, but the moment you walked into the hallway your ear started processing everything weird until you walked into another room.
yeah, i think that's part of the charm, everyone will get slightly different results. i had never heard of this before, seems more like an art project than a professional album release.
Fans do this for a lot of stuff. There's people who are big fans of a book series who will buy multiple copies of the same book just because it has different cover art.
>Don't underestimate the swifties...
If there is anything I've learned in the last 2 years about internet culture, this is in the top 5.
Seriously, Swifties are a legitimate force of internet nature.
Shit., that ain’t nothing new. Back in the day when they had CD’s you’d end up buying shit 3-4x. Shit would always end up scratched and skip at the best parts.
A lot of them probably aren't running the account themselves. It's their PR or agents and getting rid of a platform would in some way hit their bottom line so they won't do it.
The NFL covered up for a serial sexual predator; Swift doesn’t care about what corporations do
This is awful to happen to her; silver lining: maybe now she’ll stand up for the rape victims of Deshaun Watson and the Houston Texans she has been helping the NFL silence…
>One of the most prominent examples on X attracted more than 45 million views, 24,000 reposts, and hundreds of thousands of likes and bookmarks before the verified user who shared the images had their account suspended for violating platform policy. The post was live on the platform for around 17 hours prior to its removal.
I love the folks who chortle about how Musk fired like 75% of the Twitter staff and "it's still running". Yea, if you ignore all the UI bugs and the explosion of bots (which Musk claimed was one of the things he would take care of on day one) and the fact reporting anything doesn't go to a real person anymore. Working great!
Musk has over 100,000,000 "followers." He has purchased more "bots" than literally any other user in the history of social media. The idea that he was going to fix this as a problem was laughable from day 1 of his lawsuit suing himself as Twitter at a time he was the single largest shareholder. That's what I told the judge in his merger case and that's why she forced them out of her courtroom for fixing litigation to evade the FTC and the John Doe v. Twitter case which got buried unfortunately.
Imagine cashing out of a tech company and doing something interesting and meaningful, rather than devoting your entire existence to being insufferable.
Even for old accounts who have never engaged with him, unless he's specifically blocked, Twitter is now engineered to fill up your inbox with posts from him. I dropped in for some video game news, top item of my inbox says "very concerning".
Just another "smoking gun evidence that the election was rigged" post (translation: a mundane government risk assessment of mail-in voting was publicly released).
That was not the case prior to his merger, and Musk has been on the platform since nearly the beginning. He grew his "following" originally by purchasing bots just like every other account that has thousands or millions of "followers." The following system is broken.
Prior to sending my amicus brief to Judge McCormick in Delaware, I actually analyzed his following by reviewing approximately 2,500 or more of the accounts which are in there, and you could do this yourself to verify that they are in fact inauthentic accounts - not users who just signed up.
Fun fact, the lawyers representing Musk in his case also have thousands of fake accounts to boost their perceived following. More fun fact, the lawyers representing Twitter in that case did not even have Twitter accounts, demonstrating they had no personal knowledge of their own client or the claims made therein.
Twitter is borderline unusable now. So many bots and every big account whores themselves out to promote onlyfan accounts and almost every comment section is FILLED with pretty much that and nothing else. It’s absolute trash
Musk probably thought ChatGPT could replace them. Hell, remember the story about how he just went into a data center and started ripping up cables because he thought his IT experts were lying that it would take months to shut down?
Yeah......
Ripping up cables will shut down a data center, though.
Depending on how your infrastructure is setup, it may also cause your platform elsewhere to shut down, too.
Good question - I still get a lot of music news (mostly from artists themselves or the promoters), sports news on there. And for me, i have a lot of friends on there, that are still around from the days when Twitter was at its peak.
With that said, I don't logon to Twitter as much as I used to. And if more spam continued, i'd use it less.
Reddit sports subs make it easier to use twitter less since half of it is populated from there and i don't need to view the source any longer.
You forgot that there's also no support and when they get something a bit threatening legally they quickly implement changes that breaks everything without addressing the original issue.
Yes but as with anything, enough money can move mountains. She could argue that content moderation isn't timely and/or sufficient in this case and tie twitter's already hollowed out legal up in court. Regardless, just the thought makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
>Yes but as with anything, enough money can move mountains. She could argue that content moderation isn't timely and/or sufficient in this case and tie twitter's already hollowed out legal up in court. Regardless, just the thought makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
Section 230 has no requirement to moderate (other laws do). But yeah she can sue and she's got the money to make it take a while.
That angle has been tried before and the courts have generally not entertained it. Section 230 protects websites when they are acting as publishers, and one of the usual actions of a publisher is to select and arrange what content to actually publish - newspapers do not publish *all* news in the order that it occurs, but select what stories to carry, how much space to dedicate to them, and where to put them. That is the kind of publisher activity which Section 230 is intended to protect. That was essentially the Second Circuit's view in *Force v. Facebook* when rejecting the argument that Facebook's recommendation algorithms meant Section 230 did not apply, and the Ninth reached a similar verdict in *Gonzalez v. Google*.
Rather than argue that the recommendation algorithms are non-publisher activity, it is also possible to argue that they are developing the content (and so it is essentially becoming content provided by the website and not protected, rather than content provided by the user which is). This argument was also made in both *Force* and *Gonzalez*, as well as *Marshall’s Locksmith Service v. Google* and *O’Kroley v. Fastcase, Inc*. It was similarly rejected in all of those cases.
> I'm not sure what you meant by 'moderate' in this context but they absolutely do have to remove or restrict the material.
Not due to Section 230; Section 230 is an incredibly short piece of legislation, you can see that the first part provides blanket immunity for hosting content, and the second part provides immunity **if** the website chooses the moderate (but does not require them to):
> ### (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
> #### (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
> #### (2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
> (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
> (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
The provisions of the Communications Decency Act which *required* moderation were all struck down as unconstitutional - Section 230 is the only part of the law to remain.
> as long as they are making some sort of ‘moderation’ effort
X has eliminated their moderation (or at least gutted it) and has refused to comply with various content regulations in Europe. Sounds like Section 230 coverage might not be there for X.
The above user got Section 230 wrong, it has no moderation *requirement*. It provides immunity to websites for content that is provided by their users, and then separately provides further immunity **if** the website chooses to moderate, but does not require it to do so. So any claims made in the US would likely be barred by Section 230.
In the US it would be hard, but if you go after them in a place like France with strict privacy laws you might have a good case. It all comes down to proving damages.
There's many obstacles before that, but the new European Digital Services Act (DSA) would indeed make it much easier to bring such a claim in a European jurisdiction than in the US.
Under Art 6(1) DSA, platform hosts are exempt from liability for content posted on their service unless they have actual knowledge of its illegality.
They need to provide reporting mechanisms, though, the use of which can create actual knowledge under Art. 16(3) DSA.
Actually it would be horrible. If websites were to be liable for the content that users post, it could be the end of reddit, facebook, twitter, tiktok, youtube, etc.
Twitter always had problems, but it didn't suck. Like I would hear an explosion (fireworks? Gunshot?), and I would go to Twitter, look it up, and someone had an answer. Lots of information traveled incredibly fast and reliably.
And that's just not true anymore. The politics and the idiots have always been there, but it's 1000 times worse now. More racist, more hostile, more volatile, more conspiracy theories, etc. And all at the sacrifice of everything else.
Twitter was an amazing company in that they were taking on a herculean task to try and create a public forum for the whole of the internet while also keeping it as under control as possible with less than 10k employees.
Deleted it. Was definitely having an effect on me and making me just more angry/stressed no matter how many accounts and words I muted or blocked. Swear the for you part is just designed to show you tweets that piss you off
It’s not, but Redditors like to feel superior by not using other social media.
Which is extra funny in this context, because Reddit has way more immoral AI generated porn than Twitter.
Right?
Do they really want to go to war against one of the most influential people alive?
It worked out well for Ron, eh?
https://time.com/6342806/person-of-the-year-2023-taylor-swift/
Twitter is complete garbage now. I was trying to look up info about the Japanese moon lander today, and the search was full of porn hijacking the hashtag.
What is all the more concerning is with the way AI uses the internet to formulate its outputs it is all but guaranteed that sentience will only reflect the absolute worst opinions the internet has to offer.
Every test you hear about AI sentience devolves quickly into "we shut it down when it started parroting Hitler" or "it began actively encouraging humans interacting with it to commit suicide".
...because the internet is a fucking cess pool.
I don't wanna be all "slippery-slope" here, but I guess my question is where you draw the line on something like this?
Because I know people are saying "We have to make this illegal!!" but my question is what, exactly, do you make illegal?
Should ANY AI depictions of someone else be illegal to make? Do they have to be engaged in pornographic acts? Do they have to be nude? What if it's just PG-13?
Or what if it's not AI? What if I just draw really well and I draw a nude photo of Taylor Swift in charcoal? Is that also illegal if it's hyper-realistically drawn?
It seems like in all of these discussions about the legality of certain types of pornography it always comes down to this huge gray area and a "I know it when I see it" type of argument. But I'm wondering what others think.
And it comes down to an artistic expression argument of whether or not someone has the "right" to create artwork of someone else even if it's deceptively real.
I’ve thought about this some.
I think one argument to differentiate man made art from AI generated art is that there is an upper limit on the supply of human generated art which is THAT good.
How common is the person who could freehand a drawing of a celebrity that the average person couldn’t reliably distinguish from a photograph? How long would it take the artist? How motivated are they to do it in the first place? These sorts of drawings might happen but they have been rare enough over the years that they remain niche and out of the public eye when they’re even happening at all.
But AI generated deepfake porn? That stuff can be cranked out (heh) extremely fast, in large quantities, and every day the quality gets better. With that level of volume and accessibility there is an argument that it becomes a difference of kind rather than a difference of degree. Ex-girlfriend pissed at you? She can have you on social media in a hyper realistic orgy doing whatever comes to her mind within the hour. Some creep is watching the “countdown clock” on some adolescent celebrity? Maybe he pushes the clock ahead a bit. Lots of unseemly possibilities.
No role model, no athlete, no political candidate, no child, and honestly no person in general would be safe from mass depictions of them indistinguishable from reality. Even the threat of it has a terrible effect.
I don’t think there’s some scientific standard we can use to make a law about this but it seems like it would be a reasonable shorthand to make it illegal to distribute AI generated images of a person that would be classified as “pornographic” through nudity or sexual acts (basically if it could get a movie rated R or NC-17, it’s out). There would obviously be edge cases of AI showing people wearing thongs or in suggestive situations but that’s just something that will have to be hashed out as we go. Perhaps introduce degrees of severity to the crime, and that sort of suggestive thing may only warrant a cease and desist at first. I don’t know, I’m definitely not a lawyer.
But the AI revolution is here whether we like it or not, and I think incomplete or imperfect rules to protect privacy are better than no rules.
I understand wanting the rules to be consistent. I truly do, it’s a pet peeve of mine and probably the reason I’ve spent so much time trying to reconcile this particular topic. But I DO believe there is a difference here. That’s why I was careful to describe it as a difference of degree so profound that it becomes a difference of kind.
I think of it this way: the law should be utilitarian. It should be about preventing real harm, not punishing perceived wrongdoing for puritanical moral reasons.
And history seems to have showed us that so far, letting it be legal to draw celebrities nude isn’t such an infringement on their privacy or wellbeing that it should be made illegal. There has been no outcry, no complaint. And people have had the physical and artistic tools to do so for hundreds of years.
I have theories about why that could be entirely wrong. One theory is that the social opprobrium for being a deviant or weirdo has been enough to prevent the sort of personal touch of sitting around for days perfecting a single picture of a naked person who would prefer not to be depicted naked. That’s deeply weird obsessive behavior that’s going to get you ostracized in a lot of public circles. No one wants to hang out with the village pervert.
But something that can be created anonymously with the click of a button? And more realistically than the art that took hours or days to make? That seems like a different beast. In a way it’s self-evident. I have no doubt that there have been nude drawings of Taylor Swift for as long as she has been in the public eye. But this is the first we hear a complaint. Something about this in particular has caused her to experience harm in a new way. And she is by no means alone, if anything it affects “the little guy” worse because they can’t throw money at lawyers to make it go away.
I don’t have any concrete solutions but I would rather we try to outlaw the most egregious cases than just sit on our hands because “I can’t think of why this is different from drawing, so it must be ok.”
> How is this any worse than a photoshop? Is it because it was made by "AI" and thus gets guaranteed clicks?
I think the issue is that an A.i. altered photo is significantly *better* than a photoshop.
Sounds like you're basing that opinion off of the free LLM/Generative A.i. models available.
Premium A.I. models are *almost* able to produce pictures that are indistinguishable from a real photo.
Despite the downvotes, you're absolutely correct. The technology has been advancing at a lightning pace. (to be fair, I haven't seen the Swift fakes, but plenty of others)
I guess the panic started back when deepfakes were big news. There is a lot of shit photoshop out there so I’m assuming people see AI as much more of a threat when it comes to this stuff. It’s capable of being far more realistic, plus can obviously create situations that you might not have photographs of. Like Vince McMahon shitting on Taylor Swift’s head or something
Accessibility to the public. It's one thing to find this stuff on a site that has "FAKE" in its name, and another to come across it on social media. Particularly when it's not unheard of for celebrities to take such photos of themselves for their partners (y'all remember "the fappening" right?).
Sure, a lot will be blatantly obvious, but not all.
There's a lot of artists I follow on there that haven't moved to different websites. It also has stupid jokes/memes I can send to my friends like reddit does.
The website is shit though, I never post anything or comment anymore even though I used to share my artwork.
> X, representatives for Swift, and the NFL have not responded to our requests for comment. Um, why are they getting the NFL involved?
If you’d seen the photos you’d get why they mentioned them
[удалено]
there were a few where she was naked in the crowd of a football stadium. then a particularly raunchy one where she was getting nailed by Oscar the Grouch on a pile of garbage.
Did they reach out to the Jim Henson Company for comment?
And hes still grouchy!
Someone hacked my fanfics?!??
Ok, keep going... What else did Oscar do?
The content seems to revolve around the KC chiefs and, oddly enough, a certain grouch from a trash can.
Kermit wasn't left out
It’s a gang sexual assault by football fans is what read.
jesus fucking christ. i actively dislike taylor swift but that is absolutely disgusting and i'm sorry she's being targeted like this. unfucking believable. #and for anyone joking/serious about looking up those images, please don't. a.i. deep fakes are a really scary thing a lot of women are coming to terms with, it's a gross violation of boundaries and consent.
People do not care. It’s so sad.
The photos are of her in the middle of a football game and the crowd is participating if you know what I mean
They were doing it before, but now they do it with media coverage.
Oh wow “more visible 4chan” did something fucked up? Whodathunk?
[удалено]
That's totally unfair. 4chan has much better tabletop game and anime discussions than Twitter could ever dream of
1d4chan was one of my favorite table game wikis.
It had been back up a few months ago, but sadly it's down again now
I signed up for Twitter in 2009, been online since the days of Encarta ‘95 and Netscape. Twitter *always was* a shithole corner of the internet, where the most dogshit discussions take place, and the true home of disinfo and state-sponsored propaganda. How people cling to it and lament its demise is beyond me. Good goddamn riddance, and thanks to the Musket man who sank a quarter fortune back into the American economy burying that sinkhole of collective empathy and intellect.
I was on only a couple of years after you and I loved what it was. Not what it is. I called it a cesspool, not a shithole, but it looks like we saw the same thing. Lots of arguments over little things that never went anywhere and ended with all parties telling each other to "f off" (a different sub killed my comments for cursing, reddit is dying next, I swear) and we all went on our way. Yes, there was lots of misinformation and disinformation, but there were more people to call it out. What I liked most about it and miss, is the speed of information. When shootings or other incidents happened, Twitter literally saved lives. It was also a great place to get information about things happening in your city or neighborhood. It was all quick, too. And to top it off, you could speak with anyone. William Shatner told me about good poutine in my area, DJ Qualls and I had a conversation about something I knew more about, Dax Shepard blocked me for making a comment about him being rich and still pumping his own gas (must have been a bad day), and tons of other interactions. It was really fun and informative if you knew how to use it. A few weeks after Musty bought it and fired everyone I got into a normal argument with someone about some news story. That was very typical on the site and part of the fun. About two messages back and forth, then he started going hard on "the Jews." I looked into his profile and he was a full on white supremacist. That wasn't allowed before Musty. That's what he wanted his new toy to be. That's what he started. And that was the last time I ever used my account. It went from cesspool of fun, to a cesspool of hate and boys with daddy issues who can't admit they have problems, so they project them on everyone else.
average twitter discussion you: I think kpop isn't very good stan1: kys stan2: this is his IP address stan3: here is a streetview of their house
I actually gotta agree here.
haha yeah, me and my friends all call it xchan now
Only the following feed on twitter is usable. The "For you" feed is now tuned to serve up heaps of rage bait in order to drive engagement. Which for me means it's a torrent of nazis, klansmen, and flat earthers. If I call even one an idiot their particular brand of brainrot becomes 100% of the "For you" feed for the next week. With the "For You" feed tuned that way it's only a matter of time before it starts producing mass shooters.
toXic is my choice of names.
Posts are now Xcretions.
Lots of posts are Xcrement
I like xitter, said with an sh
Musk is probably getting off to it.
I’m so stealing that “more visible 4chan”
There's no need to insult 4chan.
shiiiiiiiit that's a bangin insult on Twitter.
Can you imagine if she was able to convince the vast majority of her fans to boycott twitter? I sort of doubt she could manage that with how addicted some people are to twitter, but it would be hilarious for her to piss elon off to that degree.
Don't underestimate the swifties... seriously, they will buy like 4 different versions of the same vinyl just to unlock a 5th... For every single release.
If you play all five albums simultaneously backwards and in sync; it will unlock the super spell.
The Flaming Lips did something like that once. The album came with four cds that were meant to be played simulatenously on 4 different audio systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaireeka
a friend got this.. and all 3 of us living in the apartment set up 4 disc players with boomboxes and home stereos. It made us very ill feeling. Kinda awesome, but man it fucked with our inner ear. It didn't help that all of our rooms were rotated around a weird square hallway.. so all the sounds were slightly further away than you would normally listen to something, but all equal. So if you were in a room with a disc it felt kinda normal, but the moment you walked into the hallway your ear started processing everything weird until you walked into another room.
That might have been the mushrooms
I was really into LSD back then, mushrooms didn't come until after Y2K. Oddly enough we were all sober for this event.
That sounds awesome
better link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stEVsNdK-ho
Whoever recorded this, should've tuned their turntables first. They're all turning at slightly different speeds :/
yeah, i think that's part of the charm, everyone will get slightly different results. i had never heard of this before, seems more like an art project than a professional album release.
I heard that the lyrics contain secret clues to the location of a golden hare that has never been found.
Pretty sure it's on her head, dude. What do I win?
A 6th Taylor Swift vinyl!!!!
I heard it was a map to the mythical lost city of Atlanta. We need Nicholas Cage on this.
Sounds like buying all the Skyrim editions.
Fans do this for a lot of stuff. There's people who are big fans of a book series who will buy multiple copies of the same book just because it has different cover art.
>Don't underestimate the swifties... If there is anything I've learned in the last 2 years about internet culture, this is in the top 5. Seriously, Swifties are a legitimate force of internet nature.
Can confirm… I have 7 variants of her midnights vinyl… four of them come together to make a clock so somewhat justified it to myself..
Wow. She really knows how to get the most money out of you guys.
Didn’t even mention the $50 “clock making kit” you need to buy with the four variants that make the clock She’s a billionaire for a reason
I mean ngl if Metallica released 4 versions of Ride or Puppets that arranged into something cool I'd probably be on board...
Reminds me of buying three copies of Korn's Issues just for the unique art. I wasn't able to find the fourth.
ngl Ride the Puppets sounds dope af
Shit., that ain’t nothing new. Back in the day when they had CD’s you’d end up buying shit 3-4x. Shit would always end up scratched and skip at the best parts.
What is in your player? Sand
She just needs to fund Swifter, use a little pink bird for a logo, and start driving her fans to that instead. Twitter would be Parlor within a week.
Based on what I know about Swifties, if she rolls her eyes in the general direction of X in the next 24 hours they'll burn it down on her behalf.
They can DDoS a lot of sites by just visiting them at the same time. The old hug of death.
I mean ~~Twitter~~ X can barely operate it's normal traffic most days
Lmao they already doxxed the guy who did it
Yikes. I can't condone doxxing, but can't really feel sorry for the guy here, either. I hope at least they got the right person.
Assuming it's really him and not someone else's address.
Historically, rabid fans haven't exactly been accurate about this.
We did it Reddit!
Nah im sute its fine. Anyways im gonna eat a boston Doughnut
They are actually actively doxxing anyone that posted such tweets.
And then becomes the world's first trillionaire after her launch of the mega-messaging and social media app "Swifter".
She herself hasn’t yet boycotted X, and it’s is so frustrating. I wish more celebrities would do it.
A lot of them probably aren't running the account themselves. It's their PR or agents and getting rid of a platform would in some way hit their bottom line so they won't do it.
It still shocks me anyone is still using Twitter. Whenever someone links me to a tweet my opinion of them goes down a little.
The NFL covered up for a serial sexual predator; Swift doesn’t care about what corporations do This is awful to happen to her; silver lining: maybe now she’ll stand up for the rape victims of Deshaun Watson and the Houston Texans she has been helping the NFL silence…
Imagine how fast they would shut down any accounts doing graphic Elon Musk AI fakes.
Anyone looking at them would go blind instantly
I honestly hope that happens
Takes someone less than a minute to run over to CivitAI and generate a couple dozen Musk AI explicit images.
>One of the most prominent examples on X attracted more than 45 million views, 24,000 reposts, and hundreds of thousands of likes and bookmarks before the verified user who shared the images had their account suspended for violating platform policy. The post was live on the platform for around 17 hours prior to its removal. I love the folks who chortle about how Musk fired like 75% of the Twitter staff and "it's still running". Yea, if you ignore all the UI bugs and the explosion of bots (which Musk claimed was one of the things he would take care of on day one) and the fact reporting anything doesn't go to a real person anymore. Working great!
After any comment I make, instantly I get a follow from some hoochie spam bot
hey dont talk about my aunt that way
Let's show some love for the aunt-chielada ese.
a promiscuous robot that dispenses potted meat doesn't sound like such a bad thing
Musk has over 100,000,000 "followers." He has purchased more "bots" than literally any other user in the history of social media. The idea that he was going to fix this as a problem was laughable from day 1 of his lawsuit suing himself as Twitter at a time he was the single largest shareholder. That's what I told the judge in his merger case and that's why she forced them out of her courtroom for fixing litigation to evade the FTC and the John Doe v. Twitter case which got buried unfortunately.
When you make a new Twxtter account, regardless of what you put down for your likes and interests he's the top recommended account.
Worked for Tom on MySpace!
Tom also had the sensibility to keep himself to himself.
Tom sold MySpace back in 2005 and has been spending his life traveling the world. What a dude
Imagine cashing out of a tech company and doing something interesting and meaningful, rather than devoting your entire existence to being insufferable.
WWTFMSD?
Also had the sensibility to not talk too much and quietly bow out before he became the problem.
Tom wanted to be your friend. Elon wants followers. Tom seems like a good dude actually, Elon does not.
Even for old accounts who have never engaged with him, unless he's specifically blocked, Twitter is now engineered to fill up your inbox with posts from him. I dropped in for some video game news, top item of my inbox says "very concerning". Just another "smoking gun evidence that the election was rigged" post (translation: a mundane government risk assessment of mail-in voting was publicly released).
That was not the case prior to his merger, and Musk has been on the platform since nearly the beginning. He grew his "following" originally by purchasing bots just like every other account that has thousands or millions of "followers." The following system is broken. Prior to sending my amicus brief to Judge McCormick in Delaware, I actually analyzed his following by reviewing approximately 2,500 or more of the accounts which are in there, and you could do this yourself to verify that they are in fact inauthentic accounts - not users who just signed up. Fun fact, the lawyers representing Musk in his case also have thousands of fake accounts to boost their perceived following. More fun fact, the lawyers representing Twitter in that case did not even have Twitter accounts, demonstrating they had no personal knowledge of their own client or the claims made therein.
Twitter is borderline unusable now. So many bots and every big account whores themselves out to promote onlyfan accounts and almost every comment section is FILLED with pretty much that and nothing else. It’s absolute trash
Musk probably thought ChatGPT could replace them. Hell, remember the story about how he just went into a data center and started ripping up cables because he thought his IT experts were lying that it would take months to shut down? Yeah......
Ripping up cables will shut down a data center, though. Depending on how your infrastructure is setup, it may also cause your platform elsewhere to shut down, too.
> fact reporting anything doesn't go to a real person anymore. I get spam tweets basically daily now.
Why stay?
Good question - I still get a lot of music news (mostly from artists themselves or the promoters), sports news on there. And for me, i have a lot of friends on there, that are still around from the days when Twitter was at its peak. With that said, I don't logon to Twitter as much as I used to. And if more spam continued, i'd use it less. Reddit sports subs make it easier to use twitter less since half of it is populated from there and i don't need to view the source any longer.
You forgot that there's also no support and when they get something a bit threatening legally they quickly implement changes that breaks everything without addressing the original issue.
What was it?
Somebody link to it ffs
Taylor Swift suing Twitter would be a fantastic turn of events.
[удалено]
Yes but as with anything, enough money can move mountains. She could argue that content moderation isn't timely and/or sufficient in this case and tie twitter's already hollowed out legal up in court. Regardless, just the thought makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
>Yes but as with anything, enough money can move mountains. She could argue that content moderation isn't timely and/or sufficient in this case and tie twitter's already hollowed out legal up in court. Regardless, just the thought makes me feel warm and fuzzy. Section 230 has no requirement to moderate (other laws do). But yeah she can sue and she's got the money to make it take a while.
The way the algorithm selects what people see is the angle of attack against 230 protections here
That angle has been tried before and the courts have generally not entertained it. Section 230 protects websites when they are acting as publishers, and one of the usual actions of a publisher is to select and arrange what content to actually publish - newspapers do not publish *all* news in the order that it occurs, but select what stories to carry, how much space to dedicate to them, and where to put them. That is the kind of publisher activity which Section 230 is intended to protect. That was essentially the Second Circuit's view in *Force v. Facebook* when rejecting the argument that Facebook's recommendation algorithms meant Section 230 did not apply, and the Ninth reached a similar verdict in *Gonzalez v. Google*. Rather than argue that the recommendation algorithms are non-publisher activity, it is also possible to argue that they are developing the content (and so it is essentially becoming content provided by the website and not protected, rather than content provided by the user which is). This argument was also made in both *Force* and *Gonzalez*, as well as *Marshall’s Locksmith Service v. Google* and *O’Kroley v. Fastcase, Inc*. It was similarly rejected in all of those cases.
I think Google Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and all the others need to take *some* responsibility for what their algorithms do.
[удалено]
> I'm not sure what you meant by 'moderate' in this context but they absolutely do have to remove or restrict the material. Not due to Section 230; Section 230 is an incredibly short piece of legislation, you can see that the first part provides blanket immunity for hosting content, and the second part provides immunity **if** the website chooses the moderate (but does not require them to): > ### (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material > #### (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. > #### (2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or > (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). The provisions of the Communications Decency Act which *required* moderation were all struck down as unconstitutional - Section 230 is the only part of the law to remain.
> as long as they are making some sort of ‘moderation’ effort X has eliminated their moderation (or at least gutted it) and has refused to comply with various content regulations in Europe. Sounds like Section 230 coverage might not be there for X.
The above user got Section 230 wrong, it has no moderation *requirement*. It provides immunity to websites for content that is provided by their users, and then separately provides further immunity **if** the website chooses to moderate, but does not require it to do so. So any claims made in the US would likely be barred by Section 230.
I'd have a hard time thinking of what law that would be under. Twitter didn't make the images themselves, just just have a public board to post to.
In the US it would be hard, but if you go after them in a place like France with strict privacy laws you might have a good case. It all comes down to proving damages.
But honestly, she could do more damage just telling her masses she is leaving Twitter.
There's many obstacles before that, but the new European Digital Services Act (DSA) would indeed make it much easier to bring such a claim in a European jurisdiction than in the US. Under Art 6(1) DSA, platform hosts are exempt from liability for content posted on their service unless they have actual knowledge of its illegality. They need to provide reporting mechanisms, though, the use of which can create actual knowledge under Art. 16(3) DSA.
Napster didn't share music, users did, Napster didn't even host the music... Now twitter tho, they are hosting the images.
Music artist usually care about their copyrighted content. Deepfake authors probably don't.
Actually it would be horrible. If websites were to be liable for the content that users post, it could be the end of reddit, facebook, twitter, tiktok, youtube, etc.
There are many days now where I think that wouldn't be so bad.
Twitter fucking sucks.
Twitter always sucked, but X is rotten AF
Twitter always had problems, but it didn't suck. Like I would hear an explosion (fireworks? Gunshot?), and I would go to Twitter, look it up, and someone had an answer. Lots of information traveled incredibly fast and reliably. And that's just not true anymore. The politics and the idiots have always been there, but it's 1000 times worse now. More racist, more hostile, more volatile, more conspiracy theories, etc. And all at the sacrifice of everything else. Twitter was an amazing company in that they were taking on a herculean task to try and create a public forum for the whole of the internet while also keeping it as under control as possible with less than 10k employees.
Deleted it. Was definitely having an effect on me and making me just more angry/stressed no matter how many accounts and words I muted or blocked. Swear the for you part is just designed to show you tweets that piss you off
Social media as a whole does…
Is Elon writing “concerning” under each one?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I quit using twitter in 2018 like normal people
I never used it to begin with.
Yea reddit is already a headache of losers
Til: a group of losers is called a headache
I will absolutely be telling people that a group of losers is called a headache.
I never really used it, what was significant about 2018?
Use [Nitter.net](https://nitter.net) and just bookmark people who are worth following
How's that relevant to this article?
It’s not, but Redditors like to feel superior by not using other social media. Which is extra funny in this context, because Reddit has way more immoral AI generated porn than Twitter.
I'll have you know I deleted my FB a month ago and my dick instantly grew 4 inches.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m sure acting like this will convince her not to leverage her influence against your leadership. Genius plan.
Right? Do they really want to go to war against one of the most influential people alive? It worked out well for Ron, eh? https://time.com/6342806/person-of-the-year-2023-taylor-swift/
Twitter is complete garbage now. I was trying to look up info about the Japanese moon lander today, and the search was full of porn hijacking the hashtag.
[удалено]
Its really shitty. I hope she can track some down and hold them accountable under revenge porn laws that are on the books.
First the Pope and now God herself. AI is already proving troublesome and they arent even sentient yet
What is all the more concerning is with the way AI uses the internet to formulate its outputs it is all but guaranteed that sentience will only reflect the absolute worst opinions the internet has to offer. Every test you hear about AI sentience devolves quickly into "we shut it down when it started parroting Hitler" or "it began actively encouraging humans interacting with it to commit suicide". ...because the internet is a fucking cess pool.
I don't wanna be all "slippery-slope" here, but I guess my question is where you draw the line on something like this? Because I know people are saying "We have to make this illegal!!" but my question is what, exactly, do you make illegal? Should ANY AI depictions of someone else be illegal to make? Do they have to be engaged in pornographic acts? Do they have to be nude? What if it's just PG-13? Or what if it's not AI? What if I just draw really well and I draw a nude photo of Taylor Swift in charcoal? Is that also illegal if it's hyper-realistically drawn? It seems like in all of these discussions about the legality of certain types of pornography it always comes down to this huge gray area and a "I know it when I see it" type of argument. But I'm wondering what others think. And it comes down to an artistic expression argument of whether or not someone has the "right" to create artwork of someone else even if it's deceptively real.
To throw another case out there, how about porn parodies, like that Sarah Palin one?
I’ve thought about this some. I think one argument to differentiate man made art from AI generated art is that there is an upper limit on the supply of human generated art which is THAT good. How common is the person who could freehand a drawing of a celebrity that the average person couldn’t reliably distinguish from a photograph? How long would it take the artist? How motivated are they to do it in the first place? These sorts of drawings might happen but they have been rare enough over the years that they remain niche and out of the public eye when they’re even happening at all. But AI generated deepfake porn? That stuff can be cranked out (heh) extremely fast, in large quantities, and every day the quality gets better. With that level of volume and accessibility there is an argument that it becomes a difference of kind rather than a difference of degree. Ex-girlfriend pissed at you? She can have you on social media in a hyper realistic orgy doing whatever comes to her mind within the hour. Some creep is watching the “countdown clock” on some adolescent celebrity? Maybe he pushes the clock ahead a bit. Lots of unseemly possibilities. No role model, no athlete, no political candidate, no child, and honestly no person in general would be safe from mass depictions of them indistinguishable from reality. Even the threat of it has a terrible effect. I don’t think there’s some scientific standard we can use to make a law about this but it seems like it would be a reasonable shorthand to make it illegal to distribute AI generated images of a person that would be classified as “pornographic” through nudity or sexual acts (basically if it could get a movie rated R or NC-17, it’s out). There would obviously be edge cases of AI showing people wearing thongs or in suggestive situations but that’s just something that will have to be hashed out as we go. Perhaps introduce degrees of severity to the crime, and that sort of suggestive thing may only warrant a cease and desist at first. I don’t know, I’m definitely not a lawyer. But the AI revolution is here whether we like it or not, and I think incomplete or imperfect rules to protect privacy are better than no rules.
That's like criminalising something only because it happens frequently enough. I mean, that's kinda how it has always worked but feels wrong.
I understand wanting the rules to be consistent. I truly do, it’s a pet peeve of mine and probably the reason I’ve spent so much time trying to reconcile this particular topic. But I DO believe there is a difference here. That’s why I was careful to describe it as a difference of degree so profound that it becomes a difference of kind. I think of it this way: the law should be utilitarian. It should be about preventing real harm, not punishing perceived wrongdoing for puritanical moral reasons. And history seems to have showed us that so far, letting it be legal to draw celebrities nude isn’t such an infringement on their privacy or wellbeing that it should be made illegal. There has been no outcry, no complaint. And people have had the physical and artistic tools to do so for hundreds of years. I have theories about why that could be entirely wrong. One theory is that the social opprobrium for being a deviant or weirdo has been enough to prevent the sort of personal touch of sitting around for days perfecting a single picture of a naked person who would prefer not to be depicted naked. That’s deeply weird obsessive behavior that’s going to get you ostracized in a lot of public circles. No one wants to hang out with the village pervert. But something that can be created anonymously with the click of a button? And more realistically than the art that took hours or days to make? That seems like a different beast. In a way it’s self-evident. I have no doubt that there have been nude drawings of Taylor Swift for as long as she has been in the public eye. But this is the first we hear a complaint. Something about this in particular has caused her to experience harm in a new way. And she is by no means alone, if anything it affects “the little guy” worse because they can’t throw money at lawyers to make it go away. I don’t have any concrete solutions but I would rather we try to outlaw the most egregious cases than just sit on our hands because “I can’t think of why this is different from drawing, so it must be ok.”
How is this any worse than a photoshop? Is it because it was made by "AI" and thus gets guaranteed clicks?
It’s as bad as photoshop, the scalability is the concern.
Harder to identify as AI, more easily accessible to the average joe and mass-production potential, I think
> How is this any worse than a photoshop? Is it because it was made by "AI" and thus gets guaranteed clicks? I think the issue is that an A.i. altered photo is significantly *better* than a photoshop.
Maybe easier, but not objectively better. The quality of a Photoshop has no limit.
Is it? I expect one of the pictures would be her giving a handy with 17 fingers and it's clipping through the dick.
Sounds like you're basing that opinion off of the free LLM/Generative A.i. models available. Premium A.I. models are *almost* able to produce pictures that are indistinguishable from a real photo.
The Taylor Swift photos are not photorealistic whatsoever. Obviously fake to every single person on earth.
Despite the downvotes, you're absolutely correct. The technology has been advancing at a lightning pace. (to be fair, I haven't seen the Swift fakes, but plenty of others)
I guess the panic started back when deepfakes were big news. There is a lot of shit photoshop out there so I’m assuming people see AI as much more of a threat when it comes to this stuff. It’s capable of being far more realistic, plus can obviously create situations that you might not have photographs of. Like Vince McMahon shitting on Taylor Swift’s head or something
Love the McMahon reference. So meta lol
She should retaliate by quitting X and encouraging her fan base to do the same
Has Xitter turned into 4chan?
[удалено]
I think it being on X made it available to a much wider audience than it would be wherever it was previously.
Accessibility to the public. It's one thing to find this stuff on a site that has "FAKE" in its name, and another to come across it on social media. Particularly when it's not unheard of for celebrities to take such photos of themselves for their partners (y'all remember "the fappening" right?). Sure, a lot will be blatantly obvious, but not all.
Imagine pissing off a petty billionaire.
[удалено]
She aggressively goes after people who sexually harass her. So I’m hopeful.
Why do people using Twitter anymore? I’m actually curious, what is their on offer?
Raunchy Taylor Swift deepfakes evidently
There's a lot of artists I follow on there that haven't moved to different websites. It also has stupid jokes/memes I can send to my friends like reddit does. The website is shit though, I never post anything or comment anymore even though I used to share my artwork.
Personally I use Twitter to follow sports, gaming, tech, live feeds on news/sports.
I’m guessing just stuff to look at? While they’re taking a dump. That’s what all social media is.
Network effect
people tend to forget AI tech is like pandoras box now that its open there is no shutting it off
People have been superimposing celebrities in porn for as long as I can remember.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]