Instagram is profiting from several ads that invite people to create nonconsensual nude images with AI image generation apps, once again showing that some of the most harmful applications of AI tools are not hidden on the dark corners of the internet, but are actively promoted to users by social media companies unable or unwilling to enforce their policies about who can buy ads on their platforms.

While parent company Meta’s Ad Library, which archives ads on its platforms, who paid for them, and where and when they were posted, shows that the company has taken down several of these ads previously, many ads that explicitly invited users to create nudes and some ad buyers were up until I reached out to Meta for comment. Some of these ads were for the best known nonconsensual “undress” or “nudify” services on the internet.

  • dan1101
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Yet another example of multi billion dollar companies that don’t curate their content because it’s too hard and expensive. Well too bad maybe you only profit 46 billion instead of 55 billion. Boo hoo.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not that it’s too expensive, it’s that they don’t care. They won’t do the right thing until and unless they are forced to, or it affects their bottom line.

      • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        2 months ago

        Wild that since the rise of the internet it’s like they decided advertising laws don’t apply anymore.

        But Copyright though, it absolutely does, always and everywhere.

      • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        An economic entity cannot care, I don’t understand how people expect them to. They are not human

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Economic Entities aren’t robots, they’re collections of people engaged in the act of production, marketing, and distribution. If this ad/product exists, its because people made it exist deliberately.

          • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            No they are slaves to the entity.

            They can be replaced

            Everyone from top to bottom can be replaced

            And will be unless they obey the machine’s will

            It’s crazy talk to deny this fact because it feels wrong

            It’s just the truth and yeah, it’s wrong

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Everyone from top to bottom can be replaced

              Once you enter the actual business sector and find out how much information is siloed or sequestered in the hands of a few power users, I think you’re going to be disappointed to discover this has never been true.

              More than one business has failed because a key member of the team left, got an ill-conceived promotion, or died.

    • Aermis@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      Your example is 9 billion difference. This would not cost 9 billion. It wouldn’t even cost 1 billion.

      • Bizarroland@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah realistically you’re talking about a team of 10 to 30 people whose entire job is to give the final thumbs up or thumbs down to an ad.

        You’re talking one to three million dollars a year, maybe throw an extra million on for the VP.

        Chump change, they just don’t want to pay it cuz nobody’s forcing them to

        • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          It would take more than 10-30 to run a content review department for any of the major social media firms, but your point still stands that it wouldn’t be a billion annually. A few 10s of millions between wages/benefits/equipment/software all combined annually

    • realharo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Shouldn’t AI be good at detecting and flagging ads like these?

      • lengau@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        Build an AI that will flag immoral ads and potentially lose you revenue

        Build an AI to say you’re using AI to moderate ads but it somehow misses the most profitable bad actors

        Which do you think Meta is doing?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well too bad maybe you only profit 46 billion instead of 55 billion.

      I can’t possibly imagine this quality of clickbait is bringing in $9B annually.

      Maybe I’m wrong. But this feels like the sort of thing a business does when its trying to juice the same lemon for the fourth or fifth time.

      • bitwaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s not that the clickbait is bringing in $9B, it’s that it would cost $9B to moderate it.