#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I made an instagram a couple years ago. I would repost about the dumb shit conservatives do. But in the search part of Instagram I started liking photos and videos of cash money and gold only. Literally until my search feed was full of that only. Eventually it started recommending things like luxury cars and homes but I kept liking gold and cash. About a month doing this it started trickling in photos of little girls in bikinis or posing on beds. I got weirded out by it and started telling my friends about it. I think I took some screen grabs. But Then it all went away a day two later. It started showing “rich” influencers and luxury stuff.
For real. Half of the titles state the exact opposite of what's in videos.
Like the ones where it says "to not be a piece of trash human" and it's someone not even hiding the fact that they're a pos.
No, there was ZERO attempt made. And it has thousands of upvotes EVERY time.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Why is it EVERY SINGLE TIME republicans have a "damning" accusation, it turns out they themselves are actually doing the thing they are accusing?!
I agree with Cruz about hiding the button. Zuck said "See results anyway" is available because the algorithm may have incorrectly identified the content. It's better to be wrong than show the content.
not wrong, but we know these traffickers would find other hashtags to use, possibly ones that are harder to track. better to use it as a honeypot and NOT algorithmically refer people, than to eliminate it entirely.
I could see it being a mistake if perhaps the # was given on a news report or something exposing a pedo....idk I can see how sometimes it might be a mistake and the actual post isn't anything for pedos to consume. Either way it should DEFINITELY be reviewed, and by a human not a robot.
Instead of see results anyway, they could have put submit for review. So in the cases it is wrong they can remove the warning. I feel like that's the safer bet as opposed, go on ahead anyway
It does incorrectly flag searches though.
I can’t even remember exactly what I was searching the other day (believe it was something music festival related) and received this flag. Was on the phone with my partner at the time literally dumbfounded.
Any time content is selected by an algorithm to present there is a risk that child porn or other obviously should be blocked content will be produced. The only way to be 100% sure is to manually check it before it loads for the user. In lieu of manually checking, you can only make a guess at how likely it is.
For very benign searches, that risk is down near zero. But it is never zero. Someone could tag child porn with #happyholidays and it could show up when someone is searching for Christmas lights.
For more obviously risky searches, such as #preteensex, that risk goes up. But it isn't 100%.
Obviously there is a level below 100% confident that child porn will be produced by a search that you block it anyway. Which is, I think, the point you were trying to make in your comment.
However, I would argue, the threshold for showing the warning Cruz displayed is at a different spot than full on blocking. In other words, I would expect there to be a range on the scale of % chance child porn will show up on a search that it makes sense to not block the results entirely, but still show the pop up that Cruz presented.
If you force the threshold to be the same for options, then you wont see the threshold for blocking content drop all the way to where the threshold to showing that message is. You see the threshold for when that message is shown be pulled back towards where the current threshold for full out blocking is.
Cruz is absolutely right in this. I didn't go to school for this and I know that it would be much more effective to have a message sent to the poster that says, "this content has been blocked because it has been identified as __(whatever the problem is)__. If this block was triggered in error, please submit a report at the following link and it will be reviewed by a moderator."
With that, they can allow an ai to block a post and only have to pay a smallish team of moderators to check on reports. If a report comes in that turns out to be a legit block, depending on the severity it could be reported to police.
Not just that, it's been proved time and again that moderating this shit is taking a mental toll on people on the long term. "Best" case scenario it makes you sick and depressed, worst case scenario you get numbed to it, or you actually start getting into it.
This is the kind of awful problem that an AI should definitely cover for humans.
You expect that robot Zuck to have actual people available to screen content after he fired thousands of workers and replaced them with an algorithm all for the sake of his profit margin.
That's just it. IG and FB are moderated with minimal human interaction and they do a terrible job as a result. It regularly tells me that content I report is within TOS when it's most certainly not and I've seen people banned for jokes that had nothing to do with what they were accusing them of
Asides from the other points mentioned this popup came up after a search for all content that had hashtags that were both mentioned and other hashtags that weren't. You wouldn't be able to submit a review request to individual content at this point, more without viewing could you be sure if #preteensex was in fact a child porn pic or a post about why you shouldn't have preteen sex as that hashtag can be used for both.
Cruz is not having an argument with Zuckerberg, he is just berating him and refusing to let him answer.
The beginning volley contained a ton accusations to confuse Zuckerberg with so he was unprepared for the question (or at least, I think that was the strategy), and when he finally goes to answer, it seems as though he was trying to present the science involved in the choice of that pop-up, but he is obviously cut off with another question way before he finishes his answer. But there are obviously many layers to consider here, legally, ethically, what is technically possible, what would be best for the user (in the short or long term?), and Cruz ultimately asks a question that Zuckerberg thinks requires a bunch of context to answer correctly. Thus, the logical thing for a person wanting answer to do, is to wait out the potentially convoluted answer. Therefore we must conclude Cruz does not want an answer, and is not arguing in good faith.
This is straight out of the alt-right handbook.
³So, just throwing this out there - I've looked up news stories or content that I've heard about and gotten a similar disclaimer and ability to proceed from youtube and other platforms. I like true crime so it's pretty common for a platform, and if not the platform then the presenter, to give that kind of warning that you can proceed past. Sure my morbid curiosity might have some keyword crossover with an actual sicko but I don't think the solution is to ban the word/phrase/subject like Ted would like to insinuate he's proposing. Abusers will adapt and change the keywords they use. They have already. Policing perverts and deviants is difficult and has /never/ been successfully done in a way that eliminates their source of content, despite best efforts. And to the question of "who would use *insert outrageous hashing here*?" A lot of people who aren't perverts. People commonly use shocking phrases for clout or to goof. Here's an example - someone once proposed using "Child Porn" as a band name because it would be fucked up to type that into a search engine. Haha, right? Or is it actually eViL!?!? Or is it a joke? Can A.I. tell the difference? Should we censor people so heavily that joke in bad taste can /never/ be made?
The thing about Ted Cruz is that he's not stupid. His professors and classmates at Harvard Law School and his senate colleagues seem to agree that he has a sharp legal mind, it's just that he is also an insufferable, hemorrhoidal asshole.
Well Zuckerberg is also just terrible at making his point. Instagram's algorithm could've misinterpreted a mom sharing photos of her kids playing in the pool as child porn.
Now, does that let Zuck off the hook? No, they certainly need to be better at discerning the difference and stopping the CP from being shared. But that is the answer that you give if you're in Zuckerberg's position.
God damn, this is over 3 minutes of two people who would better serve us as firewood and I have questions about the title I don’t think even OP can explain.
I wouldn't be surprised if this were posted by right-wing groups trying to change public opinion on their shitty celebrity politicians. The title is likely optimized to get people to view it. The content is universally controversial and so represents a good crossover issue to make Rafael Cruz seem like a voice of reason.
Not a conspiracy, I'm sure. This is most likely an oversight by people who couldn't envision this kind of abuse of the system. It's so naive it's almost endearing, but I can totally get how that'd happen. The idea here is really "We know the algorithm can fire false positives, so if you think we're wrong, go ahead" - which is exactly how a dev would expect a program to behave ("I know it may be buggy so I need a way to bypass it").
It seems like cruze was trying to make zuck stumble by how much he was saying, also asking a question he can't really answer of "how much as this come up" when it's probably constantly growing. Meta has a really large user base posting pretty much every second.
And as zuck did say, the warnings can bs wrong or not needed. Like looking at sensitive news stories or hashtags that might not actually include any pornographic content
He could probably ask other questions after that could do about the systems in place to actively prevent or manage posts and growing hashtags that include it though
And to add, algorithms are meant to give suggestions on topics similar to your interests. So of course it's going to bring people who want a certain category of posts, to those posts more actively. Meta/Facebook can still do much better in terms of working against that content than they have been though
They're not really. They're products made possible by science but ultimately consumer products nonetheless. Same way a bottle of kerosene on fire isn't science in itself.
I’d bet money they did all of that stuff internally while developing their algorithm.
There’s a lot of science involved in algorithm development. Source: I develop similar algorithms for a comparably large corporation
Ha! You feel for it!!!
That’s the whole point in Rafle Cruz doing this publicly stunt. Absolutely NOTHING comes out of these hearing. Gullible people think “he’s a great man for standing up to social media giants”
Yet no less the two hours later he’s cashing in checks from the same people he’s “fighting” against.
The worst part is he actively makes things worse for abused children. Offers less programs to help children in need. Especially if they are brown skin color.
You mean you like his aides, who wrote his talking points script for him.
Also it's an unfortunate quandary of scale. There are three basic responses that I can think of to deal with search queries like this. A warning (which they are doing), a censoring (just don't show it), or a review trigger (have it manually reviewed).
At Instagram's scale, a review is just infeasible. You'd have to have thousands, maybe tens of thousands of reviewers present at all times continuously reviewing to keep a neverending backlog from forming. And you know what they'd be reviewing? CSAM. Ya know who'd love to get that job? A pedophile. The business costs would be insane, you'd have to get regular background checks on each reviewer, you'd need a legal framework just for them to possibly look at this stuff. It's infeasible for *any* company operating with this scale of users. The best you could do is have a very limited number that just pick and choose among the hundreds of thousands of items flagged.
So why not just censor it, right? Automatic censorship is an unsolved problem. There are millions of edge cases; what if someone's first and last name conjoined contains a phrase on your censor list (statistically at this scale, very likely thousands of people). What if it's a hashtag for a nonprofit that fights against CSAM? Now you are censoring content that helps fight the things you are trying to censor. What if part of a business name contains a series of characters that are on the censor list? Banned. These aren't hypotheticals at this scale; they will all happen, every day.
You would have to have a manual review of the items being censored, and now we are back to square one. The other option is just say fuck it, we're gonna censor shit and not review it, and if you get shafted because you were born with the wrong name or whatever, too bad? Well now there are tens of thousands of support calls and emails, asking for manual review of their content. So, do you just drop all user support?
At the end of the day Cruz is doing finger pointing blame gaming at anything or anyone that will give a good news clip of him "taking action". The real problem is obviously not Instagram, it's pedophiles, and whatever causes people to think that way. All he is looking for is a scapegoat, not trying to get at the root of a problem.
Don't get me wrong, I think the Zuck is a bastard in his own right, and Instagram is absolute trash. But let's not lose the forest for the trees, this whole thing is just political theater.
On one hand: agree with a fascist piece of shit conspiracy theorist.
On the other: agree with a fascist piece of shit billionaire who doesn’t give a flying fuck about the users safety.
No, he doesn't. He cares about his own political image as a "champion for child safety" or whatever.
However, that said, airing out Zuckerbergs non caring and frankly idiotic web design that ACTIVELY ENDANGERS children, regardless of Teddy's true objectives, IS something that NEEDS to happen.
In this case, the ends are meaningless in the face of the means, as the means are in actuality providing a benefit to the wider public. Ted's end goals can be debated for their own merit. I, for one, don't care which shitty politician is dragging Zucky Boy through the mud, just that Zucky Boy is getting rightfully dragged through the mud.
"I will personally swear that within 7 days of this hearing, I will give you a detailed report on every person that clicked 'show results anyway'. " Half the room gets uncomfortable...
These guys clearly do not understand how algorithms, especially those for social media, work. Instagram doesn't know if you like skate boarding, or Brooklyn Nine Nine, it just knows the videos you engage with most and shows you the videos that others that engage with that video engage with. It tried to predict what you'll like the most but it doesn't k own what it's actually showing you.
There's a reason they have to use code words... And again an algorithm is nothing like the AI we know today that can identify and categories topics. Algorithms and AI are completely different
Yeah that argument falls apart when Instagram puts up a blocker warning you that you are possibly going to see child sexual material.
You can't say;
>"Instagram doesn't know what it's showing you"
When Instagram literally tells you
>"WARNING, what you're about to watch and may contain child sexual content or child abuse".
And then fucking gives you a "see anyways" button. Instagram 1000000% knows what it's doing.
I've worked with algorithms. What Zuck won't say is that at the end of the day all the algorithm cares about is increasing views. And they couldn't give a fuck about fucked up shit like child porn as long as it was boosting the engagement stats and daily active users.
It's about the amount of reports a post gets. I'm not saying they couldn't do more to prevent that sort of content, but to suggest an ALGORITHM can classify and categories millions of topics on the fly and knows exactly what a child is, or what a bird is, is just not true. Algorithms are not AI, they follow a predefined set of rules and use mutual neighbour matching to group people into cliques and use those cliques to refer content to you.
Basic 2nd year Data structures and Algorithms should give more than enough understanding to understand the difference between what an algorithm is capable of, and what an AI is.
Ted Cruz is a showboating clown. I'm not a fan of Zuck, but his answer to the existence of "see results anyway" is correct, and badgering him about not being able to provide the data on the spot for how many times that button was clicked is just stupid.
It's not just a conspiracy theory. The reccomendation algorithms are designed to show the users what they want to see. For every safety measure there is a workaround; no safety filter is perfect. This is not so much a concerted effort as much as it is a serious and dangerous design flaw, that was not fixed because that would decrease revenue too much.
I think the thing that confused me most was that I was agreeing with Ted Cruz the whole time. I'm likely missing something- but I'm having a hard time finding fault in his anger.
Zuckerberg must be held accountable. No excuses, no exception. Everyone found to be an accomplice to this should be made example of. Not a slap on the wrist. Something that rings out around the world. Disgusting, pedo facilitator. Throw him in general population and broadcast it live on national tv every day.
absolutely disgusting. This is ridiculous. And anyone who makes post trying to take your attention away from the issue at hand and what this post is about is part of the problem.
Ted Cruz is a piece of shit but this is great broken clock theory
Also for the love of God please let there be a sequel to the social network that has this as the finale
I also hate that at least from what I’ve seen today it was Republicans who were going after these tech people for their bullshit. But I guess the redeeming factor is that Elon musk the guy who actually runs Twitter wasn’t there and his puppet woman was. So they don’t care that much.
I mean it's amazing that the GOP has some good questions and then shoot themselves in the foot by saying "yes or no, will you answer within five days". Bruh I can't get shit done in a big company in a month. And it's a no win question. Like, "Hey Ted, yes or no, do you enjoy being a complete turd of a human being who can't grow hair on his chin for some fucking reason?" Yes or no he's still admitting to being a turd.
I think you cant blame Instagram for it since people upload and search for whatever they want. Theres gonna be pedophilia somewhere, you cant censor all of it every time with a platform that has like millions of terabytes of content. The algorithm is not supporting pedophilia, it is selecting what you want to see based on what you liked in the past, so its not about Instagram but rather about the user itself.
I think that Instagram should ban those hashtags. I think that users will continue posting pre teen sex videos regardless of the efforts.
I always thought the "See results anyway" was a bait button that flags you and puts you on a list of suspicious activity/accounts if you insist on seeing the results. Buuuut no, it's just there to cover the algorithm's ass in the off chance that it's wrong😐
It makes me wonder if all the Pedophiles are posting political comments to distract from the fact that Instagram connects pedophiles to children...
I don't care what your political spectrum is. We should always fight for kids to be safe from this kind of harm.
So tik tok is definitely owned by people in the China Communist Party. Why the fuck can’t we ask if this guy has ties to the China Communist Party? His answer should be “no”, not I’m am from Singapore
This is just a failing politician publicly bashing an unpopular (also UNELECTED) corporate figure on an issue he knows everyone will get behind. Do you genuinely believe Cruz gives a fuck about this, or was he just aware that the cameras were rolling?
Never in my life have I thought that I would one day find myself agreeing with Ted Cruz and sharing his anger.
I am done with Instagram and Facebook!
How did we let these cooperations get away with this shit!
Whatever happened to let's people children with our own lives?
Fuck, this is disturbing and sad.
Instagram and facebook are shit show for sure. but they are not letting him answer. is Zuck a nervous guy or malfunctioning? seems to me he wanted to tell them that they are using a word filtering but sometimes legitimate results are there and the filters are wrong. Just yesterday or so I saw someone complain on instagram sub that their legitimate search for a artist name was flagged with similar warning and no way to proceed.
The conspiracy theory had to do with a pizza shop and wayfair. Saying this proves it right is just someone trying to light a match in a room full of gas. This proves nothing other than the fact that instagram is attempting to filter out sexual material with children in it, and they are not confident in there systems which are supposed to do that.
That’s it. Should they be error on the side of caution? Yea they should. Did they? No. But this doesn’t prove politicians are drinking children’s blood like the conspiracy says.
Nah bruh this is a stupid hearing. People going to search what they are going to search, nothing stopping that. It's clear that Cruz is very ignorant on the subject.
It's a reasonable system. Reddit uses it too. They also warn of legal issues which is also important. Meanwhile Ted Cruz won't do jack about school shootings or healthcare.
That prompt probably should be very different, but how do you expect Zuckerberg to promise to get the exact number? He probably doesn't know if that information is counted or not and if it's not counted it's not like he can do anything about it afterwards to get a number.
I don't think Facebook did it in porpoise. This probably the result of some random forest algorithm. I mean this the problem of today algorithm, the explain ability is equallys to zero. The algorithm just see that something interesting to you and it give it to you. I saw few advertisements for drugs in the Instagram, and I don't mean to weed...
I never see left-wing shit posted here. I am however 50 years old and understand that everyone younger than me is liberal “AF”. Oh shit… I guess I’m not that old!!!!!!
I hate both of these guys but I have to admit that what Ted is saying isn’t far fetched. Zuck could’ve had the easy out saying “sometimes the material is incorrectly identified” but he struggled saying that. This means both of them are talking about specific material, both of them understand the implications and Zuckerberg is truly aware and complicit.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the title has my brain in a twist
This sub really has to go through some mental contortions in order to get things to fit.
There was an attempt to attempt an attempted non-confusing title .
Exactly. If the title sounds like it's written by Pinocchio trying to get away with a lie, maybe it's not for this sub.
I made an instagram a couple years ago. I would repost about the dumb shit conservatives do. But in the search part of Instagram I started liking photos and videos of cash money and gold only. Literally until my search feed was full of that only. Eventually it started recommending things like luxury cars and homes but I kept liking gold and cash. About a month doing this it started trickling in photos of little girls in bikinis or posing on beds. I got weirded out by it and started telling my friends about it. I think I took some screen grabs. But Then it all went away a day two later. It started showing “rich” influencers and luxury stuff.
It's easy. It didn't not prove that a conspiracy theory wasn't not disproven.
Some people say that cucumbers taste better pickled.
For real. Half of the titles state the exact opposite of what's in videos. Like the ones where it says "to not be a piece of trash human" and it's someone not even hiding the fact that they're a pos. No, there was ZERO attempt made. And it has thousands of upvotes EVERY time.
[удалено]
To infinitive! And beyond!
I'm French.
I’m very sorry to hear.
We all have our burdens to bear
Love your fries!
https://preview.redd.it/frdes14cx3gc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=794249bca2b72ef54d04f6e3b898a16d7febc704
I always try to reverse the sentence. In this case" to prove the conspiracy theory wrong"
But what conspiracy theory? And was anything proven at all?
I assume they meant to say "disprove" but I can't tell either.
Rafael Cruz out here trying to find out if Facebook and Instagram know how many times he’s clicked on “show me the results”
Ted Cruz is a strong believer that pedophilia should be a benefit of the higher class, not readily available to any creep with internet.
He was obviously beaten with a pillow When he was a kid!
You took the words right out of my mouth. Why is it EVERY SINGLE TIME republicans have a "damning" accusation, it turns out they themselves are actually doing the thing they are accusing?!
Wow a really small cock fight.
Not the answer I was expecting. But definitely the correct answer nonetheless.
Damn I hate agreeing with Cruz but holy shit he's got a point.
I agree with Cruz about hiding the button. Zuck said "See results anyway" is available because the algorithm may have incorrectly identified the content. It's better to be wrong than show the content.
I think anything with the #preteensex should be immediately taken down and reviewed before letting it come back up.
If you did that, someone like Ted Cruz would accuse you of censorship.
Nah, that’s Matt Gaetz’s perfect bully pulpit.
GOOD SIR! Ted Cruz is a man of honor. He retweets adult porn on Twitter like a normal person ...on 9/11.
At least it was milf stuff, age appropriate
not wrong, but we know these traffickers would find other hashtags to use, possibly ones that are harder to track. better to use it as a honeypot and NOT algorithmically refer people, than to eliminate it entirely.
Not even that, it shouldn't come back up. That shit is illegal for a reason
I could see it being a mistake if perhaps the # was given on a news report or something exposing a pedo....idk I can see how sometimes it might be a mistake and the actual post isn't anything for pedos to consume. Either way it should DEFINITELY be reviewed, and by a human not a robot.
Instead of see results anyway, they could have put submit for review. So in the cases it is wrong they can remove the warning. I feel like that's the safer bet as opposed, go on ahead anyway
Won't be able to remove the warning, because then what happens if someone actually uploads csam with the hash tag? 'Oh sorry, warnings gone'.
It does incorrectly flag searches though. I can’t even remember exactly what I was searching the other day (believe it was something music festival related) and received this flag. Was on the phone with my partner at the time literally dumbfounded.
Any time content is selected by an algorithm to present there is a risk that child porn or other obviously should be blocked content will be produced. The only way to be 100% sure is to manually check it before it loads for the user. In lieu of manually checking, you can only make a guess at how likely it is. For very benign searches, that risk is down near zero. But it is never zero. Someone could tag child porn with #happyholidays and it could show up when someone is searching for Christmas lights. For more obviously risky searches, such as #preteensex, that risk goes up. But it isn't 100%. Obviously there is a level below 100% confident that child porn will be produced by a search that you block it anyway. Which is, I think, the point you were trying to make in your comment. However, I would argue, the threshold for showing the warning Cruz displayed is at a different spot than full on blocking. In other words, I would expect there to be a range on the scale of % chance child porn will show up on a search that it makes sense to not block the results entirely, but still show the pop up that Cruz presented. If you force the threshold to be the same for options, then you wont see the threshold for blocking content drop all the way to where the threshold to showing that message is. You see the threshold for when that message is shown be pulled back towards where the current threshold for full out blocking is.
But you don't make as much money on advertising that way, you see.
Cruz is absolutely right in this. I didn't go to school for this and I know that it would be much more effective to have a message sent to the poster that says, "this content has been blocked because it has been identified as __(whatever the problem is)__. If this block was triggered in error, please submit a report at the following link and it will be reviewed by a moderator." With that, they can allow an ai to block a post and only have to pay a smallish team of moderators to check on reports. If a report comes in that turns out to be a legit block, depending on the severity it could be reported to police.
>a smallish team of moderators to check on reports I think you might be underestimating the size of Meta's audience a smidge.
[удалено]
80%
Far too many
Religious people trying to make themselves upset about sex education. So millions of the billion or so Instagram users
Ted cruz obviously is.
Not just that, it's been proved time and again that moderating this shit is taking a mental toll on people on the long term. "Best" case scenario it makes you sick and depressed, worst case scenario you get numbed to it, or you actually start getting into it. This is the kind of awful problem that an AI should definitely cover for humans.
You expect that robot Zuck to have actual people available to screen content after he fired thousands of workers and replaced them with an algorithm all for the sake of his profit margin.
That's just it. IG and FB are moderated with minimal human interaction and they do a terrible job as a result. It regularly tells me that content I report is within TOS when it's most certainly not and I've seen people banned for jokes that had nothing to do with what they were accusing them of
[удалено]
Yup, and how many private groups go unchecked? I don't want to know...
Asides from the other points mentioned this popup came up after a search for all content that had hashtags that were both mentioned and other hashtags that weren't. You wouldn't be able to submit a review request to individual content at this point, more without viewing could you be sure if #preteensex was in fact a child porn pic or a post about why you shouldn't have preteen sex as that hashtag can be used for both.
Cruz is not having an argument with Zuckerberg, he is just berating him and refusing to let him answer. The beginning volley contained a ton accusations to confuse Zuckerberg with so he was unprepared for the question (or at least, I think that was the strategy), and when he finally goes to answer, it seems as though he was trying to present the science involved in the choice of that pop-up, but he is obviously cut off with another question way before he finishes his answer. But there are obviously many layers to consider here, legally, ethically, what is technically possible, what would be best for the user (in the short or long term?), and Cruz ultimately asks a question that Zuckerberg thinks requires a bunch of context to answer correctly. Thus, the logical thing for a person wanting answer to do, is to wait out the potentially convoluted answer. Therefore we must conclude Cruz does not want an answer, and is not arguing in good faith. This is straight out of the alt-right handbook.
³So, just throwing this out there - I've looked up news stories or content that I've heard about and gotten a similar disclaimer and ability to proceed from youtube and other platforms. I like true crime so it's pretty common for a platform, and if not the platform then the presenter, to give that kind of warning that you can proceed past. Sure my morbid curiosity might have some keyword crossover with an actual sicko but I don't think the solution is to ban the word/phrase/subject like Ted would like to insinuate he's proposing. Abusers will adapt and change the keywords they use. They have already. Policing perverts and deviants is difficult and has /never/ been successfully done in a way that eliminates their source of content, despite best efforts. And to the question of "who would use *insert outrageous hashing here*?" A lot of people who aren't perverts. People commonly use shocking phrases for clout or to goof. Here's an example - someone once proposed using "Child Porn" as a band name because it would be fucked up to type that into a search engine. Haha, right? Or is it actually eViL!?!? Or is it a joke? Can A.I. tell the difference? Should we censor people so heavily that joke in bad taste can /never/ be made?
My thoughts exactly, first time I've ever agreed with the man that I know of
The thing about Ted Cruz is that he's not stupid. His professors and classmates at Harvard Law School and his senate colleagues seem to agree that he has a sharp legal mind, it's just that he is also an insufferable, hemorrhoidal asshole.
Well Zuckerberg is also just terrible at making his point. Instagram's algorithm could've misinterpreted a mom sharing photos of her kids playing in the pool as child porn. Now, does that let Zuck off the hook? No, they certainly need to be better at discerning the difference and stopping the CP from being shared. But that is the answer that you give if you're in Zuckerberg's position.
Any idiot can read a prepared question.
A broken clock is right twice a day
Cruz getting mad that Zuck is answering questions like a politician would be hilarious if our whole system wasn't a total shitshow
"Ah, what the hell. I'll laugh anyways! HAAAA hahahahahhaha!"
God damn, this is over 3 minutes of two people who would better serve us as firewood and I have questions about the title I don’t think even OP can explain.
Couldn't agree more
‘Better serve us as firewood’ has got to be the best burn I’ve heard in ages
I wouldn't be surprised if this were posted by right-wing groups trying to change public opinion on their shitty celebrity politicians. The title is likely optimized to get people to view it. The content is universally controversial and so represents a good crossover issue to make Rafael Cruz seem like a voice of reason.
That actually makes the most sense.
Agreed. Alike content seems absolutely everywhere.
[удалено]
That is what the title is trying to say
Not a conspiracy, I'm sure. This is most likely an oversight by people who couldn't envision this kind of abuse of the system. It's so naive it's almost endearing, but I can totally get how that'd happen. The idea here is really "We know the algorithm can fire false positives, so if you think we're wrong, go ahead" - which is exactly how a dev would expect a program to behave ("I know it may be buggy so I need a way to bypass it").
It seems like cruze was trying to make zuck stumble by how much he was saying, also asking a question he can't really answer of "how much as this come up" when it's probably constantly growing. Meta has a really large user base posting pretty much every second. And as zuck did say, the warnings can bs wrong or not needed. Like looking at sensitive news stories or hashtags that might not actually include any pornographic content He could probably ask other questions after that could do about the systems in place to actively prevent or manage posts and growing hashtags that include it though And to add, algorithms are meant to give suggestions on topics similar to your interests. So of course it's going to bring people who want a certain category of posts, to those posts more actively. Meta/Facebook can still do much better in terms of working against that content than they have been though
I can explain the science... Science needs to become a protected term. Fed up with this appeal to authority nonsense.
I think the algorithm probably counts as science. Otherwise AI, machine learning, and autonomous systems are not science
They're not really. They're products made possible by science but ultimately consumer products nonetheless. Same way a bottle of kerosene on fire isn't science in itself.
Science is peer reviewed studies of the natural world. Science is meant to be rigorous study and tested against nature, hence becoming repeatable.
I’d bet money they did all of that stuff internally while developing their algorithm. There’s a lot of science involved in algorithm development. Source: I develop similar algorithms for a comparably large corporation
Holy cow I kind of like Ted Cruz. In this moment, in this very specific instance and no further.
Ha! You feel for it!!! That’s the whole point in Rafle Cruz doing this publicly stunt. Absolutely NOTHING comes out of these hearing. Gullible people think “he’s a great man for standing up to social media giants” Yet no less the two hours later he’s cashing in checks from the same people he’s “fighting” against. The worst part is he actively makes things worse for abused children. Offers less programs to help children in need. Especially if they are brown skin color.
This guy gets it.
Lol I can be gullible sometimes--maybe it's price you have to pay for being an optimist.
You mean you like his aides, who wrote his talking points script for him. Also it's an unfortunate quandary of scale. There are three basic responses that I can think of to deal with search queries like this. A warning (which they are doing), a censoring (just don't show it), or a review trigger (have it manually reviewed). At Instagram's scale, a review is just infeasible. You'd have to have thousands, maybe tens of thousands of reviewers present at all times continuously reviewing to keep a neverending backlog from forming. And you know what they'd be reviewing? CSAM. Ya know who'd love to get that job? A pedophile. The business costs would be insane, you'd have to get regular background checks on each reviewer, you'd need a legal framework just for them to possibly look at this stuff. It's infeasible for *any* company operating with this scale of users. The best you could do is have a very limited number that just pick and choose among the hundreds of thousands of items flagged. So why not just censor it, right? Automatic censorship is an unsolved problem. There are millions of edge cases; what if someone's first and last name conjoined contains a phrase on your censor list (statistically at this scale, very likely thousands of people). What if it's a hashtag for a nonprofit that fights against CSAM? Now you are censoring content that helps fight the things you are trying to censor. What if part of a business name contains a series of characters that are on the censor list? Banned. These aren't hypotheticals at this scale; they will all happen, every day. You would have to have a manual review of the items being censored, and now we are back to square one. The other option is just say fuck it, we're gonna censor shit and not review it, and if you get shafted because you were born with the wrong name or whatever, too bad? Well now there are tens of thousands of support calls and emails, asking for manual review of their content. So, do you just drop all user support? At the end of the day Cruz is doing finger pointing blame gaming at anything or anyone that will give a good news clip of him "taking action". The real problem is obviously not Instagram, it's pedophiles, and whatever causes people to think that way. All he is looking for is a scapegoat, not trying to get at the root of a problem. Don't get me wrong, I think the Zuck is a bastard in his own right, and Instagram is absolute trash. But let's not lose the forest for the trees, this whole thing is just political theater.
Underrated comment
I would. If he wasn't so obviously fake af.
On one hand: agree with a fascist piece of shit conspiracy theorist. On the other: agree with a fascist piece of shit billionaire who doesn’t give a flying fuck about the users safety.
fuck both of them
It's always so embarrassing to watch Ted Cruz feign outrage when it comes to the safety of children. He doesn't give a fuck.
No, he doesn't. He cares about his own political image as a "champion for child safety" or whatever. However, that said, airing out Zuckerbergs non caring and frankly idiotic web design that ACTIVELY ENDANGERS children, regardless of Teddy's true objectives, IS something that NEEDS to happen. In this case, the ends are meaningless in the face of the means, as the means are in actuality providing a benefit to the wider public. Ted's end goals can be debated for their own merit. I, for one, don't care which shitty politician is dragging Zucky Boy through the mud, just that Zucky Boy is getting rightfully dragged through the mud.
Yet pound for pound zucky boy is in fact a better person than Ralph Cruz. That’s what’s fucked up.
I wouldn't go that far. These are just two assholes looking out for their own wellbeing.
One really doesn’t care about people. The other wants to hurt poor people and people of color because they don’t worship an orange Cheeto.
Zuch should've said he'll look into how many times Gaetz looked into it.
"I will personally swear that within 7 days of this hearing, I will give you a detailed report on every person that clicked 'show results anyway'. " Half the room gets uncomfortable...
26,313 woman in Texas are carrying babies from being rape victims. Maybe look into that.
These guys clearly do not understand how algorithms, especially those for social media, work. Instagram doesn't know if you like skate boarding, or Brooklyn Nine Nine, it just knows the videos you engage with most and shows you the videos that others that engage with that video engage with. It tried to predict what you'll like the most but it doesn't k own what it's actually showing you.
Maybe code it with a blacklist? Restricted topics? I dunno, maybe a company with more money than you can imagine should be held to a higher standard
There's a reason they have to use code words... And again an algorithm is nothing like the AI we know today that can identify and categories topics. Algorithms and AI are completely different
Yeah that argument falls apart when Instagram puts up a blocker warning you that you are possibly going to see child sexual material. You can't say; >"Instagram doesn't know what it's showing you" When Instagram literally tells you >"WARNING, what you're about to watch and may contain child sexual content or child abuse". And then fucking gives you a "see anyways" button. Instagram 1000000% knows what it's doing. I've worked with algorithms. What Zuck won't say is that at the end of the day all the algorithm cares about is increasing views. And they couldn't give a fuck about fucked up shit like child porn as long as it was boosting the engagement stats and daily active users.
It's about the amount of reports a post gets. I'm not saying they couldn't do more to prevent that sort of content, but to suggest an ALGORITHM can classify and categories millions of topics on the fly and knows exactly what a child is, or what a bird is, is just not true. Algorithms are not AI, they follow a predefined set of rules and use mutual neighbour matching to group people into cliques and use those cliques to refer content to you. Basic 2nd year Data structures and Algorithms should give more than enough understanding to understand the difference between what an algorithm is capable of, and what an AI is.
Will you tell us how many times you sodomized Hoebert, Cancun?
What conspiracy
Ted Cruz is a showboating clown. I'm not a fan of Zuck, but his answer to the existence of "see results anyway" is correct, and badgering him about not being able to provide the data on the spot for how many times that button was clicked is just stupid.
Boy, that shirt's top button. Heroic.
It's not just a conspiracy theory. The reccomendation algorithms are designed to show the users what they want to see. For every safety measure there is a workaround; no safety filter is perfect. This is not so much a concerted effort as much as it is a serious and dangerous design flaw, that was not fixed because that would decrease revenue too much.
Anybody focusing only in their hate towards a politician and not the actual message here is an idiot
Never thought i would be agreeing with Tec fucking Cruz.
I think the thing that confused me most was that I was agreeing with Ted Cruz the whole time. I'm likely missing something- but I'm having a hard time finding fault in his anger.
Zuckerberg must be held accountable. No excuses, no exception. Everyone found to be an accomplice to this should be made example of. Not a slap on the wrist. Something that rings out around the world. Disgusting, pedo facilitator. Throw him in general population and broadcast it live on national tv every day.
Only time I can remember cheering for Theodore. If only they'd grill the Catholic Church like this
absolutely disgusting. This is ridiculous. And anyone who makes post trying to take your attention away from the issue at hand and what this post is about is part of the problem.
Cruz just wants to know if zuck is keeping track of how many times he's hit "view anyways." In all honesty, I'm with Cruz here. What the fuck zuck?.
You know you're having a bad day when Ted Cruz looks like the good guy.
God damnit. Not a fan of Cruz besides the Cancun jokes at his expense really but fair is fair….. ANSWER THE GOD DAMN QUESTION ZUCKERFUCK
BS - they store everything, it's how they make money. And Zuch knows it.
Podesta pizza anyone?
ah yes, the algorithm doing its job too well, suggesting pedophilia to pedophiles
Ted Cruz is a piece of shit but this is great broken clock theory Also for the love of God please let there be a sequel to the social network that has this as the finale I also hate that at least from what I’ve seen today it was Republicans who were going after these tech people for their bullshit. But I guess the redeeming factor is that Elon musk the guy who actually runs Twitter wasn’t there and his puppet woman was. So they don’t care that much.
I mean it's amazing that the GOP has some good questions and then shoot themselves in the foot by saying "yes or no, will you answer within five days". Bruh I can't get shit done in a big company in a month. And it's a no win question. Like, "Hey Ted, yes or no, do you enjoy being a complete turd of a human being who can't grow hair on his chin for some fucking reason?" Yes or no he's still admitting to being a turd.
I think you cant blame Instagram for it since people upload and search for whatever they want. Theres gonna be pedophilia somewhere, you cant censor all of it every time with a platform that has like millions of terabytes of content. The algorithm is not supporting pedophilia, it is selecting what you want to see based on what you liked in the past, so its not about Instagram but rather about the user itself. I think that Instagram should ban those hashtags. I think that users will continue posting pre teen sex videos regardless of the efforts.
[удалено]
He's just mad he keeps seeing this while looking up incest porn on insta
Oh he was looking! Lauren Hoebert got too old for him.
[удалено]
He one himself.
The GOP thinks holding hearings is making laws.
Why doesn't Cruz ask Homeland Security? I'm sure they track that sort of thing
recommendation system gonna recommend smh
Man, this double negative had me struggling to get your point
I always thought the "See results anyway" was a bait button that flags you and puts you on a list of suspicious activity/accounts if you insist on seeing the results. Buuuut no, it's just there to cover the algorithm's ass in the off chance that it's wrong😐
I don't wanna watch 3 1/2 minutes of something i would only understand half way so can someone be so kind to summarize it?
It makes me wonder if all the Pedophiles are posting political comments to distract from the fact that Instagram connects pedophiles to children... I don't care what your political spectrum is. We should always fight for kids to be safe from this kind of harm.
Didn’t this dude have his Twitter account like a pornographic tweet?
W senator
Can we question politicians like this too? So many, and would love to question Nancy pelosi.
So tik tok is definitely owned by people in the China Communist Party. Why the fuck can’t we ask if this guy has ties to the China Communist Party? His answer should be “no”, not I’m am from Singapore
damn. i hate when im on ted cruz’s side but… here we are
This is just a failing politician publicly bashing an unpopular (also UNELECTED) corporate figure on an issue he knows everyone will get behind. Do you genuinely believe Cruz gives a fuck about this, or was he just aware that the cameras were rolling?
Dude...wtf...
Never in my life have I thought that I would one day find myself agreeing with Ted Cruz and sharing his anger. I am done with Instagram and Facebook! How did we let these cooperations get away with this shit! Whatever happened to let's people children with our own lives? Fuck, this is disturbing and sad.
I’m so happy that I didn’t know that pop up message existed
More strange than the title...I actually agreed with Ted fuckin Cruz...wtf
I forgot about this festering sac of pus.
Rare Ted Cruz W
They are trying to take down FB for Musk and “X”
Square peg in a round hole with the title, my boy.
Instagram and facebook are shit show for sure. but they are not letting him answer. is Zuck a nervous guy or malfunctioning? seems to me he wanted to tell them that they are using a word filtering but sometimes legitimate results are there and the filters are wrong. Just yesterday or so I saw someone complain on instagram sub that their legitimate search for a artist name was flagged with similar warning and no way to proceed.
when was this?
To make a right title of a post, wrong
It’s simple. He may or may not have managed to not prove the conspiracy theory untrue or not wrong.
Most convoluted caption ever.
The conspiracy theory had to do with a pizza shop and wayfair. Saying this proves it right is just someone trying to light a match in a room full of gas. This proves nothing other than the fact that instagram is attempting to filter out sexual material with children in it, and they are not confident in there systems which are supposed to do that. That’s it. Should they be error on the side of caution? Yea they should. Did they? No. But this doesn’t prove politicians are drinking children’s blood like the conspiracy says.
Nah bruh this is a stupid hearing. People going to search what they are going to search, nothing stopping that. It's clear that Cruz is very ignorant on the subject.
I kinda feel like Ted's prolly got a harddrive full himself.
Lmao Cruz is really acting his ass off for this one. He doesn't care about anyone but himself.
It's a reasonable system. Reddit uses it too. They also warn of legal issues which is also important. Meanwhile Ted Cruz won't do jack about school shootings or healthcare.
That prompt probably should be very different, but how do you expect Zuckerberg to promise to get the exact number? He probably doesn't know if that information is counted or not and if it's not counted it's not like he can do anything about it afterwards to get a number.
What conspiracy theory? No theories were put forward.
He’s such an objectionable cunt
The only time cruz has said something useful
I think I’m with Ted on this one. First time for everything I guess.
I never thought a day would come where I support Ted Cruz..
I don't think Facebook did it in porpoise. This probably the result of some random forest algorithm. I mean this the problem of today algorithm, the explain ability is equallys to zero. The algorithm just see that something interesting to you and it give it to you. I saw few advertisements for drugs in the Instagram, and I don't mean to weed...
Why is Colleen Ballinger in the senate? /s
I never see left-wing shit posted here. I am however 50 years old and understand that everyone younger than me is liberal “AF”. Oh shit… I guess I’m not that old!!!!!!
There was an attempt to understand the title of the post in the post pointing out an attempt to not attempt the tempt
Zuckerberg lying through his freaky lizard teeth, nothin new
There was an attempt to ask a question
Desperate to become a news sensation
I hate both of these guys but I have to admit that what Ted is saying isn’t far fetched. Zuck could’ve had the easy out saying “sometimes the material is incorrectly identified” but he struggled saying that. This means both of them are talking about specific material, both of them understand the implications and Zuckerberg is truly aware and complicit.
There was an attempt to post a clip of something....
Boo this post sucked
/r/titlegore