>the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) reported that Meta failed to detect 332 ads containing CSAM this year

Considering the amount of ads they handle that seems... reasonable?

Not to mention the stupidity of calling the result of nudify apps "CSAM" when no minors in situation of sexual abuse are used in any way to generate those photos.

> Considering the amount of ads they handle that seems... reasonable?

Why reasonable? Don't these ads pass through pre-publication review, and Meta makes money off of it? Any number above zero is a serious problem. If they can't run an ad business that doesn't publish and profit off of CSAM, they shouldn't run it.

I don't think we should distinguish between 'fake' and real CSAM based on if kids are hurt; this ad machine shouldn't be able to publish it, regardless. The moral question of if it's real or kids were directly harmed seems separate to me.

How many ads for CSAM do your local TV networks broadcast? How many billboards do you drive past featuring CSAM? How about newspapers?

If a company can't operate within the law due to the scale it chooses to operate at, then it should choose not to operate at that scale.

It doesn't become acceptable to break the law because your scale means there a lots of times you don't break the law either.

> The young royal’s image was “animated into a video of her performing a graphic sex act,” TTP found. Other ads animated a photo of a 14-year-old Instagram influencer “showing off her new sports club uniform” into “a video of her performing oral sex.” A third “preteen” victim “posing in a pink athletic outfit with pigtails” in a series of stock photos was morphed into a video where she looks frightened as she’s molested by an adult male, TTP reported.

This is one of those topics that gets radioactive quickly, so I'm trying to parse this comment under the recent ruling by a judge that certain obscene products of generative AI are protected under the First Amendment.

"We now live in an age where GenAI [generative AI] models can render images depicting the abuse of virtual children that are virtually indistinguishable from those depicting the abuse of actual children. This case illuminates how this evolving technology complicates the lines drawn by the Supreme Court in Stanley, Osborne, and Free Speech Coalition. Indeed, in Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of First Amendment protections for virtual CSAM, but that was nearly twenty-five years ago, and the image-generation technology available today was likely unimaginable back then. Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves."

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/judge-ai-child-sex-abuse-r...

Despite the source images not being CSAM, the products of nudify services may be CSAM but not child pornography. Because nudifying minors involves generation of material intended to depict real people who cannot give consent on computers outside the home, I'd consider them not to be protected speech.

> Considering the amount of ads they handle that seems... reasonable?

Every time they disseminate one of these ads, they commit a serious criminal offence. What threshold of criminality is reasonable to you?