Comparison of the Best NSFW Image Moderation APIs 2018
adityaananthram.com
adityaananthram.com
It's fairly NSFW: https://open_nsfw.gitlab.io
I had thought these were talking about 'pornography', but this makes it clear that a very large amount of its training set must consist of dick pics.
That is to say, certain features that in their SFW form already look vaguely like a penis seem to be depicted as a penis (the statues, volcano, etc), whereas other features like the beaches were depicted as vulvas. And the slight red tinge present in some of the canyon/beach images also elicited the vulva, even if the shape of the surface wasn't something "obvious".
Man, ironically this stuff to me is true abstract art. To use a somewhat trite cliche, the [extremely subtle] erotic nature of these environments that are clearly not actually genitalia gives insight into how the human mind works just as well as it does into (convolutional?) neural networks themselves
No- nudity
It makes me smile to think that my 15-year-old self would have loved a feature that did the same but in reverse. That was, of course, a pre-internet, almost porn-free world.
As far as I know, it was manual, but that was already a few years ago.
I don't remember the name of the company, but surely it can be found and there are probably multiple such providers. The service was provided to TV operators (satellite, cable or pay-TV) to include in their set-top boxes.
PS: of course, as sjcsjc mentioned in a sibling comment, it immediately gives the idea to many people to only show those parts :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanFlicks
There's a documentary about it: https://m.imdb.com/title/tt1007026/
My 14 yo would be very happy to select those versions.
How about when the extra scenes are literally useless to the point of the content and are just "wedged in" as fanservice to increase viewership, in a way where the content is better off without them? This describes nearly every sex scene in a Hollywood movie that I can remember.
Though also, separately: I'm an adult, but I'm imagining going home for the holidays to my parents, sitting around at night, picking some movie to watch on Netflix, and it ends up having a sex scene in it. I don't want that to happen! It's not a matter of maturity—I just don't want to share the experience of watching a sex scene with my parents. I'd rather be able to tell Netflix/the streaming box/the TV, to skip those scenes.
1) it's very difficult to find nsfw images especially a particular kind like gore or suggestive nudity unless you Google things (which indicates a bigger problem). Maybe the solution is to use Bing (maybe this would cause the same issue in compariosn) or DuckDuckGo. But honestly I think if DuckDuckGo indexed a page, I'm pretty sure Google did as well. You would probably need something off of non indexed website which makes the job significantly harder.
2) even though google has all the images it's still not the best performing NSFW Detector Nanonets is.
My point is really that image searches can only get you so far and that biases are abound in casual NSFW searches to the extent you may need to curate your own data sets that look like they could be on a random porn site in ANY section. Finding an appropriate training set almost reminds me of jury selection processes.
It's reasonably easy to scrape: https://github.com/jveitchmichaelis/redditdownloader
They may have changed the API since I wrote that though.
Is the set that yahoo released long ago the only self hosted option available?
I have several projects that might end up using some of the yahoo release in order to stay self hosted. I can't imagine telling all users that we share all their pics with these third parties to check up on them.
I guess the reason companies haven't done that and the reason Yahoo isn't really good is because it's difficult to constantly keep updating a model that's already been "released".
I believe many of these companies are keeping the models to themselves in an effort to stave off competition and try to be monopolies that can hope to get all the government cheese.
Unfortunately keeping the data to themselves in this regard is a disservice to the worldwide community in many unforeseen ways. Certainly they could keep contracts with big players just by providing the cloud computing powers and ease of setup, while offering updated models to others to use.
Maybe offer 99% accuracy to small site operators and 99.5% to contract API accounts or something.
It's more than just objectionable content for the net, it's other things too. Many apps and online connected services could benefit from running pics uploaded through a system that checks not only for nudity but also for age of people.
I could see adding some server space and cpu power to check images transferred for important issues like these - however I can't see sending all that data to third parties, sacrificing privacy of users while at the same time helping to make their proprietary model better without a stake of ownership in such.
Seriously this reminds me of facebook's "upload your nude pics to our system so we can notify you if someone tries to revenge porn share you nudes with third parties" - except that is people doing something consciously knowing they are sharing with fbook, it's employees and it's computer systems...
with these API calls, I would guess that most people who have their images run through them have no idea their pics are being shared with third parties, who are sometimes also putting the images in front of human moderators for further scrutiny.
I guess this kind of IP thing is happening with voice recognition stuff as well in many areas. At least there is more open source in that domain I believe.
"No idea what triggered it..."
Really? I don't agree with it, but it is almost certainly just "hey that's a nazi!"
My friend lives in the mostly drama-free midwest, has a mostly drama-free facebook life, and participates in WWII reenactments seemingly a couple times a month. It seems very unlikely that this photo was flagged by a friend of his.
So it would appear that Facebook's automated tools are now sometimes thinking that WWII German soldiers are Nazi's. And either Facebook human thought the photo was worth a temp ban, or an automated tool is now banning anyone it thinks is a "Nazi". These are new things that haven't been happening in the past.
I wonder if there's a way to ship this model and run it in an end-user app, in a way that does not require additional setup. I could use that.
It appears to be a toy cartoon pet rat situated on top of some glossy rubbery plastic red toy prop slime guts. Whatever it is, or is supposed to be, it isn't an explicit or graphic depiction of real violence.
Does that matter? I think so. Maybe it's not something to show a small child, and at a glance, one might develop the wrong impression, but it's obviously phoney nonsense, and as harmless as a red halloween Jell-o dish with rubber eyeballs suspended in the mold.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J2YwtYzDUyK9ESdyxjaWLArws6U...
No one would get fired for that image. I could imagine it being sold as a Halloween product on Ebay or Amazon, and it should appear in normal Safe Search search results, since it is certainly a toy. It's a scary monster toy, but a toy nonetheless.
Is it safe for every context? Maybe not. There are definitely more scenarios than just being "Safe For Work" when it comes to rating content. Work is ostensibly filled with adults.
Would this image be safe for all age groups? Maybe not. Is it possible you might encounter a product like this in a department store or seasonal store? Yes. Depending on labeling, you might see it in either Spencer Gifts or Target. So, this is where parental controls come in, and MPAA or ESRB ratings are probably a better guide to moderation.
Is it rated "G" or "E for Everyone"? I'd still argue yes, and that red plastic isn't worthy of restriction unless context is explicitly demonstrating that it's an animal eating human remains somehow. If it were labeled as "Rat Eating Zombie Guts" it might be labeled "PG" or "T for Teens" but completely unlabeled, and stripped of context, or other conceptual cues lent by well-known notoriety/infamy, it's clearly just painted rubber, and a curiosity, not a psychologically damaging image.
I suppose this should read "FP and FN" instead of "FN and FN".
It seems, though, Sightengine's scores on the SFW category were swapped. The detailed google sheet lists the NSFW "raw" scores, not the "safe" scores.
Take one frame per second and check it using these services? But that would get super expensive real quick ..
> We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service.
Tried to view a subset, because as this comment pointed out, NSFW is subjective: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18526170
And if NSFW is subjective, the most offendable person gets to dictate what is NSFW (as we are already seeing happening in other areas).
I posted the blog here again with fixes https://www.adityaananthram.com/comparison-of-the-best-nsfw-...