Some onions were too sexy for Facebook
bbc.com
bbc.com
For news story about a photograph, I can't imagine why the subject isn't included?
EDIT: The Daily Mail has the journalistic integrity to include it :) https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8823925/Facebook-bl...
Edit: Oh, but it's a Facebook social media embed! You may have something blocking it.
Anyway, thanks for clarifying. I think news reports should never rely on outside servers for their own content. It should be hosted by BBC, just the same as their text.
Now that's a phrase I never expected to read!
Yes.
> sometimes it doesn't know a Walla Walla onion from a, well, you know
She can't even write breasts / nipples / butt. Makes me think of the "Big Lebowski" quote:
> The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina. (...) Yes, they don't like hearing it and find it difficult to say whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his dick or his rod or his Johnson.
The joke here is that the AI is both comically unfamiliar with onions (as the expression usually means) and that it may have literally mistaken the onions for being buttocks or breasts.
</j>
Perhaps surprisingly savvy for a grocer, but good on him!
This comment has been removed for violating our Terms of Service for sexual content.
I must give them a tip of the hat, they know how to play the media game:
> "We've sold more in the last three days than in the last five years," said Mr McLean, adding they are also now listed under "sexy onions" on the company website.
If it had been men’s nipples, which are otherwise useless, that had been sexualised, that would’ve been much less weird; but it’s fine for me to go around topless and nobody cares.
Men conflate women's sexuality with child rearing to control women > men insist women cover voluptuous body parts > men exploit women's sexuality with modesty constraint for additional power and control > men decide women's nipples are hidden = modesty, and sexualize women's nipples > nipples somehow mean something different if they're attached to a woman
(Compare monkeys, which don't.)
No sources or background, just throwing darts at a plausible "the ones who didn't died" scenario.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Most mammals do fine with nipples and no breasts, whether they're nursing or not. And women lactate after giving birth; they can't do it on command.
there are good articles and youtube videos on why woman's boobs are sexy.
the common denominator is that in all societies all boobs are considered sexy. lindybeige's channel suggested it may have to do with some sort of trickery. ie the woman wants to be protected so they are always 'full' unlike other animals.
I think the fact that they are considered sexy across all cultures regardless of shape/size tells us something obvious. they are to show the woman is of mating age.
That does raise one obvious question: is the cultural difference (1) a real difference of sexualisation of body parts, or (2) does the average [†] hetero women look at topless men the same way that the average [†] hereto man looks at topless women, but society as a whole hasn’t noticed because it is male-dominated and not enough men in power ask women?
{As an aside: In the context lindybeige would be an example of argument from authority fallacy; expecting him to be right about comparative global sexuality is like expecting sexplanations to be right about comparing the relative merits of ancient Athenian and Persian armour.
That doesn’t mean he must be wrong (if I said that I world be making the fallacy fallacy), but surely there is a better example to use than him?}
[†] to emphasise: average as in “no I can’t just ask my exes that would be anecdotes”
there are a lot of situations where it would be considered inappropriate for a woman to expose most of a breast (though perhaps not nudity, per se). the degree of coverage socially required for a man or a woman varies a lot. like if I wore cargo shorts to work, it would merely be against the dress code. if I wore only a speedo (or a woman wore a bikini), it would be inappropriate.
once you've decided you have to make and enforce rules about nudity, you need to make them unambiguous. "cannot show nipple" is a lot less ambiguous than "most cover most of breast". "must cover entire breast" is also fraught; how do you decide exactly where it begins? if you agree that female breasts are sexual features, it doesn't seem that weird that nipples would be where the line is finally drawn.
just for the record, I don't think the world would end if women could expose their breasts without repercussions.
The theory is that this aids with conception.
...and as for you going topless in public, actually we do care; nobody wants to see that. ;)
Citation needed.
Fair enough, I walked right into that one. :P
Several thousand years of Judeo-Christian cultural indoctrination teaching that because Eve tempted Adam into original sin, women and their bodies are inherently unclean and can lead men astray, and thus are to be treated as taboo.
This was going on long before Judeo-Christianity existed, and in almost every single culture on the planet before each made contact with the first Christian.
> I think _everything wrong with America would gradually settle down_ if we could just collectively disillusion ourselves from the notion that human female nipples are an indecent horrid thing.
Emphasis added—I should have re-quoted in my post, as I think it got lost. It's not that our obscenity standards are good or that we should ignore that problem—but it's not going to magically solve everything else too!
Edit: not that I agree with this law. It’s a very clear double-standard with roots in conservative Christian thinking.
0: https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a19545146/nipple-double...
This is a very bad comparison. That's like saying "drinking on the street in public is illegal in many states, so showing any visual references to people drinking on Facebook is potentially illegal and should be removed".
> Because it’s illegal in many places.
So... it's illegal because it's illegal?
This existed thousands of years before the first Christian, and in almost every culture on the planet.
You might want to re-examine your biases to figure out why you assume that things you disagree with are automatically "conservative Christian thinking."
Personally I'm in favor of modesty, and would prefer not to have sexuality flaunted everywhere like it is, but your answer isn't quite accurate.
I'm a little confused. Didn't your first paragraph illustrate how "modesty" is basically subjective? If that's the case, what does it mean to be in favor of it? Are you in favor of the current notion of modesty as it is today in your country, and if so, why?
What days should be holidays is also pretty subjective, but if the society can agree on which days to consider as holidays, probably it can also agree on what is considered sexual and modest. (Which is actually way more important than holidays because it impacts children that could be traumatized by certain sexual behaviors).
Right, I completely agree. Which is why I'm confused when somebody brings up how a topic is subjective, complicated, and has been approached in the past in a way that seems ridiculous to us today; and then says simply "personally I'm in favor of [it]." That strikes me as disregarding the issue, and even disregarding what they just said themselves.
> ...probably it can also agree on what is considered sexual and modest.
I don't think the people of the USA will come to an agreement on this in my lifetime. Why would they? They haven't for the last hundred years.
"Modesty" in my country means that behaviors and body parts that are considered sexual are not displayed prominently or advertised; it doesn't matter that a nipple may not be inherently sexual, because everyone here feels that it is, and thus not displaying (and by extension, not saturating TV, movies, and advertisements with images of sexualized breasts) would be considered modest.
I certainly wouldn't mind if the nipple was eventually de-sexualized, but seeing as that's likely not possible given the internet, and since it will likely remain sexualized at least in the western world, I'd prefer if people were modest about it.
OnlyFans is an example of a service which embraced adult content, but most others would rather not go this route.
I can understand some people may want to avoid nipples, like some people may find images of guns or knives disturbing. But things like that are a personal preference.
In this day and age information delivery is already personalized. There is no excuse to censor content or ads based on what "most users don't want".
I just think we to chill the fuck out if we see a boob.
It’s titillating... so what? Is that such a bad thing?
A great example was when I watched a YouTube video on Robocop a while ago. Robocop is a great movie, but it’s insanely violent. Yet YouTube was fine with all the violence and gore. But show a nipple? Bam... instant demonetisation.
Come to think of it, the USSR did dissolve nearly peacefully. Maybe those censors knew what they were doing?
Ere wa wel, desh terash kowltim, deradzhang inyalowda tili pensa wit kuwang. (In a gravity well, there's always acceleration, which is why Inners don't think straight.)
Nudity isn't going to take away any of these zones. You children are going to experience things differently than you, and nudity isn't going to encourage or prevent it.
But faces stay exposed almost everywhere.
The nudity policy in media however is utterly ridiculous. Butts are allowed nipplee are not , but breastfeeding is probably ok, bikinis are ok, but not if too wet , etc etc.
Tech is perpetuating the Victorian era in the most comical, backwards fashion
You must have a cartoon sense of "native tribes," because this existed in many "native tribes" and other cultures around the world before the first missionaries arrived.
Is that an innate response? Or is it one that comes from your upbringing and social environment?
Or on the other side the not that distant outrage about women wearing trousers which exposes leg shape.
I find it entirely plausible that dressing in string skirts and flowers while dancing to songs with highly ambiguous lyrics would have been the neolithic equivalent of "woo girls" tottering around on heels, intermittently pulling down skirt hems and emitting the Sorority Mating Call ("I'm soooo drunk").
Koyo, to wa terashting mali? Fo to du seping kori mi. (Baby, are you an attitude control Epstein? Because you make my heart spin.)
Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_-Qtz70_z4
Push wit xante
Push wit lek
Leta kom but ere dek
Push wit xante
Leta kori fo du mi xushThere's another ML problem right there. Humans vary.
Needs more leetcode.
for sure I thought ML tech already grew out of that phase where it cannot distinguish between an onion and a breast.
Now if this quality of AI is to be considered state of the art then the good news is that the Singularity is not to be expected soon.
or much more hilarious.
Facebook does not allow advertisers to use Zoomed in images of body parts to artificially inflate CTR and play with their ad algorithm.
The onion image that was banned has the exact contour of breasts viewed from above zoomed in.
Forbidden fruit and all :)
Europeans fetishize what they can't have as much as anyone else. It doesn't always result in censorship to amplify the coveting.
The outcomes are just as often built on deep patriarchal control and objectification as anywhere else. I just like that across Europe you can get all of your carnal desires fulfilled in a regulated environment, or various levels of regulation, whatever you are feeling at the time.
Reddit has plenty of NSFW subreddits for example.
I am sure there are other options that can be done - restricting some content in some countries, restricting content for minors, and allowing adults other places to opt out or opt into nudity. I do not trust facebook to implement these well enough to appease governments and I think the prudish regulations align with Zuch's views on things. Not to mention that as long as folks use the service, they aren't really here to make folks happy. I'm not looking for change any time soon.
Facebook itself may also be unwilling to risk losing advertising from conservatively-aligned companies by allowing material that their conservative clients would find offensive.
Religious conservatives can cause tremendous brand damage if a megachurch pastor happens to 'find' something blasphemous that he can use to motivate his flock to up their donations that week. For most companies it's not worth the risk of stirring up these people and it would not be surprising if this is also the case with Facebook.
Not only does it free us from the more radical sort of bomb throwing islamic fundamentalist extremism, it also frees us from the more radical sort of female curve covering puritan fundamentalist extremism.
Automatic content filters also enable new business models. They allow new products to exist that wouldn't be economically viable without automatic filters. And they lower costs, which makes our society more efficient and wealthy.
They are not perfect, but neither are human moderators. Here is some analysis on the performance of these nudity/gore detection systems:
"Comparison of the best NSFW Image Moderation APIs 2018" https://towardsdatascience.com/comparison-of-the-best-nsfw-i...
People in Scunthorpe, Yorkshire, England have been battling poorly written email scanners for decades now.
Pretty affable for a public corporate PR "incident" response. I like it. Is this a Canadian thing?
DDG: porn
Google: hot dog recipes with onions
Bing: hot dog recipes with onions
Yandex: photos of actual sexy looking onions
Twitter: https://imgur.com/a/ydyIFrj
Link to Image: https://officesnapshots.com/photos/48909/
Or maybe this is just a a weird niche that Facebook is correctly blocking. /s
Sexy onions, not a huge deal. But apply that to policing and there is tremendous opportunity for harm.
reminds me the 'cat detector van' from the 'ministry of housinge' h/t: monty python fish license skit.
So. Imagine that - next time you start a business you engage an AS expert who will help you select imagery of your product, manipulate it to trip up the bots into false censoring, spread the outrage far and wide, then capture the blowback and send it directly to your checkout page.
I weep for humanity.
You use the term "Artificial Stupidity" instead of "Artificial Intelligence". I don't know what your intentions are. Some people will read your comment and think that you are belittling an entire field and the efforts of people who work in it. Such an intention must come from a place of ignorance or hatred. Either way, it's not the kind of thing I like to read.
The main point of your comment is interesting. I hope you will edit it to make the tone more respectful.
Because seriously, I understand the hope the that facebook can just automate away the actual job of running a platform where users post porn/death threats/plans for genocide, but telling the difference between "I'm gonna nail that pussy" (romantic plans for later tonight) and "I'm gonna nail that pussy" (homophobic death threat) is not only non-trivial, I'm starting to think it may be something that facebook needs to fix now rather than waiting for the tech to maybe catch up at some point in the next 5,000 years. Specifically, before the second example actually commits the murder they're threatening.
Nudity detection also includes filtering out child pornography, torture, etc.
https://towardsdatascience.com/demystifying-convolutional-ne...