Automatic1111's GitHub account suspended for "ToS violations" [restored]
github.com
github.com
https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/ - At least I could access it now.
Can't edit the title of my submission now. Oh well!
Edit: Thanks whoever updated the title!
EDIT: Stripped some commentary about 4chan. I try to avoid editing like this, but the ban was for an entirely different reason, so it was needlessly provocative.
Shaming people (and entities) after they publicly admit a mistake tends to encourage them to dig in their heels and never revert. GitHub has a stranglehold on developer culture; they easily could have kept him banned. But whoever got him unbanned is also a part of GitHub, so they’re worth praising.
I agree it wasn’t ideal though.
for context: AUTOMATIC1111 created and maintains (maintained?) an extremely popular and active web ui for stable diffusion. Beast-mode maintainer.
Even after the debacle w stability.ai (who, to their great credit, I believe, normalized discord chatroom relations rapidly), that’s a string of bad luck for this community keystone of the nascent txt2img technological tranche.
Whatever the eventual steady state of this matter, I hope this person isn’t burning out in the process.
“Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer // The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune…”
Lurking GitHub employees.. give us the verdict..!
That may or may have been warranted but these days "some arguably racist stuff" is a too vague description to be meaningful to act on, or pass judgement by on its own.
Do you have the link to the relevant reddit-thread for better context?
https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/103upr6/co...
If it was just one of those examples, sure. But there are multiple things that are 'arguably racist' combined with apparent activity on 4chan, I'd say it doesn't seem just coincidental.
We don't know whether this has anything to do with the suspension though, everything that's being written is all just theories.
However, he is based in Russia and that changes everything.
https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/103vsm2/we...
As for 4chan activity, how on earth can anything there be attributed to anyone ? It's a anonymous messaging board. I can go there and claim that I'm the prince of Wales and start making egregious statements.
That's quite a important distinction.
As for the mods, I have no problem with those, he made the WhiteOnly mod as a response to existing mods which removed white people, and I can't argue against the George Floyd riots being anything but peaceful.
But sure, look at the guy that has dozens of red flags that all scream white supremacy and brush it off with "lol george floyd protests were violent tho".
This eagerness to attribute racism and 'white supremacy' to people has made the accusation pointless IMO.
I think the BlackLivesMatter movement was a big scam that fueled riots which cost people lives and a ton of economic damage while riding on a wave of legitimate but overblown criticism of police violence. Am I a white supremacist now ?
>Out of 3041 artists in the file 16 of them are tagged as 'n', and a further 8 >tagged as 'c' (no idea what it means either).
> Alain Laboile,0.67634284,c > Julie Blackmon,0.72862685,c > William-Adolphe Bouguereau,0.618265,c > Bapu,0.6122084,c > Robert Irwin,0.58078,c > Cassius Marcellus Coolidge,0.5805516,c > Dr. Seuss,0.5597466,c > Henning Jakob Henrik Lund,0.5147134,c
Another uses also wrote:
>I don’t think they marked black artists with an n as you seem to be claiming. >There are also white artists marked with a c, like Julie Blackmon. Also I found >a german white artist Mati Klarwein who has an n in the dataset.
I'm not even saying a ban was necessary in this case, just that the question is not about someone else implanting data, but the repository owner themselves.
Apart from that I certainly wouldn't be surprised if the author had racist intentions in their GitHub activity too. At least when it comes to their Steam activity there are indications that range from dubious to extremely clear racism. First of all there is the "White Only" mod for RimWorld[2], which seems a bit unsavory, but who knows. Then the question of why the "Black Only" mod[3] has an image of a black person with a spear in the African Savannah, whereas the "White Only" one has a group of white people standing happily on a planet in modern clothing. (The "Yellow Only" mod[4] has an image of Emperor Taishō)
Most condemning in my eyes is the fact that their Steam profile[5] shows that at some point their nickname was "Remember the six gorillion" (click on the little arrow next to their current name to see previous iterations). This is clearly an anti-Semitic, or at least Holocaust-denying reference.[6]
[1]https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/comm...
[2]https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=15187...
[3]https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=15188...
[4]https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=15205...
If MS doesn’t set up tribunals for these types of things, it will just be abused to take down stuff.
That said, I hope this whole debacle has shown a light on the potentially problematic nature of having the Automatic1111/stable-diffusion-webui project be the go-to UI for using Stable Diffusion. Not just because of the viewpoints implied by Automatic1111's other repos. Automatic1111/stable-diffusion-webui is a mess of a codebase and while it has the largest plethora of features and plugins in the StableDiffusion ecosystem, it's also one of the hardest tools to use. InvokeAI has a much friendlier UI, for comparison. Plus Automatic1111/stable-diffusion-webui has no formally published license, making its codebase a tangled web of legal nightmares.
None of that is to degenerate the work of Automatic1111 or the hundreds of contributors to his project. And I'm for the most part not a fan of "censoring" code. But I hope we can agree it's not ideal to have such an important repo side by side with a "WhitesOnly" rimworld mod.
There's so much icky stuff going on in the generative art community and no one knows just how deep that rabbit hole goes.
E.g.: https://github.com/Kahsolt/stable-diffusion-webui-sonar
(See bottom of page).
But it kind of is depending on your definition of icky. The fact that they've trained the models to be extremely proficient forgers should raise all sorts of red flags. I get the concept of homage and every great artist borrows/steals, blah blah, but as these things continue to get better, the lines between legit artist work and forgery will only blur to unknowable. Digital artists will now need to know how to cryptographically sign their work. There have been tools for this that most ignore because of pricing. (and no i'm not talking about NFT nonsense)
To be fair, there is substantial interest in using things like Stable Diffusion to generate pornography. There are several projects for hentai, etc.
There have also been large threads on /g/ teaching people how to generate hypernerworks with suspiciously young looking subjects since the beginning. The "icky stuff" has a disturbing footprint.
Wanting to making pornography is perfectly normal and healthy; that's not something I consider icky. When I quoted "icky stuff" I thought we were talking about the generation of underage subjects.
Have you seen ANY legal age subjects? Subjectively, how much fraction of anime pictures do you consider to be portraying individuals able to consent?
I mean, if there was an NN code that is returning 0.0120000 for 85% in inference data but ranging evenly between 0.0 to 1.0 in training, intuition shouldn't be that it's the reality that is broken.
It's not a "normie" take that we shouldn't sexualize children, even if they are animated.
I was expecting some of the horrible stuff I’ve seen on 4chan, not something you might see in a mainstream (bad) anime.
If anything, it looks like the AI cleaned it up and made it more presentable.
It's like going to an artists twitter and then complaining that their art style is garbage and that they should change it. No one is forcing you to consume that person's content.
Not all content on the internet needs to appeal to everyone even if everyone is on the internet.
No one is forcing him to use GitHub.
They'd rather lose a few Automatic1111's than have schoolteachers telling students "Don't go on GitHub, it's not safe" (or having school administrations ban its use).
It's in my self interest to not see icky things.
Perfectly suitable for a project about AI content generation. Every related submission also has at least one comment talking about the legality of it.
Or a "PeacefulProtests" rimworld mod that "adds George Floyd" as a storyteller. It also adds an all-black tribal faction called "peaceful protestors" (with a BLM reference in the source code) that has a high chance of addiction, adds a status effect called "socioeconomic status" that disables all work abilities and creates recurring raids by the aforementioned faction with in-game messages announcing them as peaceful protests and friendly visitors and even showing their names in blue (i.e. friendly).
No matter your political leanings, it should be obvious what the joke in this mod is supposed to be. Combined with the "WhitesOnly" mod this certainly gives an impression.
This has been bugging me for a while. The AI community is morally and ethically bankrupt. Whether it be OpenAI scraping the shit out of FOSS code so they could sell it back to us, Clearview AI scraping people's Facebook photos to train law enforcement tools, or whatever. It's all a "someone else's data" play. At least Stability AI released their model weights to the public that they scraped data from.
The whole field is being coopted by grifters, too: you see plenty of videos on how to make "passive income" by reselling low-effort AI art on print-on-demand sites. Yes, it is possible to make actual art with AI, but you need to actually spend time with inpainting and prompt engineering to make it work. This grift is not that. It is literally just "type prompt, spam result, receive bacon". Think like how Amazon marketplace sellers turned Amazon into a shittier flea market.
The underlying technology is hilariously exclusionary, too. No we don't have training code for our "open" AI, and if you had it you couldn't use it because you need a rack full of A100s. Let us also not forget that neural networks are basically proprietary software's final form: perfectly functional piles of weights with no extant source code, no way to explain what they're calculating, and basically no reverse-engineering tools. Even in the Actually Libre AI case where we have model weights and reproducible training code, we still can't verify that an AI is doing what we told it to do[1].
I'm not exactly a believer that technology is cursed with the values of the people who created it. You can definitely wrestle good technology out of the hands of bad people. But the converse is definitely true: people who have terribly shit values will curse the technology that they use. Or, more specifically, they will gravitate to whatever they can bend to fit what they want. And it definitely feels like AI art is attracting exactly the kinds of people who don't create, only consume.
[1] AI safety experts call this the inner alignment problem.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the AI/crypto communities are full of white supremacists or nazis but there's certainly a cultural underpinning there that is more welcoming to them than in other communities. That said, it's not exactly like tech spaces in general are doing a good job at keeping them out, especially ones celebrating "apoliticality" to a fault by regurgitating hacker culture myths about meritocracy.
But yeah, I strongly believe that you can't separate the means from the ends. Human development is ultimately about people interacting more than technology. You can only introduce a technology designed with bad intentions to a community without poisoning it only when that community is innoculated against it and maintains its vigilance. But some technologies simply aren't worth salvaging because they're manifestations of the values they were designed with.
Luckily I think that applies more to crypto than to AI, where the damage it causes is largely a consequence of the economical system we exist in rather than the tech itself. Namely, creators not being compensated for the creations that feed into the AI and jobs being lost to cheaper products generated by the AI.
[0]: Noteworthy case in point being that many widely known NFTs are procedurally generated using templates created by artists who typically do not continue to benefit from the NFT sales themselves and that there is a massive problem of art from sites like Devian Art ending up as NFTs without the creators' knowledge or involvement.
[1]: e.g. https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-video-revives-debate-over...
Crypto is a technology cul-de-sac: it consists entirely of solutions to problems that only exist because of it's odd choice of problem domain. i.e. if you weren't trying to make a payment system for organized crime, then you wouldn't need to deal with Sybil-resistance. So it effectively counters my belief that you can wrestle good tech out of bad hands, because it's not actually good tech.
I recall seeing something on Mastodon a while ago that I don't quite remember the source of, but I can paraphrase as "left-wingers tend to create social spaces and art, while right-wingers tend to consume and destroy them". While I absolutely despise this sort of one-dimensional thinking, there is a kernel of truth to this. Or, in other words, Hitler failed art school for a reason.
Art is, first and foremost, a language used to communicate ideas. People on the far-right[0] do not have a whole lot to say. When listening, they tend to get caught up in superficialities and ignore the underlying idea. Their goal is not to speak, but to prevent speech[1]. So naturally they would be attracted to technologies that let them "gussy up" their nonsense into something that "looks" artistic.
This even goes for the not explicitly far-right stuff, too. After all, to them, the purpose of art is to look pretty, not to say things. That's why there's such an odd focus on overdone cinematic aesthetics in AI art - because it "looks pretty". There's tweets of people saying that artists should just give up and submit to the machines because Stable Diffusion has already "perfected the female form". What they meant is that it generates sexier porn and panders to their tastes more. The AI does not communicate ideas with its art, and if it did, they would reject it and delete it.
[0] I am specifically talking about the right-authoritarian corner of the political compass. Right-libertarians can put down their torches and pitchforks now.
[1] This is also why I do not shed tears for them when they get banned from online spaces.
It sounds like you’re proposing that someone should create their own fork. That’s always an option, and I encourage everyone to. But what else is the proposal here? Forcibly move the repo? It doesn’t really make sense.
It’s funny seeing “the code is a mess” presented as a reason why a repo is problematic. It’s code. We all have strong feelings about code. Everyone has their own way of doing things with different engineering and product tradeoffs. In this case, automatic was right for pumping out features as quickly as possible and getting the first mover advantage.
So, concretely, what do you feel should be done?
I also feel like people haven’t read the actual TOS:
> We do not allow sexually themed or suggestive content that serves little or no purpose other than to solicit an erotic or shocking response, particularly where that content is amplified by its placement in profiles or other social contexts. This includes: ...Pornographic content
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici...
There’s a larger issue here, far beyond Automatic and this one repo. Those links clearly were not “little to no purpose other than to solicit an erotic or shocking response.” For reference, here’s the diff that got him unbanned: https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/wiki...
> So, concretely, what do you feel should be done?
I'd rather see a more professionally maintained competitor, like InvokeAI, surpass.
It'd be one thing if the dude was just prickly to work with or something, but it's unprofessional behavior by even the lowest standards.
-
InvokeAI on the other hand is being more open with their development, and making good effort towards having some sane licensing setup.
I'd say even just separating the project from personal accounts with racially charged game mods goes a long way for professionalism, but maybe you'd say that's gate keeping?
UI is subjective but it's not hard to call InvokeAI's more polished since again, the bar is so low with A1111's interface
To explain myself, these are specifically my pain points with Auto's repo:
1) No stable releases or versioning. This makes it difficult to use, as any given pull of the repo could be in a broken state. A better alternative is to, at the very least, tag known working commits.
2) Lack of testing; this is related to above. Even basic tests that would stop things like LDSR from randomly breaking would be a huge boost in usability.
3) Easier to use UI. This isn't a huge thing; Auto's UI is fine, though some better guides and documentation would be nice. But InvokeAI's UI and default settings are much better, in my opinion.
4) Lack of an official Dockerfile. It's nicer to have things in one place, especially to keep them in lockstep with code changes.
5) Association with racism.
When I said "professionally maintained" I didn't mean to imply maintained by a business or some other sort of gatekeeping. Though I can see how it read that way, and I appreciate your comment on it.
Instead I just mean things like the above, which other projects are getting right. They just don't yet have the feature set of Auto's project.
> It sounds like you’re proposing that someone should create their own fork. That’s always an option, and I encourage everyone to.
That is actually not an option as there is no license on the first-party code in this repository (the only licenses I've seen being of a few third-party dependencies listed in html/licenses.html), so it isn't even clear to me you can legally clone it ;P... forking it would seem extremely problematic.
Edit: As far as I can tell, the repo maintainers are far too busy writing code and creating to care what anyone does with the code. It will change 10 times in the next 8 hours.
> You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.
Yes, it does note immediately below that "if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork your repository". But that doesn't mean it's open source. You probably can't/shouldn't create derivative works with your forks. And you definitely wouldn't be allowed to just use this code in a commercial product, for example.
[1]: https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi...
Irrelevant. You're quoting docs.github.com, which is neither authoritative (docs are written to GitHub's documentation standards, not by their legal team), nor is it always up-to-date or well informed for the non-legal matters where it ventures to comment about the state of GitHub's products/services.
> that doesn't mean it's open source
Strawman. The question is "can you fork/copy?", not "is it open source?". The answer to the former is "absolutely yes, unequivocally". Anyone saying otherwise is wrong.
> If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...
So while you can "fork" it, it's not forking it in the FOSS sense.
I like how you realize exactly what they're proposing, but proceed build a strawman that the comment didn't propose so you can forcefully tear it down.
In general it doesn't seem likely that in the long term AUTOMATIC1111's project will sfay the defacto SD interface.
We're already seeing more polished efforts like InvokeAI and various desktop clients, the field just moves so quickly that of course, the least structured interface with little to no interest in licensing concerns and the like is able to integrate new features very quickly.
But there will be points where things stabilize, if only temporarily, and that's where we should see alternatives start to make ground.
I meant to explore the logical possibilities, but in hindsight that does sound cheap. Apologies. For what it’s worth, all of the recent AI art deplatforming has me a bit jumpy. It did seem like a possibility that people might call for certain repos to be taken down, but I meant to phrase it as more of a question.
In fact, my comment reads as a cross-examination, which I’m disappointed by. I’ll try harder to write more thoughtfully.
As for automatic, no doubt he’ll be surpassed someday. But ML is one of the few remaining “Wild West” areas of code, before everything has been productized and polished. I hope he gives the competition a good run.
Same. It's been a thrill for me as a programmer to finally have an augmentation that allows me to do art and express myself creatively. And equally scary that people are trying to take that away. That's perhaps why I'm so adamant on calling out the racist associations of Auto's repo. The last thing AI art needs is more bad press. But it's also why I was careful to point out that I wasn't criticizing Auto's work, as I'm not for removing code except under extreme circumstances. I use the project every day. I just want something better.
I also don't particularly have strong feelings about Automatic1111 as a person, since they're quite young from what I understand and I was also edgy when I was younger.
Well as many have said years ago, private companies like GitHub can censor anyone at anytime and point at the ToS no matter how vauge, opaque it is. They just have to give you notice, and they can still do it again to anyone else.
There is nothing shocking about this. What is really amusing is that people continue to expect a centralized version control management service to not enforce 'censorship' on their own services and products and when they do, everyone here is throwing a tantrum about it.
There is always an option to self-host your own GitLab, Gitea instance if you don't like what GitHub is doing.
I was personally playing around with prompt2prompt and reading issues when the ban happened and now I can no longer find the most recent comments, I still had the url but the internet archive only has a copy from back in october, and finding this specific discussion will be hard again since it will be pruned from search engines.
IMO github should've put the repo in read-only mode, if they want their social features to be taken seriously they can't be removing discussions and comments that people that have contributed that have nothing to do with the infraction. What's the point of hosting discussions if there's a chance they'll be nuked later just because the original author of the repo did shitty things.
[1] ctrl+f automatic1111 on https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.00704
* Do such things exist? I'm just trying to keep the example out of the public or academic spheres.
I don't know anything about the immediate situation here but calling GitHub "infrastructure" is not accurate. I know every man and his dog hosts their repos there but GitHub is a private company (owned by Microsoft!) and is not obliged to host things that it thinks will make it look bad.
Have a nice day!
But wouldn’t you agree that if I run a private professional library, I have the right to add or remove books by any (legal) process I deem appropriate?
> Do such things exist?
I sorta do this; I have a small collection of historical programming languages texts that I make available to my students and anyone else interested. It’s not really a membership kind of thing tho.
Of course. I don't think this is a question of freedom of speech or anything like that. I think this is about how Github should moderate its content in a way that is best for its users and its business. Making a Twitter profile or a YouTube channel disappear is categorically different in my mind from making a GitHub repository disappear and I think GitHub should want for me to feel that way. If I don't, it changes how and how much I use the service.
I agree it's categorically different but not in the way you mean. From your other post, I understand that you view Twitter and YouTube as social media, and they are distinct from software infrastructure like GitHub.
The way I see it, all three are social networks, but what make GitHub distinct from the other two is that it's backed by git. So if GitHub wants to ban me, I can easily move my code to any number of services. Which, honestly if you're relying on GitHub as infrastructure, you should have a backup plan anyway for if/when it goes down.
I didnt read the full thing but the point is, is any code worth less because it’s author is making some statements that in the eyes of some people would not be not acceptable? Who decides that?
I think this is the point where github ceases to be of use as a platform to host code, since at any point they could come down on you, and in succession break hundreds of other programs that would have dependencies on the “banned” code, etc…
Now all knowledge is lost. Not the code, but there were discussions, tutorials, and what not.
I don't know who Auto is or what he did in practice that led to the violation (yes, I read about those mods): my qualms with the repo were due to its questionable licensing, which is, however, allowed by GH. After all, I can use something without agreeing with the author's moral views.
And yes, this again, even if one agrees with the suspension, shows the danger of centralized platforms when they become so large (although they are convenient).
update: Gitgud repo created here : https://gitgud.io/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui
(Gitgud seems to be really slow)
Further update : Account was suspended due to "TOS violations" : https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/103uwx1/au...
If that that's the ban reason, it's pretty Orwellian. There was a lot of severe property destruction (e.g. arson) during those protests, some of which was indisputably committed by people aligned with the protests. They were complicated events, with peaceful and violent parts. They were only one or the other when seen through a blinkered political orthodoxy.
> Free - Yes, totally free for any user or group
Such claims are invariably false. Or, stated most generously, heavily misleading, because of limitations. And that’s even ignoring the common “it became popular and we realised what we were offering wasn’t sustainable so we’re charging or limiting sharply or shutting down” result.
> Fast - One of the fastest git hosting services
Holistically, I’d say this isn’t even possible if you’re using GitLab. Significant parts of GitLab are very slow. And as for GitGud.io at present, well, that repository’s URL is consistently taking about ten seconds to send the first byte of the response, and even HEAD / takes more than five seconds to issue a 302 redirect to /users/sign_in.
> Highly available - average uptime of 99.83% ¹
Look, “highly available” is a vague term, but for this kind of service I’d expect it to mean three nines at the very least, probably four, and to mean an architecture and upgrade deployment mechanism significantly different from GitLab’s, where upgrades are disruptive.
Also, their actual status page is currently saying 91.16% for the last 24 hours (2h7m of downtime), which is already more than two months’ downtime budget even at 99.83%.
> Reliable - We have never lost any data, unlike other services
You also probably haven’t dealt with any of the scale-related issues that have caused data loss in said Other Services.
>>Free - Yes, totally free for any user or group
>Such claims are invariably false. Or, stated most generously, heavily misleading, because of limitations.
Can you explain your issue with this? GitGud.io has been operating for over 8 years with only free accounts and without any paid setup. Historically we've been supported by user donations, but I now also pay out of pocket, a relatively trivial amount since my main job is being a DevOps engineer for a CDN & cloud company, for server resources and upgrades for GitGud.io and we have plans to launch SaaS products that will completely offset any GitGud.io costs.
>>Fast - One of the fastest git hosting services
>Holistically, I’d say this isn’t even possible if you’re using GitLab. Significant parts of GitLab are very slow. And as for GitGud.io at present, well, that repository’s URL is consistently taking about ten seconds to send the first byte of the response, and even HEAD / takes more than five seconds to issue a 302 redirect to /users/sign_in.
GitGud.io has historically been fast. Currently we just finished an upgrade of the main node last week from an 8-core Epyc to a 64-core Epyc, plus 2-3x more available memory and we have not had enough traffic to adjust this. This event helped us tune GitLab better to our new resources. And yes, as someone who has been working with GitLab for over 8 years, I know exactly how slow and bloated it is, but you must also understand that GitLab.com itself spent years being constantly down or hardly loading in comparison. Different scales of "users", but GitGud.io still has 41,000 users and close to 15,000 repositories. You'd be hard pressed to find many other GitLab instances publicly usable that big. We could utilize Gitea or something lighter, but GitLab offers a lot of features and Gitea didn't exist when we started.
>> Highly available - average uptime of 99.83% ¹
>Look, “highly available” is a vague term, but for this kind of service I’d expect it to mean three nines at the very least, probably four, and to mean an architecture and upgrade deployment mechanism significantly different from GitLab’s, where upgrades are disruptive. >Also, their actual status page is currently saying 91.16% for the last 24 hours (2h7m of downtime), which is already more than two months’ downtime budget even at 99.83%.
Yes, cause currently we currently took the host node down 12 hours ago for a couple of hours in a planned hardware upgrade maintenance to install new 40g NICs, SSDs, etc. Overall the average is decent, and this line harkens back to the days when GitLab.com was down daily. We run on our own bare metal colo servers, not magically appearing cloud instances.
>> Reliable - We have never lost any data, unlike other services
>You also probably haven’t dealt with any of the scale-related issues that have caused data loss in said Other Services.
Their scale outs should have made it harder to lose data, not the other way around. We've also have ran a fairly large file/media sharing site in the form of Imgur with dozens of TBs of user uploaded media scaled across several servers, and we didn't lose data there. Fact is, we haven't lost any data and that's our track record so far over the past 8 years. I think that's worth of some note.
Either way, while the homepage claims are eyebrow raising for you, I don't see how this matters much for a service that is charging $0 for Git repo hosting. We make $0 for any user who decides to utilize us. If we wanted to charge for GitGud.io access and it's GitLab CI runner access, we could. There's nothing stopping us from doing that. But even if we disappeared tomorrow, the fact is that Git is naturally decentralized. The original creators and the clones exist somewhere.
We exist as an alternative to other services that suspend accounts on a whim and an easy solution for those that don't want to setup or pay for their own Git instance.
[1] https://forgejo.org/ [2] https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/59
If there is a security issue with some project on GitHub, then you can ask GitHub to look at it and they will take the project down. This cannot be done with projects running on someone's web server.
Pretty sure its an intentional, or at least a side effect, of the component nature of srht's codebase (afaik), where each part is a separate service. The rest is from its no/minimal-js design.
I don't make it, so I'm not saying it must be changed, but I find it annoying to use at best, and doubt I am alone. But they're probably not targeting me so ...
It's also pretty slow, not sure if it has global hosting.
I do very much appreciate that it doesn't try to gamify anything, I wish I could disable gh from tracking follows/stars/stats - I can greasemonkey them away but I still know they exist, which leaves me the temptation to check. Strictly a personal issue but it still exists.
I don't think it's intended and I'm failing to reproduce the issue you mentioned in Firefox 108. Maybe report a bug to the mailing list?
> The ticket writing interface is pretty lackluster...
I think this simplicity is intentional, and as an old folk, I actually dig that look. Having almost no JS around (I failed to find any so far) is also nice from my point of view.
Being composed a lot of parts feels chunky sometimes, but being able to compose projects out of repos, and having free-hanging repos without projects is also a great plus from my point of view. It fits how I work perfectly.
> It's also pretty slow, not sure if it has global hosting.
It's currently hosted in a single server in the US, but it will be moved to Europe (Netherlands I assume) to a more powerful infrastructure, so the speed will recover.
At the end of the day, while it's not perfect, it's perfect for me, my mindset and philosophy today. I'm a happy paying customer. Also Drew listens feedback and answers frankly, which I like a lot.
SourceHut bans anything blockchain/crypto related from their platform.
It's not a solution to a centralized censorship. You can self-host it if you want.
> SourceHut literally bans anything blockchain/crypto related from their platform.
It's their platform, they can decide what to do with it. However, I support SourceHut's view on this, because I also didn't see anything useful came out of blockchain/cryptocurrency scene.
Moreover, you can send your project in for vetting if you are so sure that it's something really beneficial. The ban is not a curtain / we'll ban you no matter what variety.
To directly cite:
> We will exercise discretion when applying this rule. If you believe that your use-case for cryptocurrency or blockchain is not plagued by these social problems, you may ask for permission to host it on SourceHut, or appeal its removal, by contacting support. [0]
[0]: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-10-31-tos-update-cryptocurre...
Just distribute it to many hosts, and you're done. Post-commit hooks on one server can do that with no effort.
A TV company built a CDN like that. They pushed the data to Git, and it propagated in a fanning out fashion.
At least the owner (Drew) is direct and honest about it.
We, as consumers have the right to not make business with companies which we don't like, too. I have left GitHub over Copilot issue for example.
If you don't agree with views or ToS of Source Hut, don't use it. It's that simple.
That's of course true, however only putting SourceHut into the picture like that creates an unintended insinuation[0], like only SourceHut is doing such things.
Any and every company will make such decisions about their users, regardless of their size. We all need to keep that in mind.
I just wanted to balance your comment, actually. Not to imply that you're pointing fingers or something.
On the other hand, I'd rather know who made the decision about an outcome involving me, rather than getting canned e-mail replies churned out by corporate machinery.
This is a great point.
For example, if Linus Torvalds turned out to be a racist or sexist or homosexist or transexist, would his Linux repository (https://github.com/torvalds/linux) be hammered? Would he be removed from the Linux project somehow?
This doesn't seem a remotely comparable case though (deliberate uploading of offensive content in the delisted repo vs - say - unwoke opinion/comments, or whatever the example of LT is supposed to evoke), if the reasons mooted in other comments are correct.
And in this case, we aren't just talking about the creator, the allegations are about the actual content being hosted.
The dude was pretty racist, good work by GH employees: https://web.archive.org/web/20221013110023/https://github.co...
I used Linus just as an example of a very high-profile and widely beloved open source leader, to contrast this relatively unknown developer.
Though, now I think on it, some of the words he used in the past on the mailing list are considered "-ism" level offensive by some people today: "dumb", "retarded", etc.
Hopefully no cancellations incoming for these historical word-mishaps.
The "ARC" acronym stands for 'Association for Retarded Citizens', back when "retarded" was a clinical definition. It's now defunct. But those names still live on in property deeds and corporation names. https://thearc.org/about-us/history/ has the history of this name.
But Reddit.. egads, I have no clue what they're trying to accomplish. Maybe they're trying to clean themselves up from anything that even smells bad. If you want to speak about 'questionable topics', you have to use onomatopoeia to even talk about it (like, wee-tod-did , seggsual, unalive). I'm personally thinking of just abandoning reddit over their slow-boiling the frog, if you will.
1. If Linus did a hard-right turn and was doing the right-wing news tour doing transphobic shit, MS and GitHub wouldn't bat an eye
2. If Linus kept a repo of anti-trans poetry or some shit on his GitHub, then yeah he'd quite possibly get booted off
This isn't about GitHub being against what they think "AUTOMATIC1111" as a person believes, this is just about what they had on GitHub, and whether GH considered it against their TOS.
A penguin draped in suffragette colours becomes the new mascot. Women across the globe join the open source movement in droves. JK Rowling writes a bestselling guide to Linux kernel development.
We already had developer (of Drupal[1]) cancelled over their private BDSM kink (that isn't even illegal, which racism is), what stops some random moderator for deciding he's the saviour of the world and banning random repos just because a contributor might've been questionable?
* [1] https://www.theregister.com/2017/03/29/drupal_dev_banished/
They left the community shortly after, likely in part fueled by the way an abuser got their GitHub account destroyed while the abuser pretty much remained unscathed.
The corporation may benefit from having unclear moderation policies, but this is not in the best interests of the users. If you don't agree, consider the possibility that the corporation's political views may change and your own beliefs could then be subject to moderation instead of those of "the other side."
Although they didn't immediately specify the reason for the ban, to their credit the GitHub support person did explain what had happened when I appealed and the ban was lifted.
I suspect this ends up being impractical, due to helping the bad actors too much.
I think moderation being so inconsistent/unclear is mostly because moderation is difficult.
You should do your business elsewhere if you don't agree with GitHub TOS
I'm really curious where the line is drawn.
Somehow states get by, despite letting criminals know what they did wrong.
Sure, people probing you to see what they can get away with is annoying, but in the long run, it's far more "impractical" to have opaque justice.
But we should not be okay with them doing that.
Most folks prefer the former.
The user is probably not a card carrying neo-nazi, but I’m sorry this is 2023, how on Earth can people still expect not to get called for juvenile 4chan-level trolling like this?
Maybe we should instead ban those who call out this stuff or describe it in malicious ways...
That said, I personally think it should be difficult to be racist, homophobic, transphobic and the like online. I'm not engaging in debates, posting outraged tweetstorms or trying to get anyone doxxed/fired/cancelled when I see some anonymous edgelord throwing the n-bomb around or calling for LGBTQ+ friends to be killed. I'm just going to quietly report the post and move on.
People still buy Nestle and they do far worse shit.
People have no problem supporting corporations that do business with racist regimes.
Claiming somehow people (other than some virtue signalling) would start migrating in droves to gitlab because there is a mod for rimworld is insane.
Whenever I see "virtue signalling" or "free speech" mentioned regarding tech companies like GitHub, Facebook, Twitter etc it's usually someone pretending they don't understand how companies work (and ironically doing their own little form of virtue signalling). Companies want to make money. You don't make money by pissing off the population. GitHub seem to have decided that allowing a user they've deemed as questionable is going to piss off more people than kicking that user off. If you don't like it and want to exercise your freedom of speech and/or signal that you're more virtuous than the rest of us then you are welcome to self-host or try out GitLab, BitBucket, sr.ht or CodeBerg.
And in case of someone discussing it, like here, there is no need to guess and dig if the reason is given plainly by the moderator and points directly to the offense. Instead of speculation you get people look at it and just go "oh, yeah, that's fair" and move on.
Yeetus deletus of everything, including unrelated things, because you broke TOS point which we don't even tell you how did you break it (which is pretty fucking common with any big tech, regardless of the reason, even if reason is just "triggered some heuristics in our system") is not okay.
However, if Github is actively curating content, that means they're also responsible for the stuff they do leave up. The argument that a company isn't legally responsible for its users content relies heavily on the company having little control over said content.
This direct influence is what got the thepiratebay guys and the megaupload guys arrested, or at least what made the case persuable enough to put effort into it.
Id it's true that Github is actively removing account that post things they deem as racist, then I will judge Github on any older content on the platform not taken down. There is a lot of weird shit on Github that's apparently okay if a stupid mod for a video game is considered as a reason to refuse service to someone.
Companies are free to choose what they do and do not host, but that freedom is a double edged sword.
This is an entirely incorrect reading of Section 230.
You mentioned the "black little mermaid" and it's hard not to draw a parallel between a mod in a game that allows you to change the skin color of a character and the "woke" media race swapping well known characters like the little mermaid, Triss from the Witcher, Achilles, etc.
I don't know what to say - if you're expecting "free speech" somewhere that has a big TOS you agreed to which doesn't say "hey this is the free speech zone, go nuts!" then you are in for a shock.
The Little Mermaid is an film for kids. Kids aren't "woke" - the only people who care about the skin colour of a fictional character in an animated film are adults. If someone's upset because they see a black person, they might want to take a deep breath and think really hard about what's really bothering them.
... if the person you are engaging with is open to having their mind changed. If you ever tried that with online trolls, you would quickly find out that's not really going to happen when person on the other side doesn't want that and can just decide to waste as much of your time as they can.
> "It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter." - Nathaniel Borenstein
"Edit 26-mar-2020: finally, the injustice has been corrected: all races are welcome! You can choose the range of skin colors you want in mod settings."
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=15187...
[1] https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=15188...
>Github has responded to my ticket. They suspended the account because some links on wiki led to sites that contained pictures that didn't align with github's values. They reinstated the account asked me to remove the links.
In this case maybe it could have been handled better by temporarily blocking that repo instead of the whole account, since it was clearly a legitimate dev doing work on a prominent repo.
I kept debug logs for 7 days of user uploads (and so the users download link would be valid for the same time).
It really amazed me what proportion was porn. Like a good 30% of uploads.
How can so many people need their jpeg porn pictures upscaled?!?
Banning and removing links to content you personally find morally objectionable: not fine
It's not that complicated.
* many governments will call illegal whatever they want. Will you happily enforce governmental censorship?
* even if government acts in good faith, there is no good definition of porn. At some point some person will have to look at a picture and *personally* categorize it as porn / not porn
Yes. Absolutely.
If GitLab wants to be the site for projects that link to suspect anime porn, that's their prerogative. But so is GitHub's not to be that site.
There are plenty of things that aren't illegal that a site might not want its users to link to. Appeal to legality is not just a red herring, it's also an incredibly weak argument.
GitHub doesn't seem to have a problem with Automatic111's arguably racist Rimworld mods but it does seem to draw the line at linking to repositories containing suspect hentai that may come close to violating the law in some countries GitHub wants to provide its services in.
It's a business decision. Making fun of Black people is iffy but clearly not a deal breaker. Linking to pictures that bear a striking similarity to prebuscent (or at least blatantly underage) girls in the context of porn understandbly is.
No we don't. That's why people are upset.
Though I'm a bit curious what the links are, since I have been using their repo for a few months and don't recall ever seeing a link to actual porn. There was an external site that had a bunch of generated anime girls with the expected anatomical proportions.
I guess we now know if Satya Nadella is a prude or not
Apparently there were link(s) to page(s) that contained samples of the results one can create using those models.
Github does not allow for pornography, so this was an oversight to say the least.
Links to a model that can be used to generate naked bodies is indirect enough that I wouldn't have figured it broke the rule.
Of course now we know straight from the horse's mouth how they intend to apply it.
A little off-topic, but seeing the confusion about (((parenthesis))) used in an unfamiliar context, it's worth mentioning another area of confusion that will eventually surface with SD prompts.
The text-to-image models have biases, of course, and so prompts (positive and negative) need to be used to combat those biases if you don't want the output to go in the biased direction. e.g. if the model tends to draw hats on people, you might need to add the negative prompt ((hat)) meaning "really, really, no hat". Makes sense.
Now, consider when the text-to-image model has a bias regarding drawing people of a particular race, the person using the model may need to write a prompt counter-biasing the result to get the result they want. For example: by saying things like prompt (hispanic) or negative-prompt ((blue eyes)).
Not saying that such prompts are guaranteed not-racist, just that an uninformed observer could naturally suspect racist intent with race-specific tags in the prompt. It's complex, and would need more context to confirm a suspicion.
They can and will censor anything that they arbitrarily consider to be a brand risk.
https://sfconservancy.org/GiveUpGitHub/
Working to move all my decades of open source work and communities off GitHub in the coming months to self hosted Gitea.
Here is the link to the (now removed) flagged content:
https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/wiki...
I've never went far enough into the Wiki to even notice that this is a feature supported WebUI and Stable Diffusion, now thanks to github forcing the removal of the links in the most dramatic way possible I've scrolled through a significant portion of the links.
Blocking the links is a good call for minimizing the odds of stumbling into them. Choosing to scroll through such content once it has been flagged is an individual choice and may carry individual consequences.
Ah! Love the chilling effects you give off, dear shadowgovt!
In seriousness, more instances of opaque censorship/cancellation will lead to more attrition of centralized platforms already collapsing under their own weight.
But "the rats scurry into the dark" has never been sufficient justification to stop shining light.
As a recent concrete (though anecdotal) example, there is rumor going around that folks on Mastodon are finding it much harder to do Twitter-style brigading and harassment, because the threat of node-level defederation provides incentive to keep clean houses. Admins who don't want to be defederated police their borders, and people who don't want to play by common rules of decency find themselves on a network-island quickly, as they run out of playmates.
It's old social custom encoded into protocol.
With the 2nd and 3rd largest along half of top 10 being such "global pariah" instances, it isn't convincing to me that the Fediverse has a working fine grain federation control but seems like there are just handful disjoint Fediverses.
The Facebook / Twitter / TikTok "everyone under one tent" experiments may not reflect the best solution for what a social network should look like.
I don't believe they didn't know what they are doing. They definitely have statistics about repo usage and the guy suspending him definitely knew that it's one of the most popular repos out there.
Microsoft don't deserve the benefit of doubt here. This is a warning to anyone who competes with Microsoft in an open source project. Move elsewhere.
I know we all love a good M$ conspiracy theory but this one is far too silly.
There's just no way this is a mistake. I don't believe for a second their internal review systems don't have any safeguards against banning extremely popular repositories without manual oversight, because they must have these safeguards. Other open source repos probably get spurious reports commonly.
These systems always have popularity thresholds for manual oversight because as something gets popular, it gets false reports. It's just fact of life.
Any manual oversight would easily recognize what's going on and would never ban extremely popular repo for a random transgression of its creator in other repo. Not without consulting a manager.
Did they? I thought that was chatgpt variant.
- Made a mod removing all non-white characters in a video game.
- Put black people and artists who draw black people in a category/folder called "n".
- Is allegedly also anti-semitic but I don't think the "((()))" thing is proof of that.
I don't think there is anything Micro$ofty going on. Just a racist being banned.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=15187...
“Edit 26-mar-2020: finally, the injustice has been corrected: all races are welcome! You can choose the range of skin colors you want in mod settings.”
> - Put black people and artists who draw black people in a category/folder called "n".
this doesn’t really mean anything.
> - Is allegedly also anti-semitic but I don't think the "((()))" thing is proof of that.
besides using () for weights what other proof do you have for your public accusation?
> Just a racist being banned.
love these kinds of conclusions drawn from conjectures.
You can call it immature, I sure would, but still we can't have 'rules for thee'
Kindly asked? That's not what it looked like to me.
I do think all of the needless speculation here was silly, and I also know that it will all happen again next time.
It looks like the "controversy" was links to a site that included anime child porn (or what some people would call that, regardless of your personal interpretation). I've been to Japan and wandered around some manga stores, and.... what they have on some shelves is, like, really, viscerally, incredibly, disgustingly, way way worse than anything I have ever seen on the internet. And I've been here since the 90s.
I guess my question is sort of 2-part:
1) Should linking to any site, which also hosts animated child porn, really be banned as a general rule? I don't actually know the arguments for/against it. I imagine that animated child porn may prevent child predators from having to go out and find real kids, because they can whack it to pictures of pretend kids. (sorry, I don't know a nicer way to say that) But perhaps that's not the case, or there is some other mitigating factor. I just don't think arguments should end at "eww, ick" or some variation thereof. We should have real intellectual discourse and solid arguments for why we censor content, not just "that's what we ban because we just don't like it" (or the much more likely reasoning: "because our advertisers/payment processors don't like it").
2) What impact should cultural differences have, if any, on enforcement? Like, in Japan, that kind of stuff seems, if not totally normal, at least acceptable enough to be included in stores along with other regular manga. So how should enforcement 'on the internet' reflect cultural values? Should the entire internet just reflect the values of the 'most powerful' countries and cultures? Or, when China eventually becomes the global superpower, are we gonna be OK with the norm then switching to be whatever China deems culturally acceptable?
It's not as if people will be "converted" to child porn by viewing these images; rather, it will be viewed by people who already have a predisposition to such content. My gut says it might reduce real-world incidence if they can get their rocks off to digital content, rather than feeling compelled to do so in reality.
But as you pointed out, there is very little credible research on this topic, so it's hard to say conclusively.
> because our advertisers/payment processors don't like it
Or, more simply, because if Github fills up with porn, the business professionals paying money to host their code on github will find a place that's not full of porn to host their code. It's a weird argument to say "Github's ability to make money and stay in business shouldn't matter because I want to host my awesome list of anime nudes."
> Like, in Japan, that kind of stuff seems, if not totally normal, at least acceptable enough to be included in stores along with other regular manga. So how should enforcement 'on the internet' reflect cultural values?
Github isn't a random store in Japan, it's the equivalent of an office building in Japan (whether you imagine it that way or not). If you brought your porn to work in Japan and hung it in your cubicle, it would almost certainly be frowned upon.
The parent is referring to URLs, not the content itself. e.g., Popular network-filtering blocklists hosted on GitHub do include URLs to porn. That seems sensible.
For two, block lists aren't meant to be browsed. Lists of swears and slurs are necessary to provide libraries that can offer content moderation features, but the individual words probably violate some ToS. But if you use some of those slurs in your wiki, you're no longer offering functionality, you're just writing offensive stuff. Intent matters.
> in Japan, that kind of stuff seems, if not totally normal, at least acceptable enough to be included in stores along with other regular manga.
This part gets me puzzled often. It seems the problem is child part than porn part, and as a Japanese I don't see that much child content(obviously ignoring defenses like "500-year-old loli" or "blurring makes it not porn"), especially in the low ranges that attract offenders I read about on news. What seems to be the case to me, is that Western gut feeling massively under-report ages for Japanese and/or anime faces, or has a threshold point for adults set decades too high.
With a hypothetical that such guessing error exists, Q2 leads to another question: "Assuming there are some visual representations that are universally immoral across societies, should certain groups of people who visually appear immoral by certain cultural norms, be regulated by which standards and why" - it sounds extreme(it is), but I have seen this "visually immoral" class of people and drawings on the internet, and that is kind of a legitimate human rights issue that a class by appearance exists; it's no different from debating whether to tolerate blacks and their pictures.
https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/WhiteOnly
If so, lol.
From the repeated unreliability of GitHub and GitHub actions [0], how "private" repositories are not private [1] and now sloppy account bans like this one is more of an indication about why self-hosting makes more sense and my comment going against 'centralizing everything' has aged perfectly and still applies today. [2]
If hobby projects like RedoxOS [3] can outright move off of GitHub and on to a self-hosted GitLab, so can you. It seems they were smart enough to move off of GitHub during the Microsoft takeover and avoid the carnage that they have brought on to the site.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32752965
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34258431
https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/wiki...
that the anti-ai-art campaign people would have reported the repo en masse.
This has been done previously for several Patreon and Kickstarter projects, with at least one popular anti-ai-art Discord server having a channel where people do nothing but share links for users to bulk report.
Anything github does the burden of proof is definitely on them.
"Edit 26-mar-2020: finally, the injustice has been corrected: all races are welcome! You can choose the range of skin colors you want in mod settings."
The arguments over moderation have gone nowhere. The same people who demand over and over that "something be done" about <controversial topic du jour> keep scratching their heads after events like this, and ponder how we got here.
Decentralized is the future.
I can't risk all my issues disappearing into nothingness, and I can't imagine myself using a different platform. GH is muscle memory for me these days.
Would also be nice to know Microsoft can't arbitrarily scan my works for dangerous competitive elements.
It ought to be clarified though.
For what is worth, I thi_k we should all grow a thicker ski_ a_d be ready to defe_d the thi_gs that matter, like our right to express freely without havi_g to watch our words for the _ext time somebody somewhere may take offe_se with what we say.
https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/wiki...
Here's the issue discussing it:
https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/issu...
https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/wiki...
This has “kickstarter bans Unstable Diffusion” vibes.
Can anyone cite the relevant TOS section? It’d be good to know how far they’re trying to extend the moderation umbrella.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/acceptable-use-polici...
Now on the other hand this wasn't actually pornographic content, it was links to pornographic content and their TOS doesn't really make it clear that linking is not allowed.
A frequent discovery of mine is a new foothill of the mountains of spam text dumped onto GitHub. No idea what half of it is there for since it’s not even connected to a GitHub pages setup most of the time. Usually I’ll find them a few pages back for a code search where the spellchecker has helpfully ignored pluralisation and punctuation and I’m getting lots of generic results but for a long enough string of words to narrow down GitHub to the long tail of noise…
Lots of txt and markdown and html and textish formats filled with keywords and phrases, some of which are surprisingly suggestive, arguably outright pornography…
Oh and there’s the matter of all the code on GitHub related to adult websites and the pornography that they contain, heaps of web scraping scripts to harvest videos and pictures from “tube websites” … the flip side of the coin as well, the content moderation tools like perceptual hashing tools and ML models for adult content or nudity detection that need to include sample images as part of testing and training data…
This feels like an area GitHub really shouldn’t be fucking with with respect to the whole “what counts as acceptable”, it’s one thing to prevent people using GitHub to host a free porn site via GitHub pages, it’s another to start policing the definition of acceptable discourse on the topic of adult content and machine learning models, particularly given that machine learning is a highly technical topic and the state of the art is an evolving field full of deeply technical people.
I’m deeply unimpressed by the results from stable diffusion but I do see other people having success with it. For me even the most basic things seem to come out mutated and the same efforts to improve non pornography related human depictions from stable diffusion type models will also be applicable to porn … if the hands on my “18th century porcelain doll of a cowboy“ look like some kind of teratogenic mutant out of a bad hyper realistic cartoon, then the porn version can’t be much better and while rule 34 exists the majority of “pornography consumers” looking to ML model based content probably don’t want that either which leads to a sort of “dual use technology” style stand off between the “pornography” and “non-pornography” uses of the exact same technology.
GitHub are walking a thin line here and it’s not going to get easier for them.
* "WhiteOnly" Rimworld mod that removes all non-whites; "PeacefulProtests" mod "narrated by George Floyd"; "BlackOnly" mod that purportedly just disables technological progression, though this claim appears to be unverified; exclusively black or black-painting artists in data set labeled with "n" + almost no other single-letters in use besides another possible euphemism, which when asked about gave a reply of "no comment"; long-time 4channer and /g/ poster (in recent years /g/ has become increasingly far-right; certainly not all /g/ posters are, but in combination with those other factors it may be relevant)
This was in response to an already existing mod which removed all white people, which was deemed totally fine. AUTO1111 also made a all black MOD later, which you mentioned.
>"BlacksOnly" mod that purportedly just disables technological progression
This is false: https://old.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/103vsm2/we...
All it did was lock the available skintones.
>/g/ has become increasingly far-right
Any data to back this up with ? And how can you even know that AUTO1111 is active on /g/ ? It's anonymous.
The n identifier could be used as a way to negate this problem or to provide evidence to the contrary of the dominant narrative of the incredibly powerful.
When viewed as a whole, everything seems to be done to provide a counter to power. Which is also a function of truly open AI.
When all pink is okay and all purple is not, you have a seriously color-based prejudice on your hands. Anyone arguing to the contrary would be wearing a white outfit going on about power in a different time.
[1]https://steamcommunity.com/id/no-sry (click the little down-arrow next to their name)
That all is not to say that I would agree with a GitHub suspension; just that the author seems to be of questionable character.
That is not true. I have submitted plenty of links from new domains (side projects) to reddit.
Reddit should probably take some steps to help users understand the difference between Mods and Admins. It's extremely common on reddit for users not to know the difference. They are always taking the heat for something some random user did to a subreddit they moderate.
― Oscar Wilde
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22688-everything-in-moderat...
The question wasn't about GitHub's specific reasons. The question was "war on hyperlinks" which is a much more general/broad question.
Russia is obviously hated due to their war, but banning .ru is just dumb.
Why? Is it perfect, no. But perfect is the enemy of good. If it noticeably reduces posts and votes which Reddit's teams have to deal with, while also no having a material effect on the general user experience, then why not use geo-blocking?
My bet is that's what this was about.
Even right now you can see some of the example images are generated with a hand on the breast through a bikini top.
In general when it comes to porn and porn-adjacent content, "I know it when I see it" remains how the law generally works :(
There are VTubers and video game characters that in their canonical profiles will say things like 'eternally 17' or whatever. How is a regulator supposed to interpret something like that when deciding whether something is meant by the artist to be transgressive or not? We know the actresses involved and the artists are all adults, of course.
https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/wiki...
Look at some of the embeddings in the mega link, there is unambiguous loli content there.
Same way Photoshop can be considered a tool for drawing images of underage cartoon children.
People can argue that generating loli content is an alright thing to do (good luck), but at least one of the embeddings linked was explicitly finetuned to generate loli content.
The 'n' tag was an artist that gives you black people, and there is a problematic 'c' tag which, from the comment above is artists who painted naked children, so this is about as problematic as it gets.