ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
AI is interesting and far from perfect. Here's the result for the AI-based "Beer" category on my mac. Second photo is an Infra-Red heat map of one wall in my house. Others are self-obvious; none are beer. Go figure.
peterm1
Veteran
I wrote below of my experience of Facebook when I posted some photos of travels in the South Pacific. Here are some of those photos.
The first is of a group of men from the Louisiade Archipeligo near New Guinea. The second is of young mothers and children on an island nearby the first one. And the third photo is of two women working in their village garden. Weirdly the first two were regarded as perfectly acceptable but the third was blocked with threats of banning if it happened again. As I indicated I tried to apply for a review by a human agent but was told to get lost. Not interested! As another poster here complained the "offending" photo was labelled as "adult nudity and sex activity". In one way I do not really object to the banning as I suppose they have a right to do it. But I definitely object to the way they labelled it, the threats that accompanied their action and the arbitrary and arrogant handling. Especially when they refuse to provide any review. There are always grey areas in such images. As photographers we understand that not all nude photos are sexual or objectionable. It is probably a good thing that ethnographer Margaret Meade (who studied cultures in this exact same part of the world) is not around to publish on FB and Flickr. Otherwise this established great - a pioneer in the field might be threatened with being banished too.
The first is of a group of men from the Louisiade Archipeligo near New Guinea. The second is of young mothers and children on an island nearby the first one. And the third photo is of two women working in their village garden. Weirdly the first two were regarded as perfectly acceptable but the third was blocked with threats of banning if it happened again. As I indicated I tried to apply for a review by a human agent but was told to get lost. Not interested! As another poster here complained the "offending" photo was labelled as "adult nudity and sex activity". In one way I do not really object to the banning as I suppose they have a right to do it. But I definitely object to the way they labelled it, the threats that accompanied their action and the arbitrary and arrogant handling. Especially when they refuse to provide any review. There are always grey areas in such images. As photographers we understand that not all nude photos are sexual or objectionable. It is probably a good thing that ethnographer Margaret Meade (who studied cultures in this exact same part of the world) is not around to publish on FB and Flickr. Otherwise this established great - a pioneer in the field might be threatened with being banished too.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
Saganich
Established
DwF
Well-known
Thanks for that Saganich, I will resubmit it! 
And Peter, Your comment earlier that the algorithm couldn't factor the fleshiness, that's got to be it, and I need to be more discerning!
If I didn't say it earlier, I guess this will be a recurring conversation as we move further sideways with this technology.
David
And Peter, Your comment earlier that the algorithm couldn't factor the fleshiness, that's got to be it, and I need to be more discerning!
If I didn't say it earlier, I guess this will be a recurring conversation as we move further sideways with this technology.
David
ptpdprinter
Veteran
People are posting something like 350,000,000 pictures each day to Facebook, so human review is pretty much out of the question. The sure-fire way to avoid the problem is to avoid Facebook.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
DwF
Well-known
I do avoid Facebook, of course this was Flickr
Evergreen States
Francine Pierre Saget (they/them)
Despite all the progressive virtue signaling, tech companies tend to wield the disciplinary and censorship hammers harder against queer content compared to equivalent cisgender or heterosexual content. How much of it is purposeful or due to unconscious bias is hard to say. Did the algorithm know this was a pride event? Did it detect the rainbow ascot on the man in the suspenders? These things aren't transparent to the public. It's hard to say whether that is even what happened here and I don't want to jump to conclusions. I just wanted to point this out.
peterm1
Veteran
I do not think their algorithms are anywhere near sophisticated to do any of the things you suggest really. From what I have read it achieves something not much more sophisticated than looking for the color of naked flesh (which however might be black or pink), the swell of a breast or breasts and the presence of a nipple or nipples. Having said this I did read somewhere that the algorithm does attempt to look for the presence of a child in the photo which they claim to take as sign that it is an innocent image of motherhood, not a prurient one. Never the less it is all distasteful to me and all smacks of a mid Victorian era, purse mouthed, peck-sniffing old maid who wants to pass arbitrary judgment on others so as to appear pure and unsullied to any neighbours who might be peering in on her through the curtains.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
Here we go again. Flickr marked this one as "Restricted" (The link is to pbase)
(The link is to pbase)