[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago
And by changing just a couple of pixels, you can change up the hash of the picture while still keeping the overall image intact. A computer looks at images, and doesn't see abstract items like you and I do, all it sees is pixels. Switch those pixels up, and as far as the computer is concerned, it's looking at two different images.
I see Oldfag Anon having an absolute field day with this...they could even start out with the images from The Fappening, just to add insult to injury.
[–] InDifferent 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Haven't read the article yet but I'm sure it's not going to miss flagging a picture because someone changed a few pixels on a photo. I would assume that it would figure out percentage of similarity between pictures by looking at every pixel, comparing it to the original, and return a percentage of how many pixels are the same or close enough. It also wouldn't surprise me in this case if it would weight any flesh colored pixels as more important to avoid people just changing the background of the image.
[–] CrazyInAnInsaneWorld 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
The problem with that, is how do you determine what makes a "Close enough match" to ban illicit pic-sharers without hitting collateral damage for banning false positives? What are we going to have the percentage set at, 51% Similarity = Permaban? Better get ready for a fuckton of false positives and a LOT of pissed off users going to other platforms. Also, if they change the shade of the colors, that in itself would bypass the values the database had on the picture. Remember, computers don't see abstract concepts. They see colors, pixels, and more technical aspects. They don't go, "Oh, that's a pair of tits," they say "This is a .jpg image, size of 250kb, dimensions 1000 * 900, with a collection of pixels with certain hex values for color assigned to them." That's why they have to rely on community flagging/policing for "Offensive content", because abstract concepts such as "Offensive" don't make any sense to a computer. Even if they made the database self-teaching and self-evolving to keep up with the evolving pics the community flagged, that doesn't safeguard against new mutations/iterations of the same content, and that just opens up one more attack vector against the system, via false-flagging.
My point being, there are ways around automated systems a'plenty. This won't stop people determined to bypass the automated system (Just look at the amount of people bypassing Reddit's shadowban system on a daily basis originating from these parts) and regular users, the same users that provide Facebook with their revenue, will be caught in the crossfire of this informational arms race. Zuck the Cuck is basically shooting up the barn with an AK to kill a rat...while the horses are all stabled.
Facebook forgets what happened to MySpace and disregards the possibility they can easily become MySpace 2.0, as soon as a viable competitor arises. And stunts like this are only going to speed their demise once sites like https://minds.com and http://gab.ai get rolling at full speed. Much like Reddit and Digg, their hubris has gotten the best of them.
[–] HeavyBrain ago
Thats when we use very yimilar photos that have nothing to do with the original till this algorithm is flaging most pics and people start to reeee.
[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yup, thats how I go around the double post wall on /pol/.
Literally opening it up in Paint and adding one dot of the same color and bam.
[–] FairDinkum 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
how do I swap pixels in a photo?
[–] Roman_Hair_God ago (edited ago)
Story time. I was in Buenos Aires for 2 weeks in January 2016. Was staying at an apartment in San Telmo section of the city. On my 2nd or 3rd night there, I was returning from a late night stroll. Upon returning to the apartment, my host greeted me in the kitchen. She was with a man. They were sharing a mate and asked if I'd like to join them. I agreed and sat down with them. The guy was from the US and was a "fishing guide". He had just returned from Patagonia after a few weeks of leading fishing tours and traveling solo around Patagonia. I was traveling south to Patagonia in a few weeks so I started asking him for advice.
My host had hosted this tattooed gentleman, prior to my arrival. I could tell he was interested in her -- romantically. Anyway, we hangout, talk for a few hours and he leaves. After he leaves, my host ask me if I recognized her former guest... I told her I didn't. She told me to google Hunter Moore. OK. Turns out the guy used to run a revenge porn site called, Is Anyone Up? I remember hearing of him and his site years ago, but I hadn't recognized him. Turns out he was on the lam, hiding out in South America. He had returned to Buenos Aries hoping to lay low with my host. She declined and he left. I don't know if he's still on the run or if he returned to the US to serve jail time.
[–] derram ago
https://archive.is/yxyNu | https://vgy.me/66v2OC.png :
'The company also said it was launching an automated process to prevent the repeat sharing of banned images. '
'Photo-matching software will keep the pictures off the core Facebook network as well as off its Instagram and Messenger services, it said. '
'Users who share "revenge porn" may see their accounts disabled, the company said. '
'Facebook has been sued in the United States and elsewhere by people who said it should have done more to prevent the practice. '
'"Revenge porn" refers to the sharing of sexually explicit images on the internet, without the consent of the people depicted in the pictures, in order to extort or humiliate them. '
This has been an automated message.