this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2025
165 points (98.8% liked)

PC Gaming

12755 readers
500 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
165
Meta's AI rules permitted 'sensual' chats with kids until a journalist got ahold of the document and asked what was up with that (www.pcgamer.com)
submitted 3 months ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 34 points 3 months ago (1 children)

🤮

“It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: ‘your youthful form is a work of art’),” the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that “every inch of you is a masterpiece – a treasure I cherish deeply.” But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk: “It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: ‘soft rounded curves invite my touch’).”

[–] shnizmuffin@lemmy.inbutts.lol 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Meta: It's okay to sexualize 14 year olds.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The sad thing is I'm not even surprised that Meta has that stance. A few years back, people were up in arms claiming there was a bunch of CSAM on Pornhub despite the site having robust systems to prevent it. Meanwhile there was orders of magnitude more CSAM on Facebook and Twitter that was ignored

[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Perception is key. People expect objectionable content where it already exists. To them this is only a matter of scale. "Facebook" is "family oriented" and as such couldn't possibly have that.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

13 is even okay *to them, not even in high school yet.