A trial program conducted by Pornhub in collaboration with UK-based child protection organizations aimed to deter users from searching for child abuse material (CSAM) on its website. Whenever CSAM-related terms were searched, a warning message and a chatbot appeared, directing users to support services. The trial reported a significant reduction in CSAM searches and an increase in users seeking help. Despite some limitations in data and complexity, the chatbot showed promise in deterring illegal behavior online. While the trial has ended, the chatbot and warnings remain active on Pornhub’s UK site, with hopes for similar measures across other platforms to create a safer internet environment.

  • CameronDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    144
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    That kinda sounds reasonable. Especially if it can prevent someone going down that rabbithole? Good job PH.

  • FraidyBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Imagine a porn site telling you to seek help because you’re a filthy pervert. Thats gotta push some to get some help I’d think.

    • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Imagine how dumb, in addition to deranged, these people would have to be to look for child porn on a basically legitimate website. Misleading headline too, it didn’t stop anything, it just told them “Not here”

      • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        We have culturally drawn a line in the sand where one side is legal and the other side of the line is illegal.

        Of course the real world isn’t like that - there’s a range of material available and a lot of it is pretty close to being abusive material, while still being perfectly legal because it falls on the right side of someone’s date of birth.

        It sounds like this initiative by Pornhub’s chatbot successfully pushes people away from borderline content… I’m not sure I buy that… but if it’s directing some of those users to support services then that’s a good thing. I worry though some people might instead be pushed over to the dark web.

        • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah…I forgot that the UK classifies some activities between consenting adults as “abusive”, and it seems some people are now using that definition in the real world.

          • Scirocco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Facesitting porn (of adults) is illegal in UK for the reason that it’s potentially dangerous

            • Quicky@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              Which led to some amazing protests.

              Weirdly, watching facesitting porn in the UK is perfectly fine, as long as it wasn’t filmed in the UK.

              I can just imagine trying to defend that in court. “Your honour, it’s clear to me that the muffled moans of the face-sittee are those of a Frenchman”

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I mean, is it dumb?

        Didnt pornhub face a massive lawsuit or something because of the amount of unmoderated child porn that was hidden in its bowels by uploaders (in addition to rape victims, revenge porn, etc etc…), to the point that they apparently only allow verified uploaders now and purged a huge swath of their videos?

      • theherk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Until a few years ago, when they finally stopped allowing unmoderated, user uploaded content they had a ton a very problematic videos. And they were roasted about it in public for years. Including by many who were the unconsenting, sometimes underage subjects of these videos, and they did nothing. Good that they finally did, but they trained users for years that it was a place to find that content.

          • theherk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            8 months ago

            You know you could easily say some dumb shit like that to somebody whose daughter wound up fighting a long time to remove herself from the site. ¯\(ツ)

              • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                You’re wasting your time, they’re posting on lemmy where it’s not even possible up remove a picture you posted let alone one of you posted by someone else - the fact they’re still mad pornhub had a similar problem and solved it effectively makes it pretty obvious they’re looking for an excuse for an ideological crusade against people they’ve already decided to hate.

              • theherk@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                8 months ago

                What did I say that was dumb? I said “until a few years ago”, and that is true. And I have firsthand experience with the trouble they wouldn’t go through to deal with it. To imply that I’m just choking down what the government is selling is simply not reasonable.

  • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Sounds like a good feature. Anything that stops people from doing that is great.

    But I do have to wonder… were people really expecting to find that content on PornHub? That site certainly seems legit enough that I doubt they’d have that stuff on there. I’d imagine most actual content would be on the dark web and specialty groups, not on PH.

    • CameronDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      PH had a pretty big problem with CSAM a few years ago, they ended up wiping ~2/3rds of their user submitted content to try fix it. (Note, they wiped all non-verified user submitted videos, not all of it was CSAM).

      And im guessing they are trying to catch users who are trending towards questionable material. “College”✅ -> “Teen”⚠️ -> “Young Teen”⚠️⚠️⚠️ -> "CSAM"🚔 etc.

      • FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        Wow, that bad? I was aware they purged a lot of ‘amateur’ content over concerns regarding consent to upload/revenge porn, but I didn’t know it was that much.

          • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Eeeeeeeh. There’s nuance.

            IIRC there were only a handful of verified CSAM videos on the entire website. It’s inevitable, it happens everywhere with UGC, including on here. Anecdotally, in the years leading up to the purge PH had already cleaned up its act and from what I saw pirated content was rather well moderated. However this time the media made a huge stink about the alleged CSAM, payment processors threatened to pull out (they are notoriously very puritan, it’s caused a lot of trouble to lemmynsfw’s admins for instance) and so regardless of the validity of the initial claims PH had to do something to gain back the trust of payment processors, so they basically nuked every video that did not have a government ID attached.

            Now if I may speculate a little, one of the reasons it happened this way is probably that due to its industry position PH is way better moderated than most (if not all) websites of their size and already had verified a bunch of its creators. At the same time the rise of OnlyFans and similar websites means that real amateur content has all but disappeared so there was less and less reason to allow random UGC anyway. So the high moderation costs probably didn’t make much sense anymore anyway.

    • silasmariner@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      wree people really expecting to find that content on PornHub?

      Welcome to the internet 😂 where people constantly disappoint/surprise you (what word is that? Dissurprise? Disurprint?

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      So…pornhub has actually had problems with CSAM. It used to be much more of a Youtube-like platform where anyone can upload.

      Even without that aspect, there are a looot of producers that don’t do their checks well and a lot of underage actresses that fall through the cracks

  • Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The headline is slightly misleading. 2.8 million searches were halted, but according to the article they didn’t attempt to figure out how many of those searches came from the same users. So thankfully the number of secret pedophiles in the UK is probably much lower than the headline might suggest.

  • pHr34kY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    8 months ago

    4.4 million sounds a bit excessive. Facebook marketplace intercepted my search for “unwanted gift” once and insisted I seek help. These things have a lot of false positives.

  • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    8 months ago

    Google does this too, my wife was searching for “slutty schoolgirl” costumes and Google was like “have a seat ma’am”

  • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Non-paywall link: https://web.archive.org/web/20240305000347/https://www.wired.com/story/pornhub-chatbot-csam-help/

    There’s this lingering implication that there is CSAM at Pornhub. Why bother with “searches for CSAM” if it does not return CSAM results? And what exactly constitutes a “search for CSAM”? The article and the linked one are incredibly opaque about that. Why target the consumer and not the source? This feels kind of backwards and like language policing without really addressing the problem. What do they expect to happen if they prohibit specific words/language? That people searching for CSAM will just give up? Do they expect anything beyond them changing the used language and go for a permanent cat and mouse game? I guess I share the sentiments that motivated them to do this, but it feels so incredibly pointless.

    • TheBlackLounge@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Lolicon is not illegal, and neither is giving your video a title that implies CSAM.

      That begs the question, what about pedophiles who intentionally seek out simulated CP to avoid hurting children?

        • CaptainEffort@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Which is, imo, pretty dumb. If it gives these people an outlet that literally hurts no one, I say they should be allowed to use it. Without it they’ll just go to more extreme lengths to get what they need, and as such may go to places where actual real life children are being abused or worse.

          So while it’s still disgusting and I’d rather not think about it, if nobody’s being hurt then it’s none of my business. Let them get out their urges in a safe way that doesn’t affect anybody else.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I imagine the concern is that it would look identical to the real thing. Which blurs the lines. Kinda like how governments really hate when toy makers make toy guns look too real and why I have to tell airport security that I would like my bag searched now since there are homemade looking electronic devices in it.

            I guess in theory some government could make a certification system. Where legal simulated cp has like some digital watermark or something but you know that would involve a government paying someone to review child porn for a living. Kinda hard to sell that to the taxpayers or fill that role. Maybe the private sector would be willing to do it but that is a big ask.

            I am not sure I agree with you or disagree with you. Maybe all of us would be better off if there is a legal and harmless way for pedos to get what they want. Or maybe it is bad to encourage it at all even in a safe way, like if they consume that stuff it will make them more likely to seek out real children.

            Definitely isn’t a great situation be great if the condition is cured some day.

            • YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              This covered a lot of my concerns and thoughts on the topic. I want these people to be able to seek help and possibly even have a legal outlet that is not harming anyone, i.e. not even someone who has to view that shit for a living, so maybe we get AI to do it? IDK. It’s complicated but I believe that it’s similar to having an addiction in some ways and should be treated as a health issue, assuming they haven’t hurt anyone and want help. This is coming from someone with health issues including addiction and also someone who is very empathetic and sympathetic to any and all struggles of folks who are just trying to live better.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                I can’t even imagine the amount of money it would cost for someone to pay me to watch and critique child porn for a living. I have literally been paid money in my life to fish a dead squirrel that was making the whole place stink, from underneath a trailer in July and would pick doing that professionally over watching that filth.

      • Clbull@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        Depends on the jurisdiction. Indecent illustrations and ‘pseudo photographs’ depicting minors are definitely illegal in the UK (Coroners and Justice Act 2009.) Several US states are also updating their laws to clamp down on this too.

        I’m also aware that it’s illegal in Switzerland because a certain infamous rule 34 artist fled his home country to evade justice for that very reason.

    • Jojo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Why target the consumer and not the source?

      If for no other reason than it doesn’t have to be either/or. If you can meaningfully reduce demand for a “product” as noxious as CSAM, you should expect the rate of production to slow. There are certainly efforts in place to prevent that production from ever being done, and to prevent it from being shared/hosted once it is, but I don’t think attempting to reduce demand in this way is going to hurt.

      • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Does it reduce the demand though? Where are the measurements attesting to that? If history has shown one thing, it is that criminalizing things creates criminals. Did the prohibition stop people from making, trading, or consuming alcohol? How does this have any meaningful impact on the abuse of children? The article(s) completely fail to elaborate on that end. I’m missing the statistics/science here. What are the measuring instruments to assess any form of success? Just that searches were blocked and people were shown some links? … TL;DR: is this something with an actual positive impact or just an exercise in virtue signaling and waste of time and money? Blind “fixes” are rarely useful.

      • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Like anything on the internet wasn’t tracked. If need be people will resort to physically exchanging storage media.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      Maybe liability or pretending to help? That way they can claim later on “we care about people struggling with this issue which is why when they search for terms related to it we offer the help they need”. Kinda how if you search for certain terms on Google it pops up suicide hotline on top.

      Ok Google just because I looked up some stuff on being sad in winter doesn’t mean I am planning to put a gun in my mouth.

      • _cnt0@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yah, this feels more like a legal protection measure and virtue signaling. There’s absolutely no assessment of efficiency or even efficacy of the measures. At least not in the article or the ones it links to and I couldn’t find anything substantial on it.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    Did it? Or did it make them look elsewhere?

    The amount of school uniform, braces, pigtails and step-sister porn on Pornhub makes me think they want the nonces to watch.

      • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Reasonable adults sites don’t return obviously sketchy things for reasonable queries. EG you don’t search boobs and get 12 year olds.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        And what days were those? Cuz you pretty much need to go all the way back to pre-internet days. Hell, even that isn’t far enough, cuz Playboy’s youngest model was like 12 at one point.

        • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Depressing, isn’t it? I was more talking about how prevalent “fauxcest” has become in porn more recently. I guess that’s just my cross to bear as an only child 💅

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        I kind of want to trigger it to see what searches it reacts to, but at the same time I don’t want my IP address on a watchlist.

    • EdibleFriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      given the amount of extremely edgy content already on Pornhub, this is kinda sus

      Yeah…i am honestly curious what these search terms were, how many of those were ACTUALLY looking for CP. And of those…how many are now flagged somewhow?

      • Arsonistic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I know I got the warning when I searched for young gymnast or something like that cuz I was trying to find a specific video I had seen before. False positives can be annoying, but that’s the only time I’ve ever encountered it.

  • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is one of the more horrifying features of the future of generative AI.

    There is literally no stopping it at this stage: AI generated CSAM will be possible soon thanks to systems like SORA.

    This is disgusting and awful. But one part of me hopes it can end the black market of real CSAM content forever. By flooding it with infinite fakes, users with that sickness can look at something that didn’t come from a real child’s suffering. It’s the darkest of silver linings I think, but I spoke with many sexual abuse survivors who feel the same about the loli hentai in Japan, in that it could be an outlet for these individuals instead of them finding their own.

    Dark topics. But I hope to see more actions like this in the future. If pedos can self isolate from IRL interactions and curb their ways with content that harms no one, then everyone wins.

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      What do you mean soon, local models from civitai can generate CSAM for at least 2 years. I don’t think it’s possible to stop it unless the model creator does something to prevent it from generate naked people in general like the neutered SDXL.

      • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        True. For obvious reasons I haven’t looked too deeply down that rabbit hole because RIP my search history, but I kind of assumed it would be soon. I’m thinking more specifically about models like SORA though. Where you could feed it enough input, then type a sentence to get video content. That is going to be a different level of darkness.

    • Zorque@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Are… we looking at the same article? This isn’t about AI generated CSAM, it’s about redirecting those who are searching for CSAM to support services.

      • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes, but this is more about mitigating the spread of CSAM. And my feeling was it’s going to become somewhat impossible soon. AI generated porn is starting to flood the market and this chat it is also one of those “smart” attempts to mitigate this behavior. I’m saying that very soon, it will be something users don’t have to go anywhere to get if the model can just fabricate it out of thin air, so the chat it mitigation is only temporary, and the dark web of actual CSAM material will become overwhelmed and swamped in artificially generating new tidal waves of artificial CP. So it’s an alarming ethical dilemma we are on the horizon of that we need to think about.

      • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        So your takeaway is I’m… Against AI generative images and thus I “protest too much”

        I can’t tell if you’re pro AI and dislike me, or pro loli hentai and thus dislike.

        Dude, AI images and AI video are inevitable. To pretend that does have huge effects on society is stupid. It’s going to reshape all news media, very quickly. If reddit is 99% AI generated bot spam garbage with no verification of what is authentic, reddit is functionally dead, and we are on a train with no brakes in that direction for most public forums.

          • ocassionallyaduck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            You should probably research the phrase “protest too much” and the word “schtick” then.

            I’m not trying to clutch pearls here, as another poster here commented this isn’t a theoretical concern.

            • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              You aren’t trying to clutch pearls, but your pearls were just so available you felt you had to jump on the bandwagon to reply to a two-day old comment?

              Nobody said this was a theoretical concern and it’s okay if you don’t understand the phrases " protest too much" and "shtick“, but you can ask for the definitions and relevance directly instead of fishing.

        • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          8 months ago

          Ah, one of the “using words they don’t understand” crew.

          And several hours late, too.

          Swinging for the fences, aren’t you?

  • n3uroh4lt@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The original report from the researchers can be found here: https://www.iwf.org.uk/about-us/why-we-exist/our-research/rethink-chatbot-evaluation/ Researchers said:

    The chatbot was displayed 2.8 million times between March 2022 and August 2023, resulting in 1,656 requests for more information and Stop It Now services; and 490 click-throughs to the Stop It Now website.

    So from 4.4 million banned queries, only 2.8 million (between the date interval in the quote above) and only 490 clicks to seek help. Ngl, kinda underwhelming. And I also think, given the amount of extremely edgy content already on Pornhub, this is kinda sus.

    • laughterlaughter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      It’s not really that underwhelming. Disclaimer: I don’t condone child abuse. I find it abhorrent, and I will never justify it.

      People have fantasies, though. If a dude searches for “burglar breaks in and has sex with milf,” does that mean that he wants to do this in real life? Of course not (or god I hope not!) So, some people may have searched for “dad has sex with young babysitter” and bam! Bot! Some people have a fetish for diapers - there are tons of porn of adults wearing diapers and having sex. Not my thing, but who am I to judge? So again, someone searches “sex with diapers” and bam! Bot!

      Let’s not forget that as much as pornhub displays a sign saying “Hey, are you 18?” a lot of people will lie. And those young folks will also search for stupid things.

      So I don’t think that aaaaaall 1+ million searches were done by people with actual pedophilia.

      The fact that 1,600 people decided to click and inform themselves, in the UK alone, well, that’s a lot, in my opinion, and it should be something to commend, not to just say “eh. Underwhelming.”

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I was wondering what sort of phrases get that notification but mentioning that mind be a bit counterproductive

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m not sure if it’s related but as a life-long miniskirt lover I’ve noticed that many sites no longer return results for the term “schoolgirl” and instead you need to search for a “student”

    • Squire1039@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      The MLs have been shown to be extraordinarily good at statistically guessing your words. The words covered are probably comprehensive.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        I think the other article talks about it being a manually curated list because while ML can get correct words it also gets random stuff, so you need to check it isn’t making spurious connections. It’s pretty interesting how it all works

    • Bgugi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Aylo maintains a list of more than 28,000 banned terms in multiple languages, which is constantly being updated.

      Id be very curious what these terms are, but I wouldn’t be surprised if “pizza guy” or “school uniform” would trigger a response.

    • BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      If you read the paragraph thats literally right there it says when certain terms were searched by the user.

      • KrankyKong@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        …That paragraph doesn’t say anything about whether or not the material is on the site though. I had the same reaction as the other person, and I didn’t misread the paragraph that’s literally right there.

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      Not since the wipe, AFAIK. Still, at the bottom of the page you can (or at least could, haven’t used their services in a while) see a list of recent searches from all users, and you’d often find some disturbing shit.