World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I was interested in Apple's approach where they would look at checksums of the images to see if they matched checksums of known CSAM. Its trivial to defeat by changing even a single pixel, but it's the only acceptable way to implement this scanning. Any other method is an overreach and a huge invasion of privacy.
Maybe, depending on the algorithm used. Some are designed to produce the same output given similar inputs.
It's also easy to abuse systems like that in order to get someone falsely flagged, by generating a file with the same checksum as known CSAM.
It's also easy for someone in power (or with the right access) to add checksums of anything they don't like, such as documents associated with opposing political or religious views.
In other words, still invasive and dangerous.
More thoughts here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/11/why-adding-client-side-scanning-breaks-end-end-encryption
Checksums wouldnt work well for their purposes if they could easily be made to match any desired checksum. It's one way math.
One-way math doesn't preclude finding a collision.
(And just to be clear, checksum in the context of this conversation is a generic term that includes cryptographic hashes and perceptual hashes.)
Also, since we're talking about a list of checksums, an attacker wouldn't even have to find a collision with a specific one to get someone in trouble. This makes an attack far easier. See also: the birthday problem.
Checksums, on the other hand, are designed to minimize the probability of collisions between similar inputs, without regard for collisions between very different inputs.[8] Instances where bad actors attempt to create or find hash collisions are known as collision attacks.[9]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_collision#:~:text=Checksums%2C%20on%20the%20other%20hand,are%20known%20as%20collision%20attacks.
Even this method is overreach: who control the database?
Journalist have a scoop on a US violation of civil rights? Well not if it is important to the CIA who slipped the PDF that was their evidence into the hash pool and had his phone silently rat him out as the one reporting.
This hands ungodly power to those running that database. It's blind, and it "only flags the bad things". Which we all agree CSAM is bad, but I can easily ruin someone inconvenient to me if I was in that position by just ensuring some of his personal and unique photo get into the hash. It's a one way process, so everyone would just believe definitively that this radical MLK guy is a horrible pedo because we got some images off his phone in a diner.
It's not as easy to defeat as just changing the pixel....
CSAM detection often uses existing features for image matching such as PhotoDNA by Microsoft. Similarly both Facebook and Google also have image matching algorithms and software that is used for CSAM detection which.
These are all hash based image matching tools used for broad feature sets such as reverse image search in bing, and are not defeated by simply changing a pixel. Or even redrawing parts of the whole image itself.
You're not just throwing an md5 or an sha at an images binary. It's much more nuanced and complex than that, otherwise hash based image matching would be essentially useless for anything of consequence.