Human rights concerns over partnership with the Internet Watch Foundation
In the provided model documentation under 'Risks', it is stated that Black Forest Labs partnered with the Internet Watch Foundation on safety testing. The Internet Watch Foundation is currently spearheading an assault on human rights in the European Union, by lobbying for encryption backdoors under Chat Control.
More on Chat Control here: https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/posts/chat-control/
I encourage you to seek partnerships with other organizations that respect human rights and encryption in the future.
What
what
@qpqpqpqpqpqp there's nothing wrong with suggesting that in the future, Black Forest Labs partners with different groups that aren't fighting against privacy rights. Feel free to read through all the investigative reporting on Chat Control. It is predominantly an EU issue at the moment, which is why I am bringing attention to it as American groups may not be aware of it.
The ReadMe also states that Black Forest Labs is seeking community feedback on their safety approach.
@ProGamerGov clown
This is flag abuse.
OP did not exactly explain why this is relevant in the initial post.
TLDR: Internet Watch Foundation are the people this model's creators worked with to eradicate any potential NSFW from it.
I for one find it quite interesting that the same people who want to eradicate public access to encryption are also trying to eradicate public access to NSFW content generation.
Why are they doing that, I wonder?
@UnsignedLongshanks BFL mentions their partnership with IWF in the model's ReadMe under the 'Risks' section. I've updated my initial post to reflect that.
It's valid concern tho. While the release of the model itself doesn't violate human rights, the partnership is worrying since we don't know the bigger scheme. Chat Control is mass surveillance tool, companies are already mandatory to prevent CSAM EU wide, why transfer this to state controlled centralized authority, collect even more data? And not to mention it doesn't prevent shit, like criminals will just use their own fully encrypted apps undetected, like they already do...
Yeah, you have to fight for my cause. If you are not with me, then you are against me.
If you partner with an high profile and powerful organization, you adopt their stance as a shared one is the point. and valid. BFL is now a political activist for the wrong side of history. pretty simple. They support human rights violations and approve of it as a contractual partnership .
Note that BFL stated they share data with some unknown 3rd party organizations.
@ProGamerGov
I was very upset recently about Chat Control. Thank you for shedding some light on this; it’s the only way to prevent it from happening and fight against it. Most non-EU citizens probably won't fully understand how critical this is.
Yeah, you have to fight for my cause. If you are not with me, then you are against me.
our cause*
Legally speaking, the IWF holds no legislative power. If the 'Chat Control' bill truly infringes on human rights, the blame should lie with the EU members who sign off on it, not a private organization.
Moreover, the market seems to have already reflected this choice. With only 59 downloads on day one, even random community uploads often perform better. Launching a highly censored model right now, amidst a sea of superior alternatives, is clearly a self-destructive move. There's really no need to worry about this—it's already irrelevant.