MNHQ: Update on Image Uploads

There are threads reporting it all over Site Stuff and The Night Watch. Have HQ responded yet? I know they deleted the posts, some threads and banned the poster.

They probably should not allow anyone to post photos at night tbh and also not rely on volunteer mods overnight as apparently they can't see reports?

@andyouwillknowusbythetrailofdead did you report them last night ?
What was the response ?

@LilyMumsnet your tool isn't working properly. CSA images again last night.

This was exactly the point I raised too.

I don’t see how MNHQ can ensure that at all. Getting the resident Inspector Vadget to eyeball a close up of a vulva doesn’t prove anything.

Lots of good questions...

Hopefully they will at least decide to autodelete after a given time. Apart from the potential for mis-use, the idea that someone desperate for help might have a picture of their private parts on the internet forever is worrying, especially now that it isn't possible to access the site without accepting cookies (and therefore being tracked / exploited for advertising).

How does MNHQ ensure that any genital pictures they allow on their platform both have the consent of the owner to be posted and are not of a child?

Personal or business ? (Admittedly I own my personal one anyway). But if you don't own the bit after the "@" then you are subject to someone elses T&Cs.

Anyway, we digress.

It was the parent who was locked out, not the doctor. Lots of people only use one email address don't they?

loss of email address led to nightmare accessing bank accounts etc.

relying on any provider for an email address isn't very professional.

Yes... there was a case in the US where a doctor asked a parent to send a photo of their child's genitals, it got uploaded to google cloud, google reported it as CSA and locked the guy out of his google account. The police recognised it as innocent but Google wouldn't reinstate the guy - loss of email address led to nightmare accessing bank accounts etc.

It's quite a well known story but demonstrates why it's probably not a good idea for an SM platform to allow posting of images for innocent reasons which could lead to such issues, and has hopefully made doctors cautious too.

@BeckyAMumsnet given the risks, even GP practices usually do not permit images of private parts to be sent, while allowing other images to be sent for patients to receive advice

What do you mean by a 'subscriber', @NCfornow256?

@SerendipityJane , if you read my post, I didn't say that the OP should have to subscribe.

That effectively would mean you would have to subscribe for advice if you wanted to post (and you would only get advice from subscribers).

Which is an existential question.

Inspector Vadget

Good lord. Imagine being the poor member of the moderation team who has to inspect a close up of an MNer’s vulva or anus to determine whether it’s legit.

@BeckyAMumsnet , is there any way that sensitive / medical posts could be kept behind the paywall? So the poster wouldn't have to be a subscriber, but the posts would only be accessible by subscribers? That way there's less risk of some vulnerable person's private images being accessed by those treating them, and potentially sharing them, as porn / a joke, and also less incentive for someone to post something for sinister reasons?

Alternatively, could they at least be automatically deleted after a certain period?

I may be wrong, but I'm not sure that the software could tell a close-up of a vulva from the fake Rothko on my friend's living room wall.

I believe MNHQ’s previous explanation of allowing posters to post explicit photos was that ‘it’s blurred out’ and the thread title ‘contains warnings’ and the last line of (wholly inadequate) defence ‘you don’t have to click on it’.

With that in mind, could a poster post a photo of a vulva from a screenshot of a porn photo asking if it looks normal compared to theirs which they think looks the same?

How does the AI filter differ that from porn trolling?

I can think of no good reason that images of private parts should be allowed to pass any filters, no matter what the settings.

That's a really good point about trolling... There don't appear to be any preemptive safeguards at all.

Even if they are genuine, I worry for the mental state of someone who would do that, and suspect they may be vulnerable. Not to mention that it makes the site a bit of a laughing stock IMO.

@LilyMumsnet Please can you let us know how people posting photos of their vulvas/anuses/breasts for ‘medical reasons’ evades the shiny new AI filter?

Or are you relying on human moderators to view them first (now there’s a job I don’t want) and allow them past the filter?

It would also be helpful to hear how MNHQ believe these kind of photos differ from porn trolling. Could, say, a new user post a photo of ‘their’ vulva asking if it looks normal and actually a man has created a fake account and posted an intimate photo of his ex-partner in order to shame her?