AI image filter

[kittensinthekitchen]

Is it faulty, or is it specifically programmed to allow images of babies genitals?

I know when you rely on technology instead of humans, there's always going to be the odd thing that slips through....

The bodily waste...
The anus...

But the newborn baby scrotum is maybe pushing it a bit far

These photos have been up on Mumsnet for TWO WEEKS!

Cmon ffs

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/birth_clubs/5458767-pictures-newborns-nappy-should-i-be-concerned

Hi there @kittensinthekitchen. The nappy pictures you mention here were posted with a sensitivity filter on and it's fairly clear what they are from the thread title and OP, so we'd hope no one without a strong stomach would open them over breakfast.

We can only see those two nappy pics here though so we're assuming the 'genitals' images you mention have since been removed? If we've missed them and they're posted elsewhere though do just let us know and we'll take a look.

@KellyMumsnet

I don't know why you have written 'genitals' in this way. The photograph - that is no longer visible - was of a dirty nappy, and included the baby's bare buttocks, anus and scrotum. The scrotum is part of the male genitals. Not 'genitals'.

As this image was clearly not deleted by the original poster, given the limitations of editing after a set time, so it was clearly deleted by a member of staff, and as such there should be an administrative documentation of this. You don't need to "assume", or ask with faux-naivety if you've "missed them".

Your whole response to me is rather gaslighting in tone, and reads like you are suggesting I am mistaken or lying about the image that was hosted on your platform since it was posted on 12/12 until at least the time of my posting on 27/12.

Can you please clarify why a photo of a child's genitals was able to circumvent your safety filter? And also clarify why, instead of just apologising that this happened, you have taken the stance of deleting it and pretending like it never happened?

Thank you

Maybe I should've named the thread something more obvious but was trying to avoid the attention of certain types, but it seems like this is going to be swept under the rug?

@kittensinthekitchen @KellyMumsnet

I was awake during the night and scrolling when @kittensinthekitchen posted this thread and I can 100% categorically agree that there was an image with the baby’s genitals included. The baby was on the right hand side of the photo IIRR. You could only see this image if you actually clicked fully on one of the photos (now deleted, although Mumsnet apparently didn’t do this 😒).

I didn’t comment at the time, I imagined Site Stuff would deal with this issue (and equally didn’t want to draw attention to the thread/image posted about). I looked back tonight and saw the wishy washy update from @KellyMumsnet .

@KellyMumsnet this is nothing to do with baby poo, your AI filters allowed an image of a baby’s genitalia to show for 2 weeks. You (or I imagine someone at MN) deleted it and then brushed it under the carpet.

Thank you kittens for calling it out.

OMG thank you @Snooks1971 ♥️

I'm so glad that you've commented, as @KellyMumsnet was actually doing a better job of gaslighting me into doubting myself than I wanted to admit!!

I'm reporting this thread now to MNHQ for a proper response.

Kelly - your moderation/admin technique is disgusting. I really, really hope someone looks into you being willing and able to not only try to cover up the posting of a child's genitals on Mumsnet, but also your attempt to bully someone who calls MN out on it.

Thanks for posting. We want to clarify what happened here and how our moderation process works.

We use a combination of automated tools and human moderation. Automated image filtering helps flag potentially problematic content, but it isn’t a substitute for people reviewing reports, which is why we also rely on user reports and manual checks.

In this case, images in the original thread were reported and reviewed by a moderator and then permanently removed in line with our policy. Once images are permanently deleted, they are no longer visible to other moderators. That’s why a later check could only see the remaining images, which were still live and correctly marked as sensitive. The rest of the thread was allowed to remain as it did not break our guidelines.

We want to assure you that there was no attempt to minimise or overlook reports. KellyMumsnet was explaining what she could see at the time.

If you've any further questions, please let us know.

@BeckyAMumsnet
also fyi @kittensinthekitchen

This timeline makes no sense whatsoever.

12/12/25 OP containing baby genitals posted
27/12/25 a poster commented that it looked like nappy rash (so baby genitals still visible)
Same day 27/12/25 @kittensinthekitchen posted a thread in Site Stuff as above here the OP
29/12/25 @KellyMumsnet couldn’t see the image, so yeah, it had been up for 2 weeks with no moderation at all.

Just please admit that this one got around your filters and you need to be more careful.

Also, FWIW, I’ve been on Mumsnet for 20ish years (one name change), DS1 is now 21. In those early internet days and MN was a “trusted” place, there were pics of nappy rash etc, was normal at the time.

AT. THE. TIME.

I completely understand why a photo of a child's genitals would be permanently removed from being hosted on your platform, and no longer visible.
But are you saying that there is zero moderation log? That nothing in the admin log would show that X moderator/admin had carried out Y activity on a thread/post? How are you now aware that "In this case, images in the original thread were reported and reviewed by a moderator and then permanently removed in line with our policy" if there is no administrative log?
I find that pretty disturbing, that there would be no record or accountability for a member of staff manually editing a post in some way.
Can you clarify that is indeed the case, and if so, why?

KellyMumsnet was not "explaining what she could see at the time". She was being intentionally dismissive. Perhaps a more sensitive manner could be used to respond to someone who has just inadvertently found themselves faced with an image of a child's genitals on Mumsnet?
What was the intent of Kelly's use of 'genitals' in her response to me? Do Mumsnet not count the scrotum as part of the male genitalia? In which case, why was the photo removed? Was the use of 'genitals' to denote Kelly's disbelief that I had seen said image? I would appreciate an explanation of that.

Justine was correct when she said the moderation team need training. The correct response when your attention is drawn to the fact that Mumsnet have been hosting an image of a child's genitals for over two weeks and is reported by a user should be more along the lines of "We apologise. That shouldn't have happened. Thank you for bringing it to our attention, we'll look into our processes to make sure it doesn't happen again. The image has now been deleted. The correct response should not be "You sure? Sure it wasn't just some poop? Don't believe you!"

And once again, response time on what's actually quite a serious issue is woefully below par.

"we'd hope no one without a strong stomach would open them over breakfast"
The oddest of things to say.

So did you report the image when you first saw it? MN has always been post-moderated and, apart from this recent AI help with images, has always relied on posters to report anything dodgy.

If you did report it and it was ignored for 2 weeks, then I can see why you're miffed.

But if you didn't report it, then that's on you.

@Scampuss I totally get what you say, I too remember when images/posts were always predominantly user moderated. I can’t speak for when @kittensinthekitchen first saw the image in question, but surely…A1 filters should be able to recognise (and not allow through) a baby’s genitalia/anus. Otherwise, what’s the point of them?

AI isn't perfect though, and it's unwise of anyone to expect it to get it right all the time because it never will.

The whole reason that the AI filtering was introduced was because people kept spamming users with images of child sexual abuse, on threads and via DM. So surely at the bare minimum it absolutely should not be allowing photos of naked babies to get through otherwise what's the point in using it in the first place?

I assume the point of using it is to get rid of the vast majority of dodgy images, and it does seem to have done that. But it's naive to think it can identify all dodgy images.

Hi
@BeckyAMumsnet

Just wondering if you're coming back to answer the further questions you invited?

@KellyMumsnet

Are you coming back to reply at all?

What would you like them to say? They've answered you.