The inclusion of “found” indicates that it is important to the action taken by Google, would be my interpretation.
Comment on A Developer Accidentally Found CSAM in AI Data. Google Banned Him For It
forkDestroyer@infosec.pub 3 days agoI’m being a bit extra but…
Your statement:
The article headline is wildly misleading, bordering on being just a straight up lie.
The article headline:
A Developer Accidentally Found CSAM in AI Data. Google Banned Him For It
The general story in reference to the headline:
- He found csam in a known AI dataset, a dataset which he stored in his account.
- Google banned him for having this data in his account.
- The article mentions that he tripped the automated monitoring tools.
The article headline is accurate if you interpret it as
“A Developer Accidentally Found CSAM in AI Data. Google Banned Him For It” (“it” being “csam”).
The article headline is inaccurate if you interpret it as
“A Developer Accidentally Found CSAM in AI Data. Google Banned Him For It” (“it” being “reporting csam”).
I read it as the former, because the action of reporting isn’t listed in the headline at all.
^___^
WildPalmTree@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Blubber28@lemmy.world 3 days ago
This is correct. However, many websites/newspapers/magazines/etc. love to get more clicks with sensational headlines that are technically true, but can be easily interpreted as something much more sinister/exciting. This headline is a great example of it. While you interpreted it correctly, or claim to at least, there will be many people that initially interpret it the second way you described. Me among them, admittedly. And the people deciding on the headlines are very much aware of that. Therefore, the headline can absolutely be deemed misleading, for while it is absolutely a correct statement, there are less ambiguous ways to phrase it.
MangoCats@feddit.it 3 days ago
This is pretty much the art of sensational journalism, popular song lyric writing and every other “writing for the masses” job out there.
Factual / accurate journalism? More noble, but less compensated.
obsoleteacct@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
It is a terrible headline. It can be debated whether it’s intentionally misleading, but if the debate is even possible then the writing is awful.
MangoCats@feddit.it 3 days ago
Awfully well compensated in terms of advertising views as compared with “good” writing.
Capitalism in the “free content market” at work.