Your fact-checks will appear here
Research facility in Wageningen, the Netherlands
Automated CSAM detection on internet platforms uses two main technical pillars: hash‑matching to find previously verified content (e.g., PhotoDNA, perceptual/fuzzy hashes) and machine‑learning classif...
Commercial -detection products from and combine traditional hash‑matching against known illicit files with machine‑learning classifiers that operate on image embeddings and text classifiers to surface...
says it has added multiple technical and policy layers to detect and block AI-generated child sexual abuse material (), including semantic intent analysis, a visual classifier for biometric markers, e...
There are no provided sources that describe X or xAI’s CSAM reporting workflow specifically; available reporting instead documents how electronic service providers (ESPs) typically detect, report and ...
There is clear, repeated reporting that industry vendors and non‑profits have developed AI classifiers able to flag novel and beyond traditional (, , , ) . However, none of the provided documents say ...
Platforms rely on layered technical and human checks—hash-based matching to known , machine‑learning classifiers for novel material, and human moderation/triage—plus engineered reporting workflows and...
The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) treats AI‑generated child sexual abuse material (AIG‑CSAM) as CSAM, routing reports through its CyberTipline, attempting to triage, identif...
Platforms in 2025 combine legacy hash‑matching with new AI classifiers, third‑party moderation vendors, industry signal‑sharing and legal reporting obligations to detect and remove AI‑generated CSAM; ...