A well-known social media platform has recently faced backlash for its AI policy and inadequate opt-out options. In summary, the platform is free to use anything publicly posted for AI training, including photos, artwork, and videos, without the creator’s consent. Users can opt out or object if they find their content being misused in the algorithm, though I doubt the platform will actually entertain such requests. Please note that all AI training done so far is irreversible.
Currently, this policy notification only appears for EU users in accordance with EU regulations.
This has sparked significant controversy within the artist community. Many artists have deleted their content and left the platform. This reaction is reminiscent of the early days of GenAI content on ArtStation, which led to the NoAI movement. However, after a year, ArtStation has pretty much regained its position.
The actions these social platforms have taken regarding AI training are undoubtedly disappointing. However, in the age of AI, any platform providing free services would want to exploit the resources available. In the 2020s, it was all about “traffic”; now it is about “content.” It is safe to say that regardless of which major platform you are on, they will still use your content for AI training.
Artists have a significant influence in pushing forward the social development of society, as seen in previous art movements. However, if you compare the demographics of artists on most social media platforms, artists have significantly smaller followings compared to larger influencers such as celebrities. This is especially true for non-artist-centric, public social platforms. Even if all artists leave this particular social platform, it will not have a significant effect on their revenues. Thus, I doubt the platform will really address the issues artists are facing.
In my opinion, anything publicly posted prior to the social platform notification is already been fed into their AI’s training algorithm. The notification was merely a gesture of polite. There is really small effect in rage-quitting the platform. I guess it is better to look for an alternative instead.
Cara
An artist-centric platform was established in early 2023 by Jingna Zhang, an activist for copyright protection for artists and creatives, after the NoAI movement on ArtStation. It did not gain much momentum until recent events.
Artists have been flooding onto the platform, and the server costs even reached a whopping $96,000!
In my observation, the platform itself started as a very small project. I think the founder is also not pushing for the platform to grow. At the moment, the platform is also lacking a business model to keep the site sustainable.
Personally, I love the environment of this new social media. A place with no AI and no ads, where artists can be artists and interact with others, is truly an Eden.
However, even though it is a “social” platform for even non-artists, I think Cara has been too artist-centric, which loses its public appeal. Not all content creators’ followers are artists. Some create content for non-artist readers. An artist-centric platform like Cara may not attract the traffic they are looking for.
We will wait and see if Cara can define its business model and game plan in the coming months beyond “buying them a coffee.” It is risky to maintain an account and content there when the site itself is not sustainable.
Conclusion
Influencers in the art community should appeal and fight for the rights in the AI training on these social media platform. However, for smaller content creators, it is unfortunate that they still required the traffic and views.
The only key to success is to keep drawing, keep creating, keep posting, keep developing your own style, and never fear AI. AI may have stolen your art and posts, but it can never steal your established style and identity.
Leave a Reply