🤖 AI Summary
This study addresses the conflict between anti-censorship norms and content governance within AI-generated pornography communities, alongside associated abuse risks. Employing in-depth interviews and qualitative analysis, it systematically reveals the governance contradictions between implicit community norms and explicit regulations. This research is the first to elucidate the mechanisms of community formation, underlying value tensions, and the resulting spaces for abuse, thereby transcending purely technical perspectives. Building on these insights, the paper proposes a multidimensional collaborative governance framework integrating technological, communal, and legal strategies. These findings provide both theoretical foundations and practical pathways for mitigating the misuse of AI-generated content, effectively bridging a critical gap in the literature on AI subculture governance.
📝 Abstract
As AI-generated sexual content (AIG-SC) is increasingly produced, online communities have emerged to support creators' needs. To understand whether and how community governance attempts work to prevent abuse while supporting free expression, we interviewed 24 members and moderators of large AIG-SC online communities (10,000+ members) with stated rules against creating and sharing abusive content (e.g., AI-generated CSAM). Through in-depth interviews, we offer insight into: (1) how and why these communities form; (2) implicit community norms; (3) explicitly stated rules---and their operationalization via content moderation; and (4) tensions between community values and moderation that leave space for abusive behavior.
Our findings reveal a complex picture: while many creators and communities have personal boundaries against abuse, advice and resources for creating any form of AI-generated sexual content are accessible to users regardless of their intentions. Further complicating community moderation are norms that center anti-censorship and non-judgment, which leave moderators to justify their actions using the limits of the law and terms of service. We end by reflecting on the ways in which technical, community, and legal governance may most effectively mitigate the production of abusive content.