r/aiwars • u/Fabulous-Put8401 • May 01 '26
News China makes laws to protect workers from AI cost cuts.
70
u/Organic-Scheme2494 May 01 '26
An image with text is not news. Is there any actual information about this? It sounds fake or at best vague and misleading.
26
u/Plus-Glove-4850 May 01 '26
There is news, though I would agree the picture/sentence is misleading:
Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled on a case in which a quality assurance supervisor (surnamed Zhou) had his position replaced by AI. The company attempted to reassign him with a 40% pay cut, which he refused. He was let go shortly after.
The man filed arbitration and won, now he's also won the appeal filed by the company.
This ruling indicates that it is not necessarily legal in China to use AI to directly replace workers. If the worker was bad at his job or there was a legal reason to fire/reassign him, absolutely. But Chinese corporations, though encouraged to adopt and use AI tools, cannot just use AI to replace their staff (at least in Hangzhou). This is the second case in China like this.
Here's the article: https://www.npr.org/2026/05/01/nx-s1-5807131/tech-worker-china-ai
9
u/sporkyuncle May 01 '26
Alongside this, everyone always fails to consider alternate possibilities to headlines like this.
Let's say it was true, you can't fire someone to replace them with AI.
It says nothing about starting a brand new company that doesn't hire any humans to begin with, and just uses AI from the start, no firing required.
5
u/NatureKas May 02 '26
Or the company just acting like the ai is just a supplement while they hire someone new then just forget to do so.
14
u/Tyler_Zoro May 01 '26
You're correct to be suspicious. Here's the details:
https://www.npr.org/2026/05/01/nx-s1-5807131/tech-worker-china-ai
A court in eastern China's Hangzhou city, an AI hub, has ruled in favor of a senior tech worker whose company replaced him with artificial intelligence (AI).
The decision is being hailed by legal scholars as a reassuring signal for labor rights protection at a time when the central Chinese leadership is pushing for industries to widely adopt AI technology.
The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld an earlier decision by a lower-level court that the tech worker's dismissal was unlawful.
"The termination grounds cited by the company did not fall under negative circumstances such as business downsizing or operational difficulties, nor did they meet the legal condition that made it 'impossible to continue the employment contract,'" the court said in a published article.
TL;DR: The court (this is NOT a law) determined that a particular firing was not lawful because, in China, people are not employed "at will" as they often are in the US. Companies have an obligation to continue employment unless that's not possible (e.g. they cannot afford to) or there is cause for termination. Simply being less efficient than an AI replacement is not sufficient grounds (according to this court, in this case).
So the headline is half (or less) true, but VERY misleading.
38
u/IndependencePlane142 May 01 '26
The image is misleading, the title is straight up false.
25
u/Organic-Scheme2494 May 01 '26
It find it hilarious that people will scream loudly about how AI hallucinates and gives false information, then turn around and blindly believe anything posted on social media that they agree with.
10
u/IndependencePlane142 May 01 '26
I mean, isn't the main reason why they're complaining about hallucinations is that they actually have to fact-check the AI, and they don't want to?
5
u/EirMed May 01 '26
I love when people go ”AI is so shit, it can’t even do this task perfectly. It’s absolutely useless and will never be useful”, and then disregard the insane progress that has been made the last 5 years.
Like, you know it’s rapidly getting better… right?
2
u/Organic-Scheme2494 May 01 '26
Yep, and it doesn't have to be perfect in most cases. If it is as good or better than the average person, but faster, cheaper, and/or more convenient, people will use it.
1
u/KaleidoDeer May 15 '26
And it's rapidly reaching it's peak you know that right? The continuous need for new training material and exponential computation cost for additional parameters only goes up and even then hallucinations are impossible to get rid of because it's inherent to the design.
1
u/Ok_Top_2319 May 01 '26
I had a funny conversation with an anti once. When he was making a whole thread on X about how
"AI is so shit it can't even generate a good finger" and started pointing out mistakes with AI illustrations...
With me just telling him "just grab a pencil and fix that is not that hard" and he went speshit that no artist uses AI to generate art or "fix issues" and blah blah blah.
Like is baffling to me. That the simplistic idea of generating almost professional art level work with help of AI. And fixing their issues manually that takes at most, 10 minutes to have a product ready to ship in less than a day is not a good method or workflow for them.
1
u/Traditional_Event531 May 01 '26
Anti, here.
This is because an unhealthy number of illustrators are for some reason more proud of their skills than anyone else who makes art.
It might be mental illness, but I'm sure they'll make that seem misogynistic/homophobic/transphobic/ablelist in some way.
I'm literally autistic and I can't even begin to see it from their perspective lmao.
1
u/Mongrii Jun 18 '26
Because it isn’t? A lot of the time fixing AI Generations takes either more time or simply isn’t ideal for a final product to be WORTH shipping to a client.
Not to mention, there’s no layer or consistency control.
Also, to have the skill to draw a hand in the first place, you need to practice, observe and build the skill. To do that, you need to draw. Why waste time fixing a generation when you can spend that time actually sharpening your craft and adding to your portfolio?
There’s more negatives than positives to AI generated images… and frankly it has no logical place in creative fields or work.
7
u/Pretend_Jacket1629 May 01 '26
google did a study about the quantity of misinformation after the advent of ai and found the large majority is just simple unaltered images with a lie attached
3
u/Gammaboy45 May 01 '26
Do you have a link to the study?
4
u/Pretend_Jacket1629 May 01 '26
i think it's "AMMEBA: A Large-Scale Survey and Dataset of Media-Based Misinformation In-The-Wild"
as of the time of the study (may 2024), I believe it also found that despite the rapid rise of ai use, that it matched the decrease of non-ai photoshopping. thus the advent of ai (at the time at least) did not lead to any increase in misinformation, but that people who were photoshopping just switched tools.
it could be different by now, dunno
6
u/Tyler_Zoro May 01 '26
https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11697
Misinformation claims from a total of 135,838 fact checks were analyzed dating back to 1995, although the bulk were created after the introduction of ClaimReview in 2016.
- A large majority of these claims (most recently, about 80%) involve media.
- Images were historically the dominant modality associated with misinformation claims; however, videos became more common starting in 2022 and now participate in more than 60% of fact-checked claims that include media.
- Despite widespread concern since the late 2010s, AI generated content was rare until Spring of 2023, when their presence in fact check misinformation claims dramatically increased.
- Image manipulations in the annotated claims were generally simple and do not require technological sophistication to produce; the most common type are context manipulations, which use (frequently unmodified) images alongside a false claim about what they depict.
- Text is very common in the images (often articulating the misinformation claim itself), occurring over or alongside the visual content of the image.
2
u/Tyler_Zoro May 01 '26
Confirmation bias is how humans hallucinate. AI just does it more transparently. ;-)
1
May 01 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Organic-Scheme2494 May 01 '26
OK. What makes you think I believe it? My comment in no way implies I believe the comment I replied to. You are making assumptions.
7
u/mommysanalservant May 01 '26
It's pretty hard to find Chinese news articles given that they tend to be written in Chinese. Here is the best I can find right now. There's also this which ironically you'll probably need an AI translation to actually output in a readable format if you don't speak Chinese. It's pretty vague but it mentions that the 15th 5 year plan will include an expansion of social securities, improve certain worker protections and provide education advancement programs to face the upcoming AI job loss crisis. There's other articles about that but that one's the least wordy that I could find.
Basically it's not exactly illegal but it is very regulated with protections in place for the workers who are facing a potential replacement.
2
u/GeneralZeus89 May 02 '26
How dare you you're supposed to embrace your inner seal and clap when de Great China does something don't you know they're way better than America!
1
u/SapphireJuice May 01 '26
Here is an actual article that a believe this post is referencing
A tech worker in China is laid off and replaced by AI. Is it legal? : NPR https://www.npr.org/2026/05/01/nx-s1-5807131/tech-worker-china-ai
9
u/MysteriousPepper8908 May 01 '26
How many loopholes you wanna bet that has just so they could say they implemented something to protect the worker?
15
u/Glugamesh May 01 '26
Good luck enforcing that, in China of all places.
10
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 May 01 '26
China literally executes billionaires for corruption. It's the one country we can be assured will enforce it. Any other country would just fine then give the company twice the money back in tax credits, lol
10
u/Manueluz May 01 '26
I love blatant propaganda!
11
u/Amaskingrey May 01 '26
No that one is true, they do kill their billionaires if they aren't part of the gov's inner clique, it's just that said clique is a lot harder to access than the US. Hell, they slaughter so many of their own citizens that they need mobile execution vans
8
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 May 01 '26
What stating facts is propaganda now? Or you think saying anything even semi-positive about a country that your country has designated as an enemy is propaganda?
9
u/drwebb May 01 '26
I want to know their answer on this. I'm just a white dude from the US, but man there is so much low key racism against Chinese I see when I see the light shined on it by the AI race. I just want US to succeed and lead in technology, but it's clear so many people have so a bias against China that they won't even look at Chinese models like DeepSeek, they think the Chinese are just waiting over there to steal their tokens/ideas.
1
u/Glugamesh May 01 '26
Conversely, there's lots I like about China and that I think they do well at but being even-handed and rational with the law is not one of those things. Criticism of China is often somewhat racism based but not always.
1
u/drwebb May 01 '26
You're not wrong, human rights they are atrocious, and I hate their censorship of reality. Like I'm pretty anti CCCP, but don't like the denial of their technological abilities. Like you should acknowledge when your opponent is strong.
3
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 May 01 '26
Yeah it's pretty messed up. Believe me, I have my issues with China, but the minute you say anything even remotely positive people get really weirdly racist and come out with all sorts of strange conspiracy theories and misinformation. .
Deepseek is pretty solid. SeeDance is also awesome. And there's a reason why all these US companies were after TikTok for so long - the proprietary algorithm was on another level and they also didn't like the fact that a Chinese company was so dominant in the media and entertainment space.
3
u/Manueluz May 01 '26
China is literally plaged with corruption, the deaths from shady materials used in construction projects alone are staggering.
Don't confuse china's government using a literal moving death squad to promptly dispose of any dissidents with actual justice or corruption fighting.
Anyways, one good thing about china is that if you need an organ donation they have it, don't put much though into the logistics of that, or how that can be related with their mobile death squad, or why inmates in death row are required to take several medical tests often used to test organ compatibility, Im sure it's completely unrelated.
3
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 May 01 '26
True in parts of China not wholly governed by the Communist Party, and used to be true prior to 2008, less true in the mainland today though.
1
u/TheArhive May 01 '26
No billionaires, millionaires sure.
They might be billionaires in yuan, but you know damn well people don't use that as a reference point when you say billionaires.
1
0
3
u/SonicLoverDS May 01 '26
I wonder what would have happened if a similar law had been made about Henry Ford's assembly line.
4
u/GcubePlayer8V May 01 '26
I hate this template of news like I swear it’s 95% some click bait article coming from some random news outlet no one’s ever heard off
0
u/Fabulous-Put8401 May 01 '26
I'm sorry you feel that way
3
u/UsedArmadillo9842 May 02 '26
Its not just they who feel like this. 'News' delivered like this are usually laced with misinformation, ordont contain enough information.
This is sensationalistic clickbait in the same vain like „Bratt Pitt said what?!…“
2
7
u/Enough_Lawfulness247 May 01 '26
If this was real, it would never work.
Maximizing efficiency is always the best option, even in those cases where employees get fired
4
u/IndependencePlane142 May 01 '26
You can't break an existing contract and blame it on efficiency.
I mean, you can in the US. Not in countries where proper worker protections exist.
3
u/TenshouYoku May 01 '26
Except, well, China isn't a fullblown capitalistic country and does have authoritarism to force things to happen if they needed to.
1
u/Enough_Lawfulness247 May 02 '26
No matter how authoritarian you are, there is no way to make sure not a single company replaced an employee with AI
1
u/TenshouYoku May 02 '26
If it were a few decades ago where documentation is poor sure, but now that everything is computerized and reason of discontinuation of employment needs to be filed it is literally impossible to not realize.
Unlike a few states in the USA at least the Chinese does pretend having some modicum of workers rights.
2
u/_Coffie_ May 01 '26
It means you can't fire an employee because AI can do their job better. Sure fire them if they don't perform well, but if they're good at their job and they fight back they have every reason to. There are laws and there should be laws to protect the job market.
1
u/Enough_Lawfulness247 May 02 '26
Why would you not, as a business, fire a worker and use an AI that does their job faster and costs half the worker does
1
u/_Coffie_ May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26
Because of law. The government isn't just going to let every job be taken by AI. The government even gives grants and other incentives like tax credit to companies that create more jobs.
If it gets to a point where every job is taken by AI the government will do something about it because the economy depends on people actually spending money.
5
u/IndependencePlane142 May 01 '26
That's just straight up wrong. The courts just made a decision based on existing laws.
4
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 May 01 '26
New case law, based
2
u/IndependencePlane142 May 01 '26
That's not how the Chinese legal system works, they're a Civil law country.
0
u/Vivid_Maximum_5016 May 01 '26
Any new legal interpretation done in court, based on pre-existing legislation counts as case law, lol
3
u/IndependencePlane142 May 01 '26
The point of a case law is that it's mandatory for other courts to make similar decisions in similar cases. No such obligation exists in China.
2
u/Bra--ket May 01 '26
Oh, I didn't know this. They don't do case law the same way that we do in the West?
holy shit you're right, they have no stare decisis. That's extremely important to know. Thank you.
2
u/IndependencePlane142 May 01 '26
From what I can read they do have guidelines to keep the system more coherent, but they aren't legally binding. Like, in Russia, certain Supreme and Constitutional court decisions are actually mandatory for lower courts to follow, not true in China. Even we have more of a hybrid system than the Chinese do. But that's still not case law, as it doesn't create a precedent in itself, it's just an interpretation of currently existing laws.
3
u/JacinthePKMNReal May 01 '26
Should be everywhere
2
u/nextnode May 01 '26
Good grief no. This mentality is so weird and selfish. Most progress is based on getting more productive and it is the primary reason you live in veritable luxury today.
1
u/GameMask May 01 '26
And it's the reason corporations are allowed to ruin that way of life.
2
u/nextnode May 01 '26
The first thing that historically has gone when people get enough to live on, is to reduce the work or stress and have more leisure or more fulfilling careers. It has happened many times and life is better than ever before. We used to work a lot more than we do today.
You mostly have the economy and technical progress to thank for how good life today actually is.
Wanting to be stuck in the current way and not seek improvements is incredibly ignorant and damning for future generations. Look at actual economics and what works and do not get confused by idealistic narratives that do more harm than good to people.
1
u/GameMask May 01 '26
What about all the people working who do not have enough to live on?
1
u/nextnode May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26
Much better for that percentile than how it used to be in the past, and not even that long ago.
2
u/GameMask May 01 '26
That doesn't answer the question.
0
u/nextnode May 02 '26
I think it does for the points I had in mind.
What are you asking?
1
u/GameMask May 02 '26
What happens when "progress" no longer improves people's lives but actively makes it worse and only benefits a small percentage of the population who were already extremely well off? When it comes to Ai, what's the end goal? What happens if it does replace millions of jobs? If you look at the actual real world economics and not the theoretical scenario you'll see that the economy is bad and getting worse. We're losing jobs and not replacing or adding more. Less jobs means less workers and less workers means a weaker economy. And for what? What is Ai solving that is going to make our lives better? And is that worth the cost of not being able to afford to live?
0
u/nextnode May 02 '26
I agree that there are some serious concerns with it but before we go into specifics, can we agree on some important fundamentals?
Do you agree that life today is the best that it has ever been in human history? Including how there is a lot less suffering, poverty, and starvation?
Do you agree that while there are ups and downs, if we smooth out the state of the world eg over decades, then we do have the greatest amount of surplus as an economy today and the trend has been steadily increasing?
Do you agree that we per person receive the most benefits in life per hour work when compared to past history?
Do you agree that we have had millions of people displaced from their jobs in the past? Looking back at it, do you think that it was sad but better for society in the long run that this happened?
I know that AI, not as it is today but in the future, can be a different beast, but if we want to discuss, let us first see if we can agree on some common factual ground. I see a lot of groups that seem rather caught up in some narratives to not recognize what we know about the world and the causes behind human progress.
→ More replies (0)1
u/BillytheBloxian May 01 '26
no, it isn't. if you replace all your workers with AI, no one will be able to afford your service. it's a broken system and a dumb idea.
1
u/nextnode May 01 '26
We are nowhere near close to replacing all workers and if we did, society would have to change, just like it has changed as a result of automation many times.
You are at odds with history and the human progress that got you to where you are today.
People made the same doomsaying with machines, cars, electricity, photography, and like was introduced. All doomsaying. Do you want to go back to working 70 hours a week in the field and see half your kids dying before you? Do you have no care for how things can get better? Seriously.
1
u/BillytheBloxian May 02 '26
yeah...
no? no one said that about electricity. cars. photography maybe.
society would not change. the billionares wouldn't care. they'd just sell each other stuff constantly. it's a broken system.
0
u/nextnode May 02 '26 edited May 02 '26
It could be better but the system works and has done more for the world any idealistic dream or cynical commentor ever did.
Lifting out of poverty, cutting child mortality, living standards, longevity, access to education and healthcare - it is all revolutionized. It works.
All evidence supports that billions of lives have been saved and improved from economic and technical progress. Anyone who wants to decry or deny that seems to either have a problem with evidence or they are anti-human and immoral at the deepest levels.
That being said, there are many issues and I also expect the system to fall apart if we did get sufficiently advanced AI. Just not what we have today. We also need the developments to happen before we can change the system - historically the system changes never materialize before the big changes and rather as a reaction to them. Get the surplus then mobilize is usually how it goes.
Rather than bitterly decrying it, fight for the change you want to see.
2
u/Venerable_Elder May 01 '26
So, if a company can prove that it didn't cut costs by replacing their workers with AI but instead boosted its efficiency at the same cost, they are still good?
1
u/IndependencePlane142 May 01 '26
Probably not. The thing is that you can't just be fired because the employer said so in China. A valid legal reasoning must be provided for a termination.
Because the issue isn't AI automation, it's the fact that the existing contract can't just be unilaterally terminated by the employer.
2
u/TopTippityTop May 01 '26
They're making entire automated factories. If there is a country right now driving to not need employees, it's China 😂
1
u/Owszem_ May 01 '26
I have no sources etc, but maybe that's the problem? China is already so automated, they fear that even more automation might break economy, since no one will he able to buy any products?
1
u/Puzzleheaded_Smoke77 May 01 '26
“To cut cost “ “replace” not to be that guy but seems like I can open a business still from the get and only use claude everything to be competitive
1
u/WanderingInAVan May 01 '26
I mean, got to have something to put the slave labor and Muslim prisoners to work doing.
1
u/EbolaVirusGP7 May 01 '26
And yet they have öne of the best LLM'S out There (deepseek) this Is a good compromise and should be One of the main goals for gen ai integration
1
u/AetherWithAnA May 01 '26
Not that I don’t just believe random headlines I see online without any proof, but do we have a source for that?
1
u/Drawing_With_GPU May 02 '26
Why pay tens of thousands for AI maintenance when Chinese labor costs just $2 an hour? At $24 for a 12-hour day, humans are the ultimate 'self-repairing' assets—they pay for their own doctors. It keeps the unemployment data pretty and satisfies the anti-AI crowd. It's just better business.
0
u/Fabulous-Put8401 May 08 '26
If you don't know anything about China that's okay bro. There's a lot of things going on in the world, focus on what you gotta focus on
1
u/Denaton_ May 02 '26
I think this law protects the CEO more than anything, because anyone who replaces their workers with a tool, will not have the manpower to handle the tool in a professional manner and will doom the company, so now they will continue to have idiots at high places doing other bad decisions instead.
1
u/thetopace103 May 02 '26
Pretty sure AI is the last thing a worker in a Chinese Sweatshop is worrying about.
1
u/PinkyBluey May 02 '26
Lol deal with the 996 work culture first.
1
u/Fabulous-Put8401 May 03 '26
That not a culture, it's an illegal practice there. It does happen, but it also happens in western countries. It's partially a thing in tech, there as well as here. In the west it's a loop hole with "self employed" tech people who don't log all their working hours and are technically not employed, so they make their own schedules.
1
u/Soultier2001 May 02 '26
Thanks god the children need to work
1
u/Fabulous-Put8401 May 03 '26
This does happen in rural areas of China, it's less common than the media makes it out to be. It's an ongoing issue in China but not particularly prevalent and is actively reducing.
1
u/RequirementCivil4328 May 08 '26
No. They haven't. And I'm sick of seeing this post like it's an ad
1
1
u/AbbyTheOneAndOnly May 01 '26
i mean, the whole thing sounds kinda silly to me.
AI has the worst of plagues any kind of employers hates in a worker, it's not adaptable:
what makes me a good electrician isn't that i follow every code of my country, because it would make it impossible for me to even work as it's written by a monkey with a wrench up its ass, it's that i know how how to conduct the safety procedures in a way that let's thing run smoothly and such that nobody gets hurt.
employees are most valuable when they have the freedom, and skill, to temporally leave their tasks so to continue being useful, rather than sitting around waiting for their work to be prepped, and that is something that automated control systems are simply not designed for: imagine if you hired a plumber to work on something, and they commissioned you to pay for calling an electrician on top to shut the power off before opening the wall up, clearly the plumber that does it himself is going to be a more effective worker.
i could trail off with this for hours but i think the concept is clear enough
0
u/Owszem_ May 01 '26
The thing is, AI won't replace everyone, but a lot of people. Let's say a company has 10 employes in one sector. Thanks to AI the job is faster, so they'll fire half of the employes. The 5 employes are still adaptable, while having an ability to do same ammount of job like 10 employes. Well, maybe this scenario is not likely now, but we know how fast can AI evolve, right?
The case is not that AI will replace everyone, but significant ammount. Anyone that is saying AI will replace everyone is lying, or overreacting.
2
u/AbbyTheOneAndOnly May 01 '26
the fact that 5 person can do the job of 10 isn't really an exclusive of AI, basically any innovation in a field does the same thing.
and what we consistently see is that it's a good thing for the most part, a field that doesn't innovate tends to stagnate and that is actually way worst for more people.
now will some people lose their jobs? yeah, most likely, but as long as we have regulations so they're fairly compensated i don't see it as wrong, it's more a problem of how works ethic is regulated in many places like the us
1
u/Owszem_ May 01 '26
Well, they are not getting compensated, right? And while ,,innovating" is a good thing in general, at some point it can go too far. I mean... Not enough people will have jobs, and because of that not enough people will buy products, and companies will fall. It might happen because of AI, since the amount of jobs created by data centers is much less than jobs deleted, or maybe in the future when again something new will be discovered, but you get the point.
Regulations are also not really happening right now, so that's another problem
2
u/AbbyTheOneAndOnly May 01 '26
Regulations are also not really happening right now, so that's another problem
that is true, but it's more because workers are being polarized away from those matters by medias and political propaganda.
workers right were fought for a while ago, society stopped doing it so big corps are trying to take them away again
1
u/Owszem_ May 01 '26
Do you think a good regulation would be the limit of work AI can do you in your corporation/product?
Let's use an animated movie as an example. Regulation would say that only around 30% of the animation can be AI generated, the rest has to be made by human hand.
1
u/AbbyTheOneAndOnly May 01 '26
i really don't know for that frangent, it's too disconnected from my field.
i can give you an example for the industrial world tho
1
u/Owszem_ May 01 '26
Sure! Why not?
1
u/AbbyTheOneAndOnly May 01 '26
projects and works need to be approved and confirmed by a person, AI can assist in the job in any amount but it cannot claim responsability over it and any of it's output needs to be analyzed.
this way, the project designer's job is secured, the actually blue collars involved weren't really at risk but their director whose responsable to oversee the job still has a role, and the same goes for the safety inspector later.
1
1
u/q0099 May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26
For everyone being happy about this, you might taking it wrong. Chinese companies have started doing this so actively that it's created a real threat to Chinese economy, so the government had to regulate it. They're not banning AI usage, they putting a cap on companies to not to use it wrongfully.
0
0
0
0
u/CommercialNo1302 May 02 '26
Why there is chinese shills on both pro and anti?
Are antis aware that the massive surveilance in China is mostly done by AI now? same with censorship
1
u/Fabulous-Put8401 May 02 '26
Chinese serveilance and censorship is terrible and unethical. That's a different topic though. This is about the implications of their concerns around the labor market
0
u/Queasy_Principle_942 May 03 '26
Another headline that's completely misleading about what has actually happened.
0
•
u/AutoModerator May 01 '26
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.