[annoyingnoob]

This is what software as law looks like. The software actually found one or more pictures of a nude child and banned the account - the software worked exactly as intended. As humans we can see the issue here, the software cannot see or understand the issue. Google is not about to start carving exceptions out of its government mandated or coerced scanning feature, it can only follow the rule that any nudity involving children is bad.

[_aavaa_]

Expect that the software did not work as intended. It’s intended to identify child sexual abuse material and this was not that.

[annoyingnoob]

This is one group that Google works with: https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/csam

Their definition and yours are not exactly the same. If you read what they have to say, you'll see that the issues are more broad than whatever you personally call abuse, and those issues include exploitation and distribution of images that victims find harmful. Are you a victim of abuse or exploitation? Who are you to determine what a victim finds abusive or exploitative?

I'm not saying I agree with this situation, just that I can see how it happened and why Google won't do anything in this case.

[_aavaa_]

I didn't give a definition for what constitutes abuse.

My point is that the software is not working as intended. The intent is to stop child abuse, but the software they build does not identify child abuse it identifies what it believes to be naked (semi-naked?) minors. Those are two different things.

A photo you take of your kid for the doctor to see in order to treat them is not CSAM. Neither is a photo of your naked baby.

But those same photos if stolen from you or taken by others for different (less wholesome) reasons would be. But, and most importantly, that context is not to be found in the photo itself.