6 ms·
The number of people saying that it is not worthy of intervention that every single woman who posts on twitter has to worry about somebody saying "hey grok, tak
by UncleMeat 10mo ago
The number of people saying that it is not worthy of intervention that every single woman who posts on twitter has to worry about somebody saying "hey grok, take her clothes off" and then be made into a public sex object is maybe the most acute example of rape culture that I've seen in decades.
- jeffbee 10mo ago[flagged]
- trueismywork 10mo agoTaliban 2.0
- ux266478 10mo agoThe Taliban would have arrested and executed twitter users, twitter engineers and probably Musk himself for this nonsense.
- cogman10 10mo agoAh no, I don't think you understand how religious fundamentalism works in practice. For most fundamentalist religions, men are almost never penalized for bad behavior. It's nearly impossible to find a man being killed for violating a morality law including selling pornography or engaging in prostitution. But on the other hand, it's very easy to find examples of women getting stoned for dressing improperly.
- ux266478 10mo agoFirstly, what we are talking about here is not "selling pornography" or "engaging in prostitution". It's a public event of widespread obscenity being actively defended by those who made it possible. I can't take your comparison seriously as being good faith. Secondly, you posit it's "nearly impossible to find a man being killed for violating a morality law", which is true because of two factors. The first of which is because it's difficult to find any kind of representative sample of justice being meted out in Afghanistan because it's not freely and actively reported on. The second of which is because the punishment for violating moral laws is usually public flogging. The idea that these laws overwhelmingly target women is false, most of the time the people being punished for breaking morality laws are men: https://amu.tv/137185 https://amu.tv/137185 It is clear to me the only thing you know about Afghanistan is that women unfortunately live as second class citizens. This is clear not only because of the naive things you say, but because you explicitly fall back to painting with ridiculously unspecific brushstrokes. With your knowledge exhausted, you revert to talking about "most fundamentalist religions", despite the domain already being pretty well defined to specifically the Taliban. You shoehorn in the misogyny angle, as though that's relevant to the context and makes your point stronger, but it's just vacuous nonsense. Your entire point seems to be that the justice system in Afghanistan primarily punishes women (which is an silly falsehood in and of itself), and that's why a major public figure enabling mass obscenity would entail no consequences? Are you actually out of your mind? There's simply no way you actually believe this crap. I'm sorry, that kind of naivete is just too ridiculous to buy. The cherry on top is that you lead all of this crypto neo-orientalist shit with "I don't think you understand how religious fundamentalism works in practice". Give me a break.
- esalman 10mo agoSaudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan in recent history have executed men explicitly for morality law violations such as adultery, sodomy, and apostasy.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo agoIs this speculation or were they caught on a hot mic?
- QuercusMax 10mo agoIt's obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo agoSo no checks against confirmation bias?
- QuercusMax 10mo agoElon only has male children, except for his trans daughter. That's very weird and also points to the same conclusion.
- bananaflag 10mo agoThere is also Exa Dark Sideræl
- QuercusMax 10mo agoSorry, my mistake - he has ONE biological daughter and how many sons?
- JumpCrisscross 10mo agoI’m not arguing the circumstantial evidence isn’t compelling. And as a talking point, it’s a good one. But as an argument made in good faith, I think one needs direct attribution to be able to say what something “plans.”
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- plorg 10mo agoIt's much more a goal of the third leg of the stool - Russell Vought.
- nomel 10mo ago[flagged]
- jeffbee 10mo agoThis place needs serious reforms before it's even 1% as useful or as well-moderated as Reddit.
- nilespotter 10mo ago[deleted]
- blell 10mo ago[flagged]
- pyth0 10mo agoIt's fucking weird and creepy, and it's sexual harassment.
- blell 10mo agoThat it may be, but it’s not rape.
- QuercusMax 10mo agoYou must not know what "rape culture" means. It doesn't mean just rape, but an environment in which misogyny and violence against women is normalized / celebrated / defended.
- blell 10mo ago[flagged]
- QuercusMax 10mo agoDoing it without their permission and posting it below their comments is definitely misogyny and sexual harassment. If you did that in the workplace you'd be fired for cause.
- mothballed 10mo ago[flagged]
- QuercusMax 10mo agoYikes dude. You clearly didn't read the first line of my comment. Let me reiterate: "Doing it without their permission and posting it below their comments is definitely misogyny and sexual harassment." There is NO reason to do this publicly, under a woman's comment, other than to harass them.
- nomilk 10mo agoThe same argument could be made of photoshopping someone's face on to a nude body. But for the most part, nobody cares (the only time I recall it happening was when it happened to David Brent in The Office).
- QuercusMax 10mo agoMaking fake revenge porn is an EXTREMELY common way to harass your ex.
- estearum 10mo agoMaybe "common" within the subset of people who viciously harass their exes?
- QuercusMax 10mo agoYes, that's the implication. If you're going to harass your ex, sharing their real or fake nudes is a very common thing for people to do.
- UncleMeat 10mo ago> But for the most part, nobody cares IMO, the fact that you would say this is further evidence of rape culture infecting the world. I assure you that people do care about this. And friction and quality matters. When you make it easier to generate this content and make the content more convincing, the number of people who do this will go up by orders of magnitude. And when social media platforms make it trivial to share this content you've got a sea change in this kind of harassment.
- GoatInGrey 10mo agoHow is "It's acceptable because people perform a lesser form of the same behavior" an argument at all? Taken to its logical extreme, you could argue that you shouldn't be prevented from punching children in the face because there are adults in the world who get punched in the face. Obviously, this is an insane take, but it applies the same logic you've outlined here.
- foxglacier 10mo ago[flagged]
- axblount 10mo agoCan you not see a difference between someone's imagination and a publicly posted image? Posting a photo of yourself online is not an invitation for AI generated nudes.
- foxglacier 10mo agoYes it is! Internet safety 101. Don't post stuff in public that you don't want to be public. There's always going to be creepy people doing whatever they want with all your public information. No AI company can stop that - the cat's out of the bag once you publish it to the whole world.
- freejazz 10mo agoReally? Is that what everyone thought on Instagram? I shouldn't post these selfies, one day someone will turn them into nudes, without my permission?
- foxglacier 10mo agoNo. By the time Instagram became popular, people had disregarded those early internet safety lessons.
- biophysboy 10mo agoThis thread is genuinely enraging. The people making false appeals to higher principles (eg section 230) in order to absolve X of any guilt are completely insane if you take the situation at face value. Here we have a new tool that allows you to make porn of users, including minors, in an instant. None of the other new AI platforms seem to be having this problem. And yet, there are still people here making excuses.
- epistasis 10mo agoAt this point in time, no comment that has the string "230" in it is saying that Section 230 absolves X of anything. Lot's of people are asking if it might, and if that's what X is relying on here. I brought up Section 230 because it used to be that removal of Section 230 was an active discussion in the US, particularly for Twitter, pre-Elon, but seems to have fallen away. With content generated by the platform, it certainly seems reasonable to understand how Section 230 applies, if it all, and I in particular think that Section 230 protections should probably be removed for X in particular.
- biophysboy 10mo ago> At this point in time, no comment that has the string "230" in it is saying that Section 230 absolves X of anything. You are correct; I read your earlier post as "did we forget our already established principle"? I admit I'm a bit tilted by X doing this. In my defense, there are people making the "blame the user, not the tool" argument here though, which is the core idea of section 230
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- mk89 10mo agoElon Musk mentioned multiple times that he doesn't want to censor. If someone does or says something illegal on his platform, it has to be solved by law enforcement, not by someone on his platform. When asked to "moderate" it, he calls that censorship. Literally everything he does and says is about Freedom - no regulations, or as little as possible, and no moderation. I believe he thinks the same applies to Grok or whatever is done on the platform. The fact that "@grok do xyz" makes it instanteous doesn't mean you should do it.
- anal_reactor 10mo ago[flagged]
- nomel 10mo agoThis rule faded from internet culture along with "don't use your real information". This rule started from people doing exactly this, 20 something years ago, and it making the rounds in the press.
- nurumaik 10mo agoIf you ban grok, people will generate using unlocked open chinese models Also, this always existed in one form or another. Draw, photoshop, imagine, discuss imaginary intercourse with popular person online or irl It's not worthy of intervention because it will happen anyway and it doesn't fundamentally change much
- jutter 10mo ago[flagged]
- mothballed 10mo ago[dead]
- jutter 10mo ago[dead]
- pcoyne 10mo agoThis weekend has made me explicitly decided my kids photos will never be allowed on the internet especially social media. Its was just absolutely disgusting.
- theLegionWithin 10mo agoeh, it's the social media tax. don't like it? don't use social media. problem solved.