5 ms·

This 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 insan

This 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 9mo ago
At 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
[deleted]
mk89 9mo ago
Elon 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.
- tylerchilds 9mo ago
  I think his target demographic benefits from the degradation of women; a feature, not a defect; ticket closed; won’t fix. Anyways, super cool that anyone speaking out already has their SSN in his DB.
- biophysboy 9mo ago
  I think it is completely fine for a tech platform to proactively censor AI porn. It is ok to stop men from generating porn of random women and kids. We don't need to get the police involved. I do not think non-consensual porn or CSAM should be protected by free speech. This is an obvious, no-brainer decision.
  - mk89 9mo ago
    Second line of the article. > X is planning to purge users generating content that the platform deems illegal, including Grok-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Which is moderating/censoring. The tool (Grok) will not be updated to limit it - that's all. Why? I have no idea, but it seems lately that all these AI tools have more freedom than us humans.
    - biophysboy 9mo ago
      An AI porn tool makes the world less free, even with post hoc purges. That is the point. If you want to be an actress and you are 14 years old, you now have to worry about tools that make porn of you. If you are an ordinary woman that wants to share photos with your friends on instagram, you now have to worry about people making porn of you!
      - duskdozer 9mo ago
        It's the "freedom from/freedom to" thing that always comes up when talking about "freedom"
- mk89 9mo ago
  Why the downvotes? The one above is not my opinion (although I partially agree with it, and now you can downvote this one :D ). To be honest, I don't care at all about X nor about an almost trillionaire. It was full of bots before, now it's full of "AI agents". It's quite hard sometimes to navigate through that ocean of spam, fake news, etc. Grok makes it easier, but it's still ugly and annoying to read 90-95% always the same posts.
darth_avocado 9mo ago
I am not a lawyer but my understanding of section 230 was that platforms are not responsible for the content their users post (with limitations like “you can’t just host CSAM”). But as far as I understand, if the platform provides tools to create a certain type of harmful content, section 230 doesn’t protect it. Like there’s a difference between someone downloading a photo off the internet and then using tools like photoshop to make lewd content before reuploading it, as compared to the platform just offering a button to do all of that without friction.
- skywhopper 9mo ago
  1) These images are being posted by @Grok, which is an official X account, not a user account. 2) X still has an ethical and probably legal obligation to remove these images from their platform, even if they are somehow found not to be responsible for generating them, even though they generated them.
  - darth_avocado 9mo ago
    For #2, you are correct. Section 230 isn’t blatant immunity, you need to still follow all the other relevant laws including FOSTA-SESTA, DMCA etc.
- biophysboy 9mo ago
  > But as far as I understand, if the platform provides tools to create a certain type of harmful content, section 230 doesn’t protect it. That's interesting - do you have a link for this? I'd be curious to know more of the section's details.
  - darth_avocado 9mo ago
    Again I’m not a lawyer and this is my interpretation of the #3 requirement of section 230: “The information must be "provided by another information content provider", i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue” If grok is generating these images, I am interpreting this as Twitter could be becoming an information content provider. I couldn’t find any relevant rulings but I doubt any exist since services like Grok are relatively new.
belorn 9mo ago
> None of the other new AI platforms seem to be having this problem The very first AI code generators had this issue that user could make illegal content by making specific requests. A lot of people, me including, saw this as a problem, and there were a few copyright lawsuits arguing this. The courts however did not seem to be very sympathetic to this argument, putting the blame on the user rather than the platform. Here is hoping that Grok forces regulations to decide on this subject once and for all.

epistasis 9mo ago

At 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 9mo 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 9mo ago

[deleted]

mk89 9mo ago

Elon 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.

tylerchilds 9mo ago
I think his target demographic benefits from the degradation of women; a feature, not a defect; ticket closed; won’t fix. Anyways, super cool that anyone speaking out already has their SSN in his DB.
biophysboy 9mo ago
I think it is completely fine for a tech platform to proactively censor AI porn. It is ok to stop men from generating porn of random women and kids. We don't need to get the police involved. I do not think non-consensual porn or CSAM should be protected by free speech. This is an obvious, no-brainer decision.
- mk89 9mo ago
  Second line of the article. > X is planning to purge users generating content that the platform deems illegal, including Grok-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Which is moderating/censoring. The tool (Grok) will not be updated to limit it - that's all. Why? I have no idea, but it seems lately that all these AI tools have more freedom than us humans.
  - biophysboy 9mo ago
    An AI porn tool makes the world less free, even with post hoc purges. That is the point. If you want to be an actress and you are 14 years old, you now have to worry about tools that make porn of you. If you are an ordinary woman that wants to share photos with your friends on instagram, you now have to worry about people making porn of you!
    - duskdozer 9mo ago
      It's the "freedom from/freedom to" thing that always comes up when talking about "freedom"
mk89 9mo ago
Why the downvotes? The one above is not my opinion (although I partially agree with it, and now you can downvote this one :D ). To be honest, I don't care at all about X nor about an almost trillionaire. It was full of bots before, now it's full of "AI agents". It's quite hard sometimes to navigate through that ocean of spam, fake news, etc. Grok makes it easier, but it's still ugly and annoying to read 90-95% always the same posts.

darth_avocado 9mo ago

I am not a lawyer but my understanding of section 230 was that platforms are not responsible for the content their users post (with limitations like “you can’t just host CSAM”). But as far as I understand, if the platform provides tools to create a certain type of harmful content, section 230 doesn’t protect it. Like there’s a difference between someone downloading a photo off the internet and then using tools like photoshop to make lewd content before reuploading it, as compared to the platform just offering a button to do all of that without friction.

skywhopper 9mo ago
1) These images are being posted by @Grok, which is an official X account, not a user account. 2) X still has an ethical and probably legal obligation to remove these images from their platform, even if they are somehow found not to be responsible for generating them, even though they generated them.
- darth_avocado 9mo ago
  For #2, you are correct. Section 230 isn’t blatant immunity, you need to still follow all the other relevant laws including FOSTA-SESTA, DMCA etc.
biophysboy 9mo ago
> But as far as I understand, if the platform provides tools to create a certain type of harmful content, section 230 doesn’t protect it. That's interesting - do you have a link for this? I'd be curious to know more of the section's details.
- darth_avocado 9mo ago
  Again I’m not a lawyer and this is my interpretation of the #3 requirement of section 230: “The information must be "provided by another information content provider", i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue” If grok is generating these images, I am interpreting this as Twitter could be becoming an information content provider. I couldn’t find any relevant rulings but I doubt any exist since services like Grok are relatively new.

belorn 9mo ago

> None of the other new AI platforms seem to be having this problem The very first AI code generators had this issue that user could make illegal content by making specific requests. A lot of people, me including, saw this as a problem, and there were a few copyright lawsuits arguing this. The courts however did not seem to be very sympathetic to this argument, putting the blame on the user rather than the platform. Here is hoping that Grok forces regulations to decide on this subject once and for all.