6 ms·
> Prosecutors say they are now investigating whether X has broken the law across multiple areas. This step could come before a police raid. This looks like pl
by Altern4tiveAcc 8mo ago
> Prosecutors say they are now investigating whether X has broken the law across multiple areas.
This step could come before a police raid.
This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers.
- moolcool 8mo ago> This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers. The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography.
- gulfofamerica 8mo ago[dead]
- ChrisGreenHeur 8mo ago[flagged]
- KaiserPro 8mo agoNot really, they put a shit ton of effort in to make sure you can't create any kind of nude/suggestive pictures of anyone. I imagine they have strict controls on making images of children, but I don't feel inclined to find out.
- ChrisGreenHeur 8mo agoyou understand that the brush tool in photoshop exists?
- trhway 8mo agoInternet routers, network cards, the computers, OS and various application software have no guardrails and is used for all the nefarious things. Why those companies aren't raided?
- trothamel 8mo agoDon't forget polaroid in that.
- sirnicolaz 8mo agoThis is like comparing the danger of a machine gun to that of a block of lead.
- trhway 8mo agoMay be. We do have codified in law definition of machine gun which clearly separates it from a block of lead. What codified in law definitions are used here to separate photoshop from Grok in the context of those deepfakes and CSAM? Without such clear legal definitions going after Grok while not going after photoshop is just an act of political pressure.
- bootsmann 8mo agoWhy do you think France doesn’t have such laws that delineate this legal definition? What you’re implying here is that Musk should be immune from any prosecution simply because he is right wing, which…
- moolcool 8mo agoTake a step back and look at what you’re defending, man.
- trhway 8mo agoi don't understand why you're defending CSAM creation in photoshop.
- protocolture 8mo ago[flagged]
- bluescrn 8mo agoThey don’t provide a large platform for political speech. This isn’t about AI or CSAM (Have we seen any other AI companies raided by governments for enabling creation of deepfakes, dangerous misinformation, illegal images, or for flagrant industrial-scale copyright infringement?)
- pdpi 8mo agoI'm of two minds about this. One the one hand, it seems "obvious" that Grok should somehow be legally required to have guardrails stopping it from producing kiddie porn. On the other hand, it also seems "obvious" that laws forcing 3D printers to detect and block attempts to print firearms are patently bullshit. The thing is, I'm not sure how I can reconcile those two seemingly-obvious statements in a principled manner.
- _trampeltier 8mo agoIt is very different. It is YOUR 3d printer, no one else is involved. You might print a knife and kill somebody with it, you go to jail, not third party involved. If you use a service like Grok, then you use somebody elses computer / things. X is the owner from computer that produced CP. So of course X is at least also a bit liable for producing CP.
- pdpi 8mo agoHow does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
- mikeyouse 8mo agoThe safe harbor provisions largely protect X from the content that the users post (within reason). Suddenly Grok/X were actually producing the objectionable content. Users were making gross requests and then an LLM owned by X, using X servers and X code would generate the illegal material and then post it to the website. The entity responsible is no longer done user but instead the company itself.
- luke5441 8mo agoYes, and that was a very stupid product decision. They could have put the image generation into the post editor, shifting responsibility to the users. I'd guess Elon is responsible for that product decision.
- 8mo ago
- cubefox 8mo ago> The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography. Do you have any evidence for that? As far as I can tell, this is false. The only thing I saw was Grok changing photos of adults into them wearing bikinis, which is far less bad.
- scott_w 8mo agoDid you miss the numerous news reports? Example: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbot-grok-used-to-create-child-sexual-abuse-imagery-watchdog-says https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/08/ai-chatbo... For obvious reasons, decent people are not about to go out and try to general child sexual abuse material to prove a point to you, if that’s what you’re asking for.
- cubefox 8mo agoFirst of all, the Guardian is known to be heavily biased again Musk. They always try hard to make everything about him sound as negative as possible. Second, last time I tried, Grok even refused to create pictures of naked adults. I just tried again and this is still the case: https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab https://x.com/i/grok/share/1cd2a181583f473f811c0d58996232ab The claim that they released a tool with "seemingly no guardrailes" is therefore clearly false. I think what instead has happened here is that some people found a hack to circumvent some of those guardrails via something like a jailbreak.
- xoac 8mo ago[flagged]
- scott_w 8mo agoFor more evidence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg1mzlryxeo Also, X seem to disagree with you and admit that CSAM was being generated: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-for-grok-generated-csam-no-fixes-announced/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/01/x-blames-users-f... Also the reason you can’t make it generate those images is because they implemented safeguards since that article was written: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/ofcom-launches-investigation-into-x-over-grok-sexualised-imagery https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c... This is because of government pressure (see Ofcom link). I’d say you’re making yourself look foolish but you seem happy to defend nonces so I’ll not waste my time.
- ljsprague 8mo agoNo other "AI" companies released tools that could do the same?
- hackinthebochs 8mo agoIn fact, Gemini could bikinify any image just like Grok. Google added guardrails after all the backlash Grok received.
- mekdoonggi 8mo agoAnd they should face consequences for that, somewhat mitigated by their good faith response.
- aaomidi 8mo agoLmao they literally made a broad accessible CSAM maker.
- Playboi_Carti 8mo ago[flagged]
- ilogik 8mo agoCar manufacturers are required to add features to make it less likely that cars kill babies. What would happen if Volvo made a special baby-killing model with extra spikes?
- _trampeltier 8mo agoTesla did, the main reason, why there are no Cybertrucks in europe. They are not allowed, because they are to dangerous.
- emsign 8mo agoComparing Apples and Oranges. Defending this company is becoming cringe and ridiculous. X effed up, and Musk did it on purpose. He uses CSAM to strongman the boundaries of the law. That's not worth defending unless you also say eff the rule of law.
- lmm 8mo agoThe US would spend 20 years arguing about which agency's jurisdiction it was, and ignore the dead babies? No, wait, Volvo is European. They'd impose a 300% tariff and direct anyone who wanted a baby-killing model car to buy one from US manufacturers instead.
- vintermann 8mo agoAren't a lot of US pickup trucks basically that? Sure, maybe there's a mechanism for preventing you from installing a baby seat in reverse to position in front of an airbag, but they're also built so that you can't see anything adult human sized 15m in front of the car, let alone anything child-sized.
- orwin 8mo agoFrance prosecutors use police raids way more than other western countries. Banks, political parties, ex-presidents, corporate HQs, worksites... Here, while white-collar crimes are punished as much as in the US (i.e very little), we do at least investigate them.
- OhioMan2943 8mo ago[flagged]
- bawolff 8mo ago> and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers. Siezing records is usually a major step in an investigation. Its how you get evidence. Sure it could just be harrasment, but this is also how normal police work looks. France has a reasonable judicial system so absent of other evidence i'm inclined to believe this was legit.
- giancarlostoro 8mo ago> This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers. I wouldn't even consider this a reason if it wasn't for the fact that OpenAI and Google, and hell literally every image model out there all have the same "this guy edited this underage girls face into a bikini" problem (this was the most public example I've heard so I'm going with that as my example). People still jailbreak chatgpt, and they've poured how much money into that?
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- emsign 8mo agoThey've already broken the law by creating and hosting CSAM. Now let's see what else prosecutors will find.
- 317070 8mo agoWell, there is evidence that this company made and distributed CSAM and pornographic deepfakes to make a profit. There is no evidence lacking there for the investigators. So the question becomes if it was done knowingly or recklessly, hence a police raid for evidence. See also [0] for a legal discussion in the German context. [0] https://arxiv.org/html/2601.03788v1 https://arxiv.org/html/2601.03788v1
- skissane 8mo ago> Well, there is evidence that this company made and distributed CSAM I think one big issue with this statement – "CSAM" lacks a precise legal definition; the precise legal term(s) vary from country to country, with differing definitions. While sexual imagery of real minors is highly illegal everywhere, there's a whole lot of other material – textual stories, drawings, animation, AI-generated images of nonexistent minors – which can be extremely criminal on one side of an international border, de facto legal on the other. And I'm not actually sure what the legal definition is in France; the relevant article of the French Penal Code 227-23 [0] seems superficially similar to the legal definition of "child pornography" in the United States (post-Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition), and so some–but (maybe) not all–of the "CSAM" Grok is accused of generating wouldn't actually fall under it. (But of course, I don't know how French courts interpret it, so maybe what it means in practice is something broader than my reading of the text suggests.) And I think this is part of the issue – xAI's executives are likely focused on compliance with US law on these topics, less concerned with complying with non-US law, in spite of the fact that CSAM laws in much of the rest of the world are much broader than in the US. That's less of an issue for Anthropic/Google/OpenAI, since their executives don't have the same "anything that's legal" attitude which xAI often has. And, as I said – while that's undoubtedly true in general, I'm unsure to what extent it is actually true for France in particular. [0] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070719/LEGISCTA000043405084/?anchor=LEGIARTI000043409170#LEGIARTI000043409170 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT0000...
- direwolf20 8mo agoIt wouldn't be called CSAM in France because it would be called a French word. Arguing definitions is arguing semantics. The point is, X did things that are illegal in France, no matter what you call them.
- gadders 8mo ago[flagged]
- direwolf20 8mo ago"The EU doesn't tolerate dissenting views." The dissenting views: naked little kids
- gadders 8mo ago[flagged]
- direwolf20 8mo agoWhy didn't they do this until X started publishing naked little kids?
- gadders 8mo ago[flagged]
- pfraze 8mo ago“They hated me and waited until I did something wrong to have an excuse to go after me.” And “They waited until I did something wrong to go after me.” Both contain an admission of wrong doing
- gadders 8mo ago[flagged]
- direwolf20 8mo agoMy guy, what do you think the complaint against X is?
- bluegatty 8mo agoNo, that's not at all how this works. They have a court order obviously to collect evidence. You have offered zero evidence to indicate there is 'political pressure' and that statement by prosecutors doesn't hint at that. 'No crime was prevented by harassing workers' is essentially non sequitor in this context. It could be that that this is political nonsense, but there would have to be more details. These issues are really hard but we have to confront them. X can alter electoral outcomes. That's where we are at.