6 ms·

EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

153 points by Terretta 3mo ago

ChrisArchitect 3mo ago
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-petition-waive-privacy-violation-order-should-be-rejected https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-...
- Terretta 3mo ago
  TY! The EFF featured update / press release at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-petition-waive-privacy-violation-order-should-be-rejected https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-... links to the letter, with color: Our response[^1] to X’s petition debunks many claims the company uses in its arguments. For example, there’s little evidence the order placed an undue financial burden on X. In our letter, we note that the compliance cost is merely “a rounding error against the $200 billion valuation of X Corp. following the xAI merger.” [^1]: public interest advocates opposing x petition 2026: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/07/02/public_interest_advocates_opposing_x_petition_2026.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2026/07/02/public_interest_advocat... The letter is more interesting than the cover, undersigned by Center for Digital Democracy, Check My Ads Institute, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Demand Progress Education Fund (“DPEF”), Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”), National Consumers League (“NCL”), Oregon Consumer Justice, Oregon Consumer League, Public Citizen, Travelers United and Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, and drafted by DPEF's Special Advisor Kate Oh (kate@demandprogress.org), EFF's Senior Staff Technologist William Budington (bill@eff.org), EPIC's Senior Counsel Sara Geoghegan (geoghegan@epic.org), and NCL's Senior Public Policy Manager Eden Iscil (edeni@nclnet.org).
  - ChrisArchitect 3mo ago
    Can update the link to the blog post; no need for this to be an arstechnica PDF
    - Terretta 3mo ago
      It didn't let me edit, I tried.
      - dang 3mo ago
        Done now! (Submitted URL was https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/EFF-letter-to-FTC-on-X-consent-order-7-2-26.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/EFF-l....)
close04 3mo ago
[flagged]
delichon 3mo ago
> Grok AI generated large amounts of CSAM and nonconsensual intimate imagery Grok Imagine has been considerably locked down in terms of intimate imagery over the last few weeks. E.g. Harley Quinn used to be one of the easiest characters to manipulate, with or without any resemblance to Margot Robbie. No more. X still serves up explicit hardcore, and Imagine used to get at least in that neighborhood, but that has been squelched. For prurient purposes, nerfed. Not at all limited to CSAM or real people. The pressure they're getting from all over seems to explain it.
- thinkcontext 3mo ago
  But they did resist locking it down, recall Musk making fun of concerns? They clearly don't take governance seriously, its whatever Musk is gravitating to in his filter bubble.
  - andrewinardeer 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mingus88 3mo ago
      https://www.npr.org/2026/01/16/nx-s1-5678965/elon-musks-x-to-block-ai-chatbot-grok-from-making-explicit-images-of-real-people https://www.npr.org/2026/01/16/nx-s1-5678965/elon-musks-x-to... - after weeks of mocking critics, X’s approach shifted only after investigations mounted https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5689660-xai-investigation-nonconsensual-images/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5689660-xai-investigat... - musk “not aware” of any naked underage images, pushing back on concerns https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/a-new-form-of-gendered-violence-elon-musk-s-grok https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/a-new-form-of-gende... - musk downplays concerns and blames users and hackers
      - nailer 3mo ago
        From your NPR article: > Previously, users could ask Grok to edit images and put people into revealing clothing like bikinis. It's because bikini photos aren't generally considered CSAM, or weren't until this year. NPR states "Musk mocks critics" but there is no evidence of him mocking CSAM concerns, and the second two documents don't mention Musk making fun of concerns at all. From your second article: > musk “not aware” of any naked underage images There aren't any naked underage images. They were bikini photos as linked to from your first article: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/grok-says-safeguard-lapses-led-images-minors-minimal-clothing-x-2026-01-02/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/grok-says-safeguard...
nailer 3mo ago
[flagged]
- ohyoutravel 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - nailer 3mo ago
    [flagged]
    - solid_fuel 3mo ago
      [flagged]
charcircuit 3mo ago
Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom.
- Jabrov 3mo ago
  The letter is more about privacy, not freedom. They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.
  - charcircuit 3mo ago
    >EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy.
    - WCSTombs 3mo ago
      As far as I know, EFF has always championed privacy.
    - majormajor 3mo ago
      Are you claiming that privacy can never be a prerequisite for freedom and/or justice? It's trivially easy to see cases where freedom+justice+innovation can conflict with each other (it's even trivially easy to see where they can conflict with each other specifically for innovations involving the reduction of privacy, ye olde panopticon.) So it's also trivially simple to understand that at some point you're gonna have to pick one over another. And note that freedom is the first word in that list.
      - charcircuit 3mo ago
        >And note that freedom is the first word in that list. Which is why I would like the EFF to support freedom.
    - hn_acker 3mo ago
guelo 3mo ago
[flagged]
- hdgvhicv 3mo ago
  [flagged]
hnburnsy 3mo ago
[dead]
maxlin 3mo ago
The article link appropriately disqualifies itself of not being partisan by the fact of the article explicitly having links to share it on multiple semi-dead platforms but not X. X, which they left with arguments about "reach" which don't pass half a smell test. Hope EFF digs itself out of the mud it finds itself in today in the future.
- hn_acker 3mo ago
  > The article link appropriately disqualifies itself of not being partisan Where does EFF call itself non-partisan, and how is that relevant to Twitter's/X's violations of privacy? Definitions of partisan include [1]: > An adherent to a party or faction. > A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. By the second definition and arguably by the first as well, EFF is fundamentally a partisan organization [2]: > The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. "Reach" was only ever one reason EFF stopped posting on X. Among yet other reasons, EFF had partisan reasons for leaving X [3]: > Twitter was never a utopia. We've criticized the platform for about as long as it’s been around. Still, Twitter did deserve recognition from time to time for vociferously fighting for its users’ rights. That changed. Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/partisan https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/partisan [2] https://www.eff.org/about https://www.eff.org/about [3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eff-leaving-x https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eff-leaving-x
  - maxlin 3mo ago
    Lots of words to say nothing. Obviously the original mission statement of EFF has been bipartisan, turning against Musk and by that turning a lot more anti-freedom of speech and anti-liberty has soiled their image. Them continuing on such extremely partisan platforms like Truth Social for the left (BlueSky) just makes them unsupportable. Which is something I'd thought I'd never say, but that's the world we live in. Where champions of justice get attacked, and censorious hate mills get even officially boosted. Just read your own arguments. X bad because it fires a team they'd never needed to have as a social media company just to stay afloat, especially as it was proven that those firings were tacitly necessary for the platform to survive? >"previously" fought off censorship demands This just proves you're either uninformed or lying on purpose. The furor with which Musk pushed Brazil and De Moraes to not censor people on X was awe-inspiring. Something the old Twitter never managed to do in such scale.

153 points by Terretta 3mo ago

Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-petition-waive-privacy-violation-order-should-be-rejected https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-...

Terretta 3mo ago
TY! The EFF featured update / press release at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-petition-waive-privacy-violation-order-should-be-rejected https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-... links to the letter, with color: Our response[^1] to X’s petition debunks many claims the company uses in its arguments. For example, there’s little evidence the order placed an undue financial burden on X. In our letter, we note that the compliance cost is merely “a rounding error against the $200 billion valuation of X Corp. following the xAI merger.” [^1]: public interest advocates opposing x petition 2026: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/07/02/public_interest_advocates_opposing_x_petition_2026.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2026/07/02/public_interest_advocat... The letter is more interesting than the cover, undersigned by Center for Digital Democracy, Check My Ads Institute, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Demand Progress Education Fund (“DPEF”), Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”), National Consumers League (“NCL”), Oregon Consumer Justice, Oregon Consumer League, Public Citizen, Travelers United and Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, and drafted by DPEF's Special Advisor Kate Oh (kate@demandprogress.org), EFF's Senior Staff Technologist William Budington (bill@eff.org), EPIC's Senior Counsel Sara Geoghegan (geoghegan@epic.org), and NCL's Senior Public Policy Manager Eden Iscil (edeni@nclnet.org).
- ChrisArchitect 3mo ago
  Can update the link to the blog post; no need for this to be an arstechnica PDF
  - Terretta 3mo ago
    It didn't let me edit, I tried.
    - dang 3mo ago
      Done now! (Submitted URL was https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/EFF-letter-to-FTC-on-X-consent-order-7-2-26.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/EFF-l....)

close04 3mo ago

[flagged]

delichon 3mo ago

> Grok AI generated large amounts of CSAM and nonconsensual intimate imagery Grok Imagine has been considerably locked down in terms of intimate imagery over the last few weeks. E.g. Harley Quinn used to be one of the easiest characters to manipulate, with or without any resemblance to Margot Robbie. No more. X still serves up explicit hardcore, and Imagine used to get at least in that neighborhood, but that has been squelched. For prurient purposes, nerfed. Not at all limited to CSAM or real people. The pressure they're getting from all over seems to explain it.

thinkcontext 3mo ago
But they did resist locking it down, recall Musk making fun of concerns? They clearly don't take governance seriously, its whatever Musk is gravitating to in his filter bubble.
- andrewinardeer 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - mingus88 3mo ago
    https://www.npr.org/2026/01/16/nx-s1-5678965/elon-musks-x-to-block-ai-chatbot-grok-from-making-explicit-images-of-real-people https://www.npr.org/2026/01/16/nx-s1-5678965/elon-musks-x-to... - after weeks of mocking critics, X’s approach shifted only after investigations mounted https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5689660-xai-investigation-nonconsensual-images/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/5689660-xai-investigat... - musk “not aware” of any naked underage images, pushing back on concerns https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/a-new-form-of-gendered-violence-elon-musk-s-grok https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/a-new-form-of-gende... - musk downplays concerns and blames users and hackers
    - nailer 3mo ago
      From your NPR article: > Previously, users could ask Grok to edit images and put people into revealing clothing like bikinis. It's because bikini photos aren't generally considered CSAM, or weren't until this year. NPR states "Musk mocks critics" but there is no evidence of him mocking CSAM concerns, and the second two documents don't mention Musk making fun of concerns at all. From your second article: > musk “not aware” of any naked underage images There aren't any naked underage images. They were bikini photos as linked to from your first article: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/grok-says-safeguard-lapses-led-images-minors-minimal-clothing-x-2026-01-02/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/grok-says-safeguard...

nailer 3mo ago

[flagged]

ohyoutravel 3mo ago
[flagged]
- nailer 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - solid_fuel 3mo ago
    [flagged]

charcircuit 3mo ago

Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom.

Jabrov 3mo ago
The letter is more about privacy, not freedom. They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.
- charcircuit 3mo ago
  >EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy.
  - WCSTombs 3mo ago
    As far as I know, EFF has always championed privacy.
  - majormajor 3mo ago
    Are you claiming that privacy can never be a prerequisite for freedom and/or justice? It's trivially easy to see cases where freedom+justice+innovation can conflict with each other (it's even trivially easy to see where they can conflict with each other specifically for innovations involving the reduction of privacy, ye olde panopticon.) So it's also trivially simple to understand that at some point you're gonna have to pick one over another. And note that freedom is the first word in that list.
    - charcircuit 3mo ago
      >And note that freedom is the first word in that list. Which is why I would like the EFF to support freedom.
  - hn_acker 3mo ago

guelo 3mo ago

[flagged]

hdgvhicv 3mo ago
[flagged]

hnburnsy 3mo ago

[dead]

maxlin 3mo ago

The article link appropriately disqualifies itself of not being partisan by the fact of the article explicitly having links to share it on multiple semi-dead platforms but not X. X, which they left with arguments about "reach" which don't pass half a smell test. Hope EFF digs itself out of the mud it finds itself in today in the future.

hn_acker 3mo ago
> The article link appropriately disqualifies itself of not being partisan Where does EFF call itself non-partisan, and how is that relevant to Twitter's/X's violations of privacy? Definitions of partisan include [1]: > An adherent to a party or faction. > A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. By the second definition and arguably by the first as well, EFF is fundamentally a partisan organization [2]: > The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world. "Reach" was only ever one reason EFF stopped posting on X. Among yet other reasons, EFF had partisan reasons for leaving X [3]: > Twitter was never a utopia. We've criticized the platform for about as long as it’s been around. Still, Twitter did deserve recognition from time to time for vociferously fighting for its users’ rights. That changed. Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/partisan https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/partisan [2] https://www.eff.org/about https://www.eff.org/about [3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eff-leaving-x https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eff-leaving-x
- maxlin 3mo ago
  Lots of words to say nothing. Obviously the original mission statement of EFF has been bipartisan, turning against Musk and by that turning a lot more anti-freedom of speech and anti-liberty has soiled their image. Them continuing on such extremely partisan platforms like Truth Social for the left (BlueSky) just makes them unsupportable. Which is something I'd thought I'd never say, but that's the world we live in. Where champions of justice get attacked, and censorious hate mills get even officially boosted. Just read your own arguments. X bad because it fires a team they'd never needed to have as a social media company just to stay afloat, especially as it was proven that those firings were tacitly necessary for the platform to survive? >"previously" fought off censorship demands This just proves you're either uninformed or lying on purpose. The furor with which Musk pushed Brazil and De Moraes to not censor people on X was awe-inspiring. Something the old Twitter never managed to do in such scale.