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.
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
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.
Anyways, super cool that anyone speaking out already has their SSN in his DB.
Weird. Why do people get in trouble for using the word "cis" on twitter?
> 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.
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!
It’s against the TOS to post a picture of your own boobs for example.
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.
That's interesting - do you have a link for this? I'd be curious to know more of the section's details.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I actually find abortion with no exception for rape to be far more ideologically pure position than abortion with exceptions for rape.
The one that makes the least sense is restriction on abortion even in the case the fetus cannot survive. That one is far less defensible than not having a rape abortion exception as it can't be explained from the viewpoint of the rights of the mother nor from one of the rights of the fetus.
It's defensible when you realize that forced pregnancy is viewed by many religious people as a punishment. "If you didn't want a baby, don't have sex" is very commonly heard in private conversations with religious people.
Because pregnancy is a holy punishment, the consequences, even death, are seen as moral.
This is also why the rape exception is more common than the medical exception. A mother dying because of an ectopic pregnancy or because she was too young to have a baby is god's will.
I initially held your viewpoint but after engaging a lot of people I realized they often had pretty similar views on life and liberty as mine, they just were looking at it from the viewpoint of the fetus rather than the mother. From that perspective it just doesn't make sense at all to make an exception for rape.
People will almost never take the "it's a punishment" position in a debate because that's not a popular position to hold and it's pretty weak morally at the end of the day. That's why the "life of the fetus" approach is most frequently taken even though it leads to absurd positions. For example, pro-life people will very often be put into a difficult position when the notion of IVF comes up.
That's what betrays their true views, IMO.
I've simply had a lot of private conversations with people on religion (I was mormon for a long time and served a mormon mission). That's where my opinion on the actual underlying anti-abortion attitude comes from. It's lots of private conversations in safe spaces. The fetus life, frankly, is almost never brought up as a reason.
And, as I pointed out, it pretty well explains why anti-abortion laws have weird boundaries if they were purely about the life of the fetus.
Most nations still have social support and government responsibility as last resort, which equally can do the job of supporting children without willing parents, but then people return to the punishment/moral angle that if men don't want to pay for children then they should not have sex.
Look to how quickly people reaches for the morality position and we see how little friction anti-abortion policies has to overcome.
What I expect to see for those that view it as primarily punishment is little outside of child support for kids. Penalizing the "dead beat dad" as it were. I expect those governments to not provide child support, tax breaks for parents, or any sort of welfare/support/minimum standard of living for parents. That is to say, the answer to "how hard would it be to be a single parent" in those government would be "very hard".
For governments that are solely looking out for the welfare of the kid, I expect to see a large amount of support for kids, especially for poor families. I expect some help with childcare, housing, etc to make sure the kids are well cared for.
The closer people holds to those values, the easier society accept laws like anti-abortion. Religion do play a supporting role in this by holding onto the values, but is itself not always in the center.
Is the opposition arguing for abortion, but only in the case of rape or incest? Clearly not. That would be a far more reasonable middle ground
Also abortion for eugenics is inefficient and difficult for some women with physical and mental effects - only in the extenuating circumstances like China during one child period would it be viable. This is a side issue from the main point. Ethics in IVF and usage of abortion/Plan B (where it’s so early that it’s not practical for your eugenics idea) - a discussion we should have and have already skipped for IVF in the USA (where it’s more practical from theoretical standpoint for your eugenics point) but it's a distraction from the primary objective of conservative groups - to force women to have less power and choice in their lives. That is the question we see being answered once conservatives gain power to make legislation of their choice in states or via the Supreme Court in the USA.
IIRC that is not a safe assumption. 50/50 is a population-wide statistic, but it's pretty common for individuals to have a substantially skewed probability for one gender of offspring or the other.
Huh?
I'm just an interested party because my family has nearly all girls for an entire generation, so I have paid attention to research that shows how this happens.
You seem to think it disagrees with a conspiracy theory. I don't care about that, I was just adding a bit of accuracy to the discussion. Carry on.
Henry VIII also didn't have 14 children.
Henry VIII also didn't have all of his children by IVF.
Odds of 14 male children is like 1 in 15,000+
Musk is 14/14 born male. Its extremely unnatural.
It would be remarkably unlikely. It's fair to say Musk is probably sex selecting for sons. It doesn't follow that he has plans "to make women afraid to participate in public life."
No, that follows from his other actions
We need something. I asked if there was a hot mic because those two have a tendency to get recorded saying stupid things. It coud also be an e-mail, a memo, a recollection by a friend or former colleague, et cetera.
In the absence of evidence, it's much simpler to conclude that at least Musk is just sexist versus trying "to make women afraid to participate in public life."
Okay.
> You expect every bad actor to make a public statement about their vile plans?
Neither Musk nor Miller have exhibited a tremendous amount of discipline in this department.
I don’t expect them to say this. But I do expect someone arguing in good faith to distinguish between plans and effects, particularly when we’re turning what looks like garden-variety sexism into a political theory.
Not being debated here.
OP claimed Musk and Miller aim "to make women afraid to participate in public life."
Miller, I'm sure, is mostly focused on his manifesting white nationalist wet dream and murder rampage.
If it looks and quacks like a Nazi duck, we might be best served by not assuming the troop build up on the border of Poland is a training exercise.
Posting a photo of yourself online is not an invitation for AI generated nudes.
I'm sure lots of people do it for hate but legitimately a lot of people just look at someone and think "they'd look nice naked" and then if they actually have a picture of that, might share it under their comments/posts because it's enjoyable to look at rather than to punish someone.
The problem is, this service very publicly shares those images, and usually in a way that directly tags the actual person. So, very much across the line in to "harming actual people."
Since this regularly harms women, people round it off to "misogyny". Even if the motive is not "harm women", the end result is still "women were harmed".
(There also IS an exception if you know the person well enough to expect that they're cool with it - but the onus is still on you if you guess wrong and your actions end up causing harm.)
Sharing lewd pictures is using the tools of the patriarchy to shame and humiliate women. That's misogyny.
Think of it this way. I want to humiliate a black man online, so I generate a picture of him eating a huge watermelon slice and share it around for giggles. Is that racism? Of course it is.
"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.
It certainly is. It happens purely as a shame tactic for women.
> it definitely does not involve violence
Nobody said it did. Things can be harmful without being violent. Violence isn't the ultimate measure of morality.
additionally, how would you define the term "rape culture"? Are you aware of the term at all?
Convincingly photoshopping someones face onto a nude body takes time, skills, effort, and access to resources.
Grok lowers the barrier to be less effort than it took for either you or I to write our comments.
It is now a social phenomenon where almost every public image of a woman or girl on the site is modified in this manner. Revenge porn photoshops happened before, but not to this scale or in this type of phenomenon.
And there is safety in numbers. If one person photoshops a highschool classmate nude, they might find themself on a registry. For lack of knowing the magnitude, if myriad people are doing it around the country, then do you expect everyone doing that to be litigated that extensively?
Hold on to that spirit and I think you'll genuinely do well in the world that's coming next.
This site.
Mate, thats the point. I as a normal human being, who had never been on 4chan or the darker corners of reddit would have never seen or be able to make frankenporn. much less so make _convincing_ frankenporn.
> For lack of knowing the magnitude
Fuck that shit, if they didn't know the magnitude they wouldn't have spend ages making the photoshop to do it. You don't spend ages doing revenge, "because you didn't know the magnitude" You spend ages doing it because you want revenge
> if myriad people are doing it around the country, then do you expect everyone doing that to be litigated that extensively?
I mean we put people in prison for drink driving, lots of people do that in the states, same with drug dealing. Same with harassment, thats why restraining orders exist.
but
You are missing the point, Making and distributing CSAM is an illegal offence. Knowingly storing and transmitting it is an offence. Musk could stop it all now by re-training grok, or putting in some basic controls.
If any other person was doing this they would have been threatened with company ending action by now.
We mostly agree, so let me clarify.
Grok is being used to make very much revenge porn, including CSAM revenge porn, and people _are using X because it's the CSAM app_. I think this is all bad. We agree here.
"For lack of knowing the magnitude" is me stating that I do not know the number of people using X to generate CSAM. I don't know if it is a thousand, a million, a hundred million, etc. So, I used the word "myriad" instead of "thousands", "millions", etc.
I am arguing that this is worse because the scale is so much more. I am arguing against the argument equivocating this with photoshop.
> If any other person was doing this they would have been threatened with company ending action by now.
Yes, I agree. X is still available on both app stores. This means CSAM is just being made more and more normal. I think this is very bad.
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.
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
It's a fictional creation. Nobody is "taking her clothes off", a bot is fabricating a naked woman and tacking her likeness (ie. face) on to it. If anything, I could see how this could benefit women as they can now start to reasonably claim that any actual leaked nudes are instead worthless AI slop.
I don't think I would care if someone did this to me. Put "me" in the most depraved crap you can think of, I don't care. It's not me. I suspect most men feel similarly.
What's the big deal?
A woman being damaged by nudes is basically a white knight, misogynist viewpoint that proclaims a woman's value is in her chastity / modesty so by posting a manufactured nude of her you have thereby degraded her value and owe her damages.
It feels odd for them to be advertising this belief though. These are surely a lot of the same people trying to devalue virginity, glorifying public sex positivity, condemning "slut shaming", etc.