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.

> 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

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.

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.

> Literally everything he does and says is about Freedom - no regulations, or as little as possible, and no moderation.

Weird. Why do people get in trouble for using the word "cis" on twitter?

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.

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.

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!

It's the "freedom from/freedom to" thing that always comes up when talking about "freedom"

X terms of service specifically censor things Elon doesn’t want.

It’s against the TOS to post a picture of your own boobs for example.

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.

But then he also gets mad if law enforcement acts on people doing illegal things on his platform...

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Who cares about the law in this case though? Don't we have other barometers for moral decisions?

> 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.