delichon4 hours 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.
thinkcontext3 hours 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.
andrewinardeer3 hours ago
[flagged]
mingus882 hours ago
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-investigat... - musk “not aware” of any naked underage images, pushing back on concerns
https://www.humanrightsresearch.org/post/a-new-form-of-gende... - musk downplays concerns and blames users and hackers
bsder2 hours ago
It's not up to the peanut gallery to disprove easily falsifiable statements from easily found public evidence.
[deleted]2 hours agocollapsed
actionfromafar2 hours ago
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
CSMastermindan hour ago
Reddit did the same. Tumblr died when it banned porn. There seems to be a very perverse incentive for social media platforms to be as permissive as possible.
Personally, I'd be in favor of banning all sexual content on X, but it really feels like a legislative solution applying to all social media platforms might be the best solution.
And yes I realize the slippery slope that could put us on.
hgoel24 minutes ago
The issue wasn't specifically allowing NSFW content, it was allowing anyone to get grok to openly make NSFW deepfakes of anyone without even an attempt at policing things.
sieabahlpark3 hours ago
[dead]
ChrisArchitect5 hours ago
Terrettaop4 hours ago
TY!
The EFF featured update / press release at 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_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 ([email protected]), EFF's Senior Staff Technologist William Budington ([email protected]), EPIC's Senior Counsel Sara Geoghegan ([email protected]), and NCL's Senior Public Policy Manager Eden Iscil ([email protected]).
ChrisArchitect4 hours ago
Can update the link to the blog post; no need for this to be an arstechnica PDF
Terrettaop2 hours ago
It didn't let me edit, I tried.
close044 hours ago
But Trump just asked Musk for SpaceX stock to “seed US kids’ savings accounts” [1]. That trading of favors is almost explicit.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/spacex-may-donat...
guelo3 hours ago
Musk spent $300 million in the 2024 campaign exactly for this kind of situation. He already bought himself the result.
hdgvhicv3 hours ago
The US presidency is for sale. At least it costs real amounts of money compared to bribery elsewhere. Well not sure if that’s good or bad.
hnburnsy24 minutes ago
[dead]
nailer4 hours ago
[flagged]
ohyoutravel4 hours ago
> It's basically a rant from someone at the EFF that didn't like DOGE and doesn't like Elon.
Looks like 15 organizations with one letter, per the letter, not “someone at EFF.” Likely written by committee, as that’s how these things go. Pretty big and respected organizations too.
> All AI models can generate bikini photos of people that look under 18 (the cause of the 'X CSAM scandal' allded to here) if manipuluted to do so…
Well, you’re severely underplaying this to the best of my understanding. Sounds like it was girls substantially, substantially below 18, and from what I recall for Grok this was a simple prompt away, which isn’t quite properly characterized by “manipulated to do so” verbiage.
Sounds like you’re carrying water for Elon and DOGE and those groups. Would encourage you to do some more reading on the subjects and perhaps reevaluate the subjects of your admiration. They truly do not care about you in the slightest.
nailer3 hours ago
[flagged]
solid_fuel3 hours ago
>> Pretty big and respected organizations too.
> No. The institutions are:
[list of big and respected organizations]
This has not helped the case you are trying to make.
>> Sounds like it was girls substantially, substantially below 18, and from what I recall for Grok this was a simple prompt away
> "Sounds like" is vague as fuck. Grok and every other AI was producing bikini pictures of children.
> Bikinis weren't counted as nudity - which may seem logically correct from a programmer PoV but isn't the right approach. Essentially the rule should be "don't manipulate photos of anyone to be wearing less revealing clothing than the source material" but that isn't obvious.
If you actually try reading the EFF's letter, you will immediately see that the issue was not just "putting people in bikini's"
charcircuit3 hours 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.
solid_fuel3 hours ago
The EFF does not blindly take the stance that "anything should be allowed as long as you do it with a computer". Their input here is very reasonable, and in standing with their principles.
Jabrov3 hours ago
The letter is more about privacy, not freedom.
They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.
charcircuit2 hours 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.
WCSTombs2 hours ago
As far as I know, EFF has always championed privacy.
dimator3 hours ago
i don't know how you're equating "computing freedom" with regulation of privacy guards. should FTC not care about that? can you elaborate?
WhaleClub2 hours ago
[dead]
reaperducer3 hours 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.
Basic human decency?
sieabahlpark2 hours ago
[dead]