9 ms·
Sad that the United States are pushing so hard to encourage the propagation of propaganda & lies. I'm not surprised given their history, but it's sad nonetheles
by carlm42 7mo ago
Sad that the United States are pushing so hard to encourage the propagation of propaganda & lies. I'm not surprised given their history, but it's sad nonetheless.
- MiiMe19 7mo ago[flagged]
- NewJazz 7mo agoElon let a bunch of people generate lewd photographs depicting minors, then published it.
- MiiMe19 7mo agoAnd the pencil companies let people draw lewd drawings depicting minors. The typewriter manufacturers let a bunch of people write lewd stories depicting minors.
- NewJazz 7mo agoThey don't publish that on their websites, though.
- MiiMe19 7mo agoDoes X personally post ai generated kids to people's accounts or do people make pictures with a tool and post them on their own accounts?
- NewJazz 7mo agoX is not a person, it is a website run by Elon Musk. Elon, through his company, publishes the photos. I don't think it matters whether he posted them or not. He was aware of and encouraging of the practice, at least when applied to photos of adults.
- MiiMe19 7mo agoLegally, he does not. The poster publishes them onto their own page.
- mortarion 7mo agoIn the EU the platform becomes responsible for posted content, the moment someone notifies them that they are hosting something illegal. They have plausible deniability until notified, after which they have a certain time to act, and if they don't they are criminally liable. The user posting the content is also liable, from the moment they made the post.
- SvnewbKfvFxRPZG 7mo agoI decided to investigate these claims since it is frequently expressed by those attacking Elon or X. It seems to be yet another misrepresentation or falsehood spread around to achieve political gain. I had ChatGPT investigate and summarize the report from CCDH it is based on. https://counterhate.com/research/grok-floods-x-with-sexualized-images/ https://counterhate.com/research/grok-floods-x-with-sexualiz... "CCDH did not prove that X is widely distributing child sexual abuse material. Their report extrapolates from a small, non-random sample of AI-generated images, many of which appear to be stylized or fictional anime content. While regulators are rightly investigating whether Grok’s safeguards were insufficient, CCDH’s public framing collapses “sexualized imagery” and “youthful-looking fictional characters” into CSAM-adjacent rhetoric that is not supported by verified prevalence data or legal findings." Scale of sexual content: “~3 million sexualized images generated by Grok” They sampled ~20,000 images, labeled some as sexualized, then extrapolated using estimated total image volume. The total image count (~4.6M) is not independently verified; extrapolation assumes uniform distribution across all prompts and users. Images of children: “~23,000 sexualized images of children” They label images as “likely depicting minors” based on visual inference, not age metadata. No verification that these are real minors, real people, or legally CSAM. CSAM framing: Implies Grok/X is flooding the platform with child sexual abuse material. The report explicitly avoids claiming confirmed CSAM, using phrases like “may amount to CSAM.” Public-facing messaging collapses “sexualized anime / youthful-looking characters” into CSAM-adjacent rhetoric. CCDH's bias: Ties to the UK Labour Party: Several of CCDH’s founders and leaders have deep ties to Britain's center-left Labour Party. Founder Imran Ahmed was an advisor to Labour MPs. Target Selection: The organization’s "Stop Funding Fake News" campaign and other deplatforming efforts have frequently targeted right-leaning outlets like The Daily Wire, Breitbart, and Zero Hedge. Critics argue they rarely apply the same scrutiny to misinformation from left-leaning sources. "Kill Musk's Twitter" Controversy: Leaked documents and reporting in late 2024 and 2025 alleged that CCDH had internal goals to "kill" Elon Musk’s X (Twitter) by targeting its advertising revenue.
- NewJazz 7mo agoMaybe try reading the source next time? AI was also used to assist in identifying sexualized images of children, with images flagged by the tool as likely depicting a child being reviewed manually to confirm that the person looked clearly under the age of 18.
- carlm42 7mo agoI don't know where you live but I've been able to express myself without any form of approval. Granted, I tend to not encourage genocide or glorify fascist regimes, but that's just me.
- zmgsabst 7mo agoSure — you just deny those same rights to anyone you deem a “fascist” in a secret report. Much like say, the Stasi would allow you to speak your mind unless you were a capitalist subversive, as clearly documented in your secret trial. Obviously we should censor fascists and subversives!
- goodmythical 7mo agoWhere do you live where you're allowed to express yourself without any form of approval? For instance, in the US, I cannot hysterically scream FIRE while running toward the exit of a theater, nor could I express a desire to cause bodily harm to an individual. Not that I would, per se, but if I did I'd be liable to prosecution for the damages caused in either instance. I'd have to get the approval of those involved (by their not seeking legal recourse), in order to do either without consequence.
- infamouscow 7mo agoThe "shouting fire in a crowded theater" line is one of the most misunderstood pieces of legal dicta in US history. It comes from a case that was overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Under current First Amendment law, the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting "imminent lawless action" and is "likely" to produce such action. To illustrate how high this bar is: you can legally sell and wear a T-shirt that says "I heart killing [X group]". While many find that expression offensive or harmful, it is protected speech. This is because: - It is not a true threat (it doesn’t target a specific individual with a credible intent to harm). - It isn't incitement (it doesn't command a crowd to commit a crime immediately). In the US, you don't need approval to express yourself. The default is that your speech is protected unless the government can prove it falls into a tiny handful of narrow, well-defined exceptions.
- 587687646343767 7mo ago[dead]
- MiiMe19 7mo agonice alt, did you make it yourself?
- zefalt 7mo agoSad that people can’t see past their ideological bubbles. Tech spaces used to be dominated by people who saw free speech as an imperative. Now their own political biases have them supporting censorship. https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages-zbv886tqf https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/police-make-30-arr...