Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,507
- 2,570
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
X Raided in France
- Thread starter NxNW
- Start date
Nithavela
you're in charge you can do it just get louis
- Apr 14, 2007
- 31,425
- 23,157
- Country
- Germany
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Single
He owns the platform, he has developed the AI, he could shut it down at any moment. Even if he isn't the one that writes the prompts, he bears full culpability.
Upvote
0
Perpetual Student
Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
- Jan 28, 2025
- 378
- 377
- 55
- Country
- Belgium
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
1) X (or Elon Musk) need to comply with the law as it is currently written. Not the law interpreted as "there is worse, so don't care".
2) Child porn and adult porn was generated based on pictures of real people. That is already a crime
3) For learning any AI system to recognize (or generate) pictures of puppies, kittens and cancer cells, you need to present it tons of pictures of kittens, puppies and cancer cells. In many (all?) countries to own childporn is a crime, even if it has been downloaded "harmlessly" from the internet.
4) Grok has produced Holocaust denying material. Again a crime in France.
5) How has Grok been trained to deny the Holocaust? Again, the ownership of Holocaust denying material (and possibly the Armenian genocide too) is forbidden in France.
You don't need to agree with the French laws. If your platform is present in France, you will need to comply with the French law.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Perpetual Student
Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
- Jan 28, 2025
- 378
- 377
- 55
- Country
- Belgium
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
Grok could have been be trained to refuse to produce forbidden material when requested (see my post above). Yet, X didn't.
Upvote
0
Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,507
- 2,570
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I agree with the responsibility, but I don't think he is a computer programmer.
"On 2 January 2026, the French Government announced an investigation concerning content generated by the generative artificial intelligence service Grok and disseminated on the platform X."
DPA
An independent, timely and accessible record of policy and regulatory changes affecting the digital economy.
One month later.
On February 3 2026, French prosecutors’ cybercrime unit raided X’s Paris offices
January 2, 2026 – Multiple outlets report that Grok’s image generation safeguards failed, allowing sexually explicit and nonconsensual images (including minors) to be created; X responds by saying it is improving safeguards, removing worst material, and banning accounts.
January 5–6, 2026 – Independent data analysis finds Grok generating ~6,700 sexually suggestive or nudified deepfakes per hour during a 24-hour period.
January 12, 2026 – UK media regulator Ofcom begins investigating X for sexualized AI images under the Online Safety Act.
January 12–14, 2026 – California’s Attorney General launches a probe into xAI/Grok for nonconsensual sexual content generation. Musk publicly states he was not aware of any Grok-generated sexualized images involving minors.
January 14–15, 2026 – X restricts Grok’s image creation and editing features to paid subscribers and implements geoblocking to bar creation of sexualized images of real people where illegal.
January 15, 2026 – X announces and implements technological measures to block Grok from generating some sexualized image content (e.g., editing to bikinis/revealing clothing); this is global but varies by jurisdiction.
January 20, 2026 – User reports indicate even stricter moderation in Grok’s NSFW/explicit generation policies compared to earlier restrictions, reflecting ongoing adjustments.
It's easy to look this stuff up and be easily duped if you only read one side of the story. The garbage in people's minds is terrible, but there is some action taken by Musk, and to give him a month, unless an AI programmer tells me it can be done with the flip of a switch.
Yes! But if I wanted to find dirt on Musk, I wouldn't broadcast the raid to give him a heads up, and so he could download all his porn off the servers, even if it happened the same day.
Upvote
0
Laodicean60
Well-Known Member
- Jul 2, 2023
- 5,507
- 2,570
- 65
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Perpetual Student
Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
- Jan 28, 2025
- 378
- 377
- 55
- Country
- Belgium
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
Trying is not enough. A company doesn't release its product unless it is safe and in compliance with the legal requirements.
There are procedures like test runs, quality controls and (if necessary) retractment.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Tropical Wilds
Queen of Cups
- Oct 2, 2009
- 7,625
- 5,776
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Call Me Al
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,502
- 17,993
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
OK, but I have no idea who that is either. It's just some random looking twitter account.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 30,037
- 17,858
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
This delves into aspects of "when various nations have conflicting laws, whose laws win or take precedent?"
As gross as and disturbing as most of us find that kind of material. The reality when it comes to fictional material that doesn't involve any real minors, many developed nations either have ambiguous laws, or surprisingly have laws that protect it under artistic freedom provided it doesn't involve any real minors.
en.wikipedia.org
(and some of those nations protecting it are ones that are kind of surprising)
The same goes for the other aspect they mentioned
en.wikipedia.org
And I think people play fast & loose with the "operates in country XYZ, so they have to follow their laws" in a world where the internet is ubiquitous, and literally everyone can get to everything.
Ultimately, if there's things about Grok that France wants to deny their citizens access to, then the onus should be on France to use their own resources and dollars to prevent it from entering their country.
And in this case, accommodating France's law would actually potentially break Japan's law.
French law says it's not legal and needs to be restricted
Japanese law says it's protected artistic expression, and restrictions would be a violation of artists' rights
How does website owner in the US end up with the duty of determining which foreign country they should side with at their own personal expense? It should just be their duty to follow the laws of their own country, correct?
For instance, if I decided to set up a blog site that reviewed and showed pictures of bikinis, there are a plethora of countries in the middle east in which such visual depictions are prohibited. Because I have a blog site that's reachable by people in those countries, by the loose definitions people use for "operating in", would I be forced by my own government to invest time and money into my blog site to make it accommodate the laws of Afghanistan?
As gross as and disturbing as most of us find that kind of material. The reality when it comes to fictional material that doesn't involve any real minors, many developed nations either have ambiguous laws, or surprisingly have laws that protect it under artistic freedom provided it doesn't involve any real minors.
Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors - Wikipedia
The same goes for the other aspect they mentioned
Legality of Holocaust denial - Wikipedia
And I think people play fast & loose with the "operates in country XYZ, so they have to follow their laws" in a world where the internet is ubiquitous, and literally everyone can get to everything.
Ultimately, if there's things about Grok that France wants to deny their citizens access to, then the onus should be on France to use their own resources and dollars to prevent it from entering their country.
And in this case, accommodating France's law would actually potentially break Japan's law.
French law says it's not legal and needs to be restricted
Japanese law says it's protected artistic expression, and restrictions would be a violation of artists' rights
How does website owner in the US end up with the duty of determining which foreign country they should side with at their own personal expense? It should just be their duty to follow the laws of their own country, correct?
For instance, if I decided to set up a blog site that reviewed and showed pictures of bikinis, there are a plethora of countries in the middle east in which such visual depictions are prohibited. Because I have a blog site that's reachable by people in those countries, by the loose definitions people use for "operating in", would I be forced by my own government to invest time and money into my blog site to make it accommodate the laws of Afghanistan?
Upvote
0
That Guy 11200
Newbie
Shifting goalposts by degrees. Before too long it will be: "If a pedophile shares real images that already exist..." And so on, and so on.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 30,037
- 17,858
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Per my previous post, various countries have differing laws on "fictional visual depictions of sexual content" in that regard.
So if France has one set of laws, and Japan has a different set of laws, which one should grok declare the winner?
Also, I'm seeing something a bit puzzling here...
Just a few years back, legislators here domestically were passing local ordinances to keep fictional visual depictions of sexual content involving minors out of the "young adult" section of school libraries (books like GenderQueer and Flamer, which both graphically depict underage people performing acts on each other), and I seem to recall a very different reaction. Progressives equated the situation to something out of a Ray Bradbury novel.
Comic and Anime conventions feature manga and hentai graphic novels depicting age-questionable characters in sexual situations. Those seem to be relatively popular with the young progressive crowd.
Is there just the slightest chance that if this weren't Elon Musk, but rather someone of a different political stripe (and conservatives trying to shut it down), that reactions would be a bit different regarding this?
Upvote
0
7thKeeper
Venture life, Burn your Dread
- Jul 8, 2006
- 2,825
- 2,623
- Country
- Finland
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
... This can't actually be hard for you to understand. They would need to apply French laws if they wish to operate in France and Japanese laws to operate in Japan. That can't be a confusing thing for you.
Upvote
0
Perpetual Student
Fighting ignorance, one textbook at the time
- Jan 28, 2025
- 378
- 377
- 55
- Country
- Belgium
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Private
I think we need to clarify a few things (I read the Wikipedia link you used previously).
1) not all sexual content is pornographic. Where youth goes through puberty and discovers sexuality, this needs to be reflected in the youth literature in a non pornographic way.
2) there is a difference (and different legislations lake that distinction) between depicting completely fictional young people in a sexual (pornographic) context and using real life people for this. The latter is much more often forbidden (rightly so).
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 30,037
- 17,858
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
So you're suggesting that a website (regardless of the content) has to operate within the laws of 180+ different countries simply because their website is reachable by people in those countries (as all websites are). -- which is the loose definition of "operate in" people use when they have these conversations. -- and it typically only happens with regards to websites/platforms that are ran by "rich guy of the day we're supposed to hate".
Shouldn't the onus be on the individual countries themselves to restrict access to the sites?
If you set up a blog where you critiqued Islam, and people in Afghanistan were able to access, is the onus on you (or the government of Finland) to spend your own time and money to navigate some other country's communications laws? After all, you'd be operating in Afghanistan if people over there could get to it, correct?
Or how about a happy compromise... if a country wants to have their restrictions enforced by a company in another country (simply because their own people can get to the website), that company can send that country a bill for the time/effort/cost associated with making changes to the platform. Sound fair?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
