It looks like the big brains over at Xitter have figured out a "solution" to the whole becoming a deepfake porn distributor problem. The solution is apparently to become a paid deepfake porn distributor. That should quell the criticism.
Grok, Elon Musk’s AI tool, has switched off its image creation function for the vast majority of users after a widespread outcry about its use to create sexually explicit and violent imagery.
The move comes after Musk was threatened with fines, regulatory action and reports of a possible ban on X in the UK.
The tool had been used to manipulate images of women to remove their clothes and put them in sexualised positions. The function to do so has been switched off except for paying subscribers.
Posting on X, Musk’s social media network, Grok said: “Image generation and editing are currently limited to paying subscribers.”
Hopefully this will result in Xitter and Grok (a.k.a. MechaHitler) being treated with the same amount of respect as other paid porn distributors.
It looks like the big brains over at Xitter have figured out a "solution" to the whole becoming a deepfake porn distributor problem. The solution is apparently to become a paid deepfake porn distributor. That should quell the criticism.
Grok, Elon Musk’s AI tool, has switched off its image creation function for the vast majority of users after a widespread outcry about its use to create sexually explicit and violent imagery.
The move comes after Musk was threatened with fines, regulatory action and reports of a possible ban on X in the UK.
The tool had been used to manipulate images of women to remove their clothes and put them in sexualised positions. The function to do so has been switched off except for paying subscribers.
Posting on X, Musk’s social media network, Grok said: “Image generation and editing are currently limited to paying subscribers.”
Hopefully this will result in Xitter and Grok (a.k.a. MechaHitler) being treated with the same amount of respect as other paid porn distributors.
It would be delightful if the payment processors went after Xitter rather than bullying innocent kinksters and the artists who draw/write for them.
I see that Labour MP Louise Haigh is calling on the UK government to cease using Twitter/X.
AIUI, it can be a useful tool for communicating with constituents etc., but is it so useful that it couldn't be done away with?
I do not use, and never have used, Twitter/X /Facebook, or any other social media (bar a family-only WhatsApp group, with about six members...), so I really have no idea of its utility.
It looks like the big brains over at Xitter have figured out a "solution" to the whole becoming a deepfake porn distributor problem. The solution is apparently to become a paid deepfake porn distributor. That should quell the criticism.
To be clear, so far this is only blocking users from creating porn (and images generally) via directly @ing grok into the conversation, they can still use grok separately to do the same thing.
AIUI, it can be a useful tool for communicating with constituents etc., but is it so useful that it couldn't be done away with?
I do not use, and never have used, Twitter/X /Facebook, or any other social media (bar a family-only WhatsApp group, with about six members...), so I really have no idea of its utility.
At this point the only voters on Xitter in large numbers are hardened Reformites and supporters of Wee Tommy Ten Names.
My daughter's school Support for Learning department has a poster with celebrities with various conditions, eg Did you know Billie Elilish has synaesthesia? etc, including Did you know Elon Musk is autistic?
Well, I'm not surprised, but talk about holding up a negative stereotype.
@Dafyd, how old is the poster? Once upon a time Musk was not the menace he is now. In the first season of Star Trek: Discovery (2017) he is mentioned alongside the Wright brothers - a line which hasn't aged well.
My daughter's school Support for Learning department has a poster with celebrities with various conditions, eg Did you know Billie Elilish has synaesthesia? etc, including Did you know Elon Musk is autistic?
Well, I'm not surprised, but talk about holding up a negative stereotype.
Mr Musk is not our most trouble-free high profile autistic.
Porn is the highest accessed of all websites. Not sure if that's just in the west or globally?
So really it's a bit hypocritical to block grok without blocking porn sites.
Websites that share CSAM and non-consensual imagery are already blocked. Plus the UK has, for better or worse, started requiring porn sites to have age verification.
Somewhat - but if X accepts facilitating the manufacturing of child porn is unethical then it should not be doing it anywhere. Also, if it continues to do that then I think it will still be violating UK law. In the same way you can be prosecuted for sex offences committed abroad.
Also, if it continues to do that then I think it will still be violating UK law. In the same way you can be prosecuted for sex offences committed abroad.
I find this a little baffling - the whole world is their jurisdiction for some crimes but not others? - but I also love it.
It was specifically to prevent offenders going abroad to rape children - so often in poor countries that lack the resources to track down and prosecute.
Porn is the highest accessed of all websites. Not sure if that's just in the west or globally?
So really it's a bit hypocritical to block grok without blocking porn sites.
The thing that is specifically a problem with Grok is taking images of actual people and turning them in to porn. That's not a problem because porn is naughty - it's a problem because publishing fake pornographic images of real people is a vile thing to do, and ranks as sexual harassment at a minimum.
It's a completely different issue from asking about the morality of watching consenting adults have sex.
Also, if it continues to do that then I think it will still be violating UK law. In the same way you can be prosecuted for sex offences committed abroad.
I find this a little baffling - the whole world is their jurisdiction for some crimes but not others? - but I also love it.
This is actually fairly common - a lot of countries assert universal jurisdiction for certain crimes. Mostly it's war crimes and the like.
It's more like complaining that people are still growing illegal drugs and getting away with it because they only sell it elsewhere.
I think even more like complaining that people are getting away with defrauding UK citizens because the financial transactions happen elsewhere where they're legal. The important point here is that this is not a victimless crime.
I'll give Musk some credit for providing free entertainment this week (BBC):
Musk and Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary have been trading insults over the past week after O'Leary rejected the idea of using Musk's Starlink technology to provide wi-fi on flights...
... A statement on Ryanair's X account on Tuesday evening said: "Perhaps Musk needs a break? Ryanair is launching a Great Idiots seat sale especially for Elon and any other idiots on 'X'."
Someone did point out that each gave the other some free publicity and nobody was hurt by it.
Somewhat - but if X accepts facilitating the manufacturing of child porn is unethical then it should not be doing it anywhere.
I don’t think they give a rat’s ass about ethics or morality, only legality.
Kinda like a digital equivalent of arms dealers who sell their products to both sides of a war - they’re just in it for the money, they don’t care which side wins or has the most righteous cause, nor do they care that what they’re doing will cause harm to a great many people.
Also, if it continues to do that then I think it will still be violating UK law. In the same way you can be prosecuted for sex offences committed abroad.
Only if you’re a UK citizen. As X is an American site the UK has no jurisdiction over anything it does in any other country.
Only if you’re a UK citizen. As X is an American site the UK has no jurisdiction over anything it does in any other country.
Yes and no. There rules about conduct overseas for any business operating in the UK. It would be possible to legislate that no company involved in the production of CSAM can operate in the UK.
Somewhat - but if X accepts facilitating the manufacturing of child porn is unethical then it should not be doing it anywhere.
I don’t think they give a rat’s ass about ethics or morality, only legality.
Kinda like a digital equivalent of arms dealers who sell their products to both sides of a war - they’re just in it for the money, they don’t care which side wins or has the most righteous cause, nor do they care that what they’re doing will cause harm to a great many people.
Also, if it continues to do that then I think it will still be violating UK law. In the same way you can be prosecuted for sex offences committed abroad.
Only if you’re a UK citizen. As X is an American site the UK has no jurisdiction over anything it does in any other country.
In their public statement Thayer are claiming to care, I do not believe them.
If offences are committed *against* UK citizens on their platform, they may find they have a level of liability to that if the victim is in the UK.
They are not restricting it because they believe it is wrong to manipulate images of real children in a pornographic way and distribute them. As others have said, it is not a decision about the morality of what they are doing.
It is bad publicity. And they know that a legal claim would be even worse publicity. That is why they are doing it. Because bad publicity means loss of revenue from advertisers and users.
They don't want to have to stand up in court and claim that they are OK with indecent images. Despite the fact they are.
Only if you’re a UK citizen. As X is an American site the UK has no jurisdiction over anything it does in any other country.
Yes and no. There rules about conduct overseas for any business operating in the UK. It would be possible to legislate that no company involved in the production of CSAM can operate in the UK.
Which is not quite the same thing, but I do see your point.
Comments
Hopefully this will result in Xitter and Grok (a.k.a. MechaHitler) being treated with the same amount of respect as other paid porn distributors.
It would be delightful if the payment processors went after Xitter rather than bullying innocent kinksters and the artists who draw/write for them.
AIUI, it can be a useful tool for communicating with constituents etc., but is it so useful that it couldn't be done away with?
I do not use, and never have used, Twitter/X /Facebook, or any other social media (bar a family-only WhatsApp group, with about six members...), so I really have no idea of its utility.
I'm not a user of either platform, but it can't be that difficult to simply transition to Bluesky.
To be clear, so far this is only blocking users from creating porn (and images generally) via directly @ing grok into the conversation, they can still use grok separately to do the same thing.
At this point the only voters on Xitter in large numbers are hardened Reformites and supporters of Wee Tommy Ten Names.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/12/ofcom-investigating-x-outcry-sexualised-ai-images-grok-elon-musk
Whether this will result in an outright ban remains to be seen.
Mr Musk's response, naturally, is to call everyone fascists. Oh, the irony!
Well, quite. You couldn't make it up.
Well, he's actually just geoblocking their viewing. They can still be generated from anywhere.
Well, I'm not surprised, but talk about holding up a negative stereotype.
Mr Musk is not our most trouble-free high profile autistic.
So really it's a bit hypocritical to block grok without blocking porn sites.
Websites that share CSAM and non-consensual imagery are already blocked. Plus the UK has, for better or worse, started requiring porn sites to have age verification.
Isn't that a bit like complaining that breweries only sell their produce in places where alcoholic drinks are legal?
I find this a little baffling - the whole world is their jurisdiction for some crimes but not others? - but I also love it.
Here is some information on the legal framework.
The thing that is specifically a problem with Grok is taking images of actual people and turning them in to porn. That's not a problem because porn is naughty - it's a problem because publishing fake pornographic images of real people is a vile thing to do, and ranks as sexual harassment at a minimum.
It's a completely different issue from asking about the morality of watching consenting adults have sex.
It's more like complaining that people are still growing illegal drugs and getting away with it because they only sell it elsewhere.
This is actually fairly common - a lot of countries assert universal jurisdiction for certain crimes. Mostly it's war crimes and the like.
Musk and Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary have been trading insults over the past week after O'Leary rejected the idea of using Musk's Starlink technology to provide wi-fi on flights...
... A statement on Ryanair's X account on Tuesday evening said: "Perhaps Musk needs a break? Ryanair is launching a Great Idiots seat sale especially for Elon and any other idiots on 'X'."
Someone did point out that each gave the other some free publicity and nobody was hurt by it.
I don’t think they give a rat’s ass about ethics or morality, only legality.
Kinda like a digital equivalent of arms dealers who sell their products to both sides of a war - they’re just in it for the money, they don’t care which side wins or has the most righteous cause, nor do they care that what they’re doing will cause harm to a great many people.
Only if you’re a UK citizen. As X is an American site the UK has no jurisdiction over anything it does in any other country.
Yes and no. There rules about conduct overseas for any business operating in the UK. It would be possible to legislate that no company involved in the production of CSAM can operate in the UK.
In their public statement Thayer are claiming to care, I do not believe them.
If offences are committed *against* UK citizens on their platform, they may find they have a level of liability to that if the victim is in the UK.
It is bad publicity. And they know that a legal claim would be even worse publicity. That is why they are doing it. Because bad publicity means loss of revenue from advertisers and users.
They don't want to have to stand up in court and claim that they are OK with indecent images. Despite the fact they are.
Which is not quite the same thing, but I do see your point.