91–100 of 114 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes and we should stop at elsewhere too. " it happened elsewhere n times" is a terrible excuse for inaction.
your iPhone can be used to film non-imaginary CSAM and securely distribute it with Signal over the Internet. think of the children and throw it into a blender.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The novel thing for EFF here, as I see it, isn't the idea that some uses of computers are illegal. Rather, it's the suggestion that tech companies have a duty to police or restrict users' use of their technology. When I worked at EFF we argued in about 20 different contexts that tech companies are not responsible for user activity even if they know that some of it is unlawful in some way, and that tech companies do n…
The concerns on Grok seem pretty specific: to not take for granted that it doesn’t introduce problems with how Twitter handles user data, not what users can do with it.
From the article:
“These sweeping assurances that corporate restructuring led to a fundamental change in X’s policy and practices around user data should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism, given evidence to the contrary. For example, the company’s quiet rollout integrated its AI model Grok with the platform in 2024, trained (without meaningful consent) on X user data. The company was also subject to a massive data breach in 2025.”
Nothing about groks capabilities or what users are allowed to ask it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a moral affront, not an offense against a person. The whole reason CSAM is abhorrent is its evidence of abuse. A cartoon is evidence of nothing. We should treat them differently.
> The whole reason CSAM is abhorrent is its evidence of abuse This would make cartel execution videos more abhorrent? Why would watching or possession of evidence of abuse against a person be an offense against a person? Other than potential second-order effects that may or may not occur like increase in demand for abuse? I think it's perceived as abhorrent mostly because it's an evidence of the person watching being…
I don't really wanna get into a hierarchy of abuse/violence; let's just say they're both bad. But watching a video of a beheading isn't beheading someone. We may have a moral objection to someone deriving pleasure from the watching of it, and we may even worry that without regulation we'd create a market for this abhorrent act, but it's still not the same thing.
> Why would watching or possession of evidence of abuse against a person be an offense against a person?
I didn't say this. I said CSAM is evidence of abuse against a person in a way anime can't be.
> I think it's perceived as abhorrent mostly because it's an evidence of the person watching being sexually interested in kids.
Yup, it's moral outrage. I'm not saying that's good or bad--personally I think there isn't enough moral outrage these day. All I'm arguing is the way we treat people who have CSAM is pretty unhinged, and it's even more absurd when we talk about AI-generated CSAM and like, loli hentai or whatever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it private data if it was scraped from my social media profile marked private but leaked through a shared party? My expectation was that image would only be shared with those I wanted to see it (form of privacy).
That's fair. Is there any indication as to if xAi trains on private profiles?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't tell me you think you have rights over the image of another's naked body because it looks similar to yours.
Please don't tell me you think my own face is not my own likeness
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From your NPR article: > Previously, users could ask Grok to edit images and put people into revealing clothing like bikinis. It's because bikini photos aren't generally considered CSAM, or weren't until this year. NPR states "Musk mocks critics" but there is no evidence of him mocking CSAM concerns, and the second two documents don't mention Musk making fun of concerns at all. From your second article: > musk “not a…
You are being intentionally obtuse. Why on earth you would feel the need to play this game when we all know Musk’s character is baffling.
“we all know musk’s character” is not an argument, in fact, it’s a textbook example of https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-.... I could make the same comment about his enemies.
Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom.
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.
The EFF is not consistent in its principles. It has partisan bias. However, it can still be worth situationally supporting for certain causes.
Hope EFF digs itself out of the mud it finds itself in today in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The letter is more about privacy, not freedom. They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.
>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.
What about the sentence right before the mission statement? [1]
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. 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.
For as long as I've known about EFF (which is less than a decade, I admit), EFF has never seemed to prioritize "innovation" over privacy. As for freedom, privacy often is a prerequisite.
The article link appropriately disqualifies itself of not being partisan by the fact of the article explicitly having links to share it on multiple semi-dead platforms but not X. X, which they left with arguments about "reach" which don't pass half a smell test. Hope EFF digs itself out of the mud it finds itself in today in the future.
Where does EFF call itself non-partisan, and how is that relevant to Twitter's/X's violations of privacy? Definitions of partisan include [1]:
> An adherent to a party or faction.
> A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
By the second definition and arguably by the first as well, EFF is fundamentally a partisan organization [2]:
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.
"Reach" was only ever one reason EFF stopped posting on X. Among yet other reasons, EFF had partisan reasons for leaving X [3]:
> Twitter was never a utopia. We've criticized the platform for about as long as it’s been around. Still, Twitter did deserve recognition from time to time for vociferously fighting for its users’ rights. That changed. Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes.