> 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.
In an ideal world, generated non-consensual imagery should be illegal through invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness, but I think only a limited number of states have those laws.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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 (kate@demandprogress.org),
EFF's Senior Staff Technologist William Budington (bill@eff.org), EPIC's Senior Counsel Sara Geoghegan (geoghegan@epic.org), and NCL's Senior Public Policy Manager Eden Iscil (edeni@nclnet.org).
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.
Are you claiming that privacy can never be a prerequisite for freedom and/or justice?
It's trivially easy to see cases where freedom+justice+innovation can conflict with each other (it's even trivially easy to see where they can conflict with each other specifically for innovations involving the reduction of privacy, ye olde panopticon.)
So it's also trivially simple to understand that at some point you're gonna have to pick one over another. And note that freedom is the first word in that list.
> 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.
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"
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.
Is generation of non-consensual imagery really a privacy issue?
If someone publishes a real naked photo of you, that was acquired without your consent, that would be a privacy issue.
If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.
on it own? on Musk's orders?
"people used Grok AI to generate large amounts of CSAM and nonconsensual intimate imagery". people use all sorts of things to do all sorts of shit.
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
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.
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 (kate@demandprogress.org), EFF's Senior Staff Technologist William Budington (bill@eff.org), EPIC's Senior Counsel Sara Geoghegan (geoghegan@epic.org), and NCL's Senior Public Policy Manager Eden Iscil (edeni@nclnet.org).
They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.
The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy.
It's trivially easy to see cases where freedom+justice+innovation can conflict with each other (it's even trivially easy to see where they can conflict with each other specifically for innovations involving the reduction of privacy, ye olde panopticon.)
So it's also trivially simple to understand that at some point you're gonna have to pick one over another. And note that freedom is the first word in that list.
Basic human decency?
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/spacex-may-donat...
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.
> 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"