So "X" - nothing to see here. Elon's in control - Part XXX

Chat GPT does the same but there doesn't seem to be the same outrage. Almost as though… their real objection is to Twitter itself. There's talk of banning Twitter in the UK, yet no mention of banning Pornhub. It would be funny if it weren't so sinister.

And do you think this is more or less of an issue than the fact that many prepubescent children are being exposed to hardcore porn in primary school - sometimes literally in the payground?

Because while I personally hate this undressing thing, I'm really finding it very hard to believe that, for example, posters who recently sneered at JK Rowling's attempt to open a conversation about children being exposed to violent porn actually care at all about women, or even children, having their images digitally undressed?

And that's before we consider the evidence of widespread people trafficking, including of minors, for those sites, as well as parents in poor countries like Indonesia making a living by sexually abusing their own children for the benefit of paying internet clients. All of that is just "Meh what can you do", while this new phenomenon provokes absolute outrage and calls to ban Twitter.

Very odd.

Indeed. Does that include Chat GPT and Open AI? What should be done?

I also asked what your opinion is on far more longstanding (and IMO more egregious) abuses of women and children by internet porn sites?

There have been a couple of threads about various forms of such abuse, and I may just have missed your posts on them, which is why I'm asking.

Same question: do you agree that the various internet porn companies have been around for far longer and have done measurably more harm to children?

The article actually says that the guardrails don't really work:

In WIRED’s limited tests to confirm that these techniques worked on Gemini and ChatGPT, we were able to transform images of fully clothed women into bikini deepfakes using basic prompts written in plain English.

Reddit has banned pictures. The others seem mostly not to have succeeded. If it's harmful to children, I don't see that trying and failing is a good enough get-out clause. Sounds like a feeble attempt at pretending you're doing something. That's what the porn companies have done to: "Well we'd love to but it's very complicated". TBH I'd prefer someone who openly refuses to act. At least you know where you are with them.

No, I said this:

The article actually says that the guardrails don't really work:

In WIRED’s limited tests to confirm that these techniques worked on Gemini and ChatGPT, we were able to transform images of fully clothed women into bikini deepfakes using basic prompts written in plain English.

Reddit has banned pictures. The others seem mostly not to have succeeded. If it's harmful to children, I don't see that trying and failing is a good enough get-out clause. Sounds like a feeble attempt at pretending you're doing something. That's what the porn companies have done to: "Well we'd love to but it's very complicated". TBH I'd prefer someone who openly refuses to act. At least you know where you are with them.

(I can't remember off hand - were you one of the posters who told us that internet porn couldn't possibly be banned because it would be an attack on free speech?)

Would you have a Majorie Taylor Greene moment or come up with some way to defend generators of CSAM?

I've no idea what you're referring to here. Nor why you think I'd defend generators of child sexual abuse (don't know what the M means either, so maybe you don't mean CSA, in which case I don't know what CSAM is.)

And I don't have a clue what this means:

but really so home for the former.

My position is that all sorts of personal freedoms have been removed if it was felt that the harm done to society as a whole was too great. I'm saddened that so many adults are prepared to see so many children become de facto victims of sexual abuse (which is what premature exposure to adult sexuality is) simply because they want to continue watching porn themselves. Not to mention children becoming victims of direct sexual abuse in order to provide such images to adults.

And I'm bemused that only one relatively minor such form of abuse is causing such outrage that the British parliament is considering calls to ban it. I don't believe for a moment that the real reason for the outrage is the abuse.

Men's right to what? To exploit women and children for their own sexual gratification?

There are several already, in which I have sometimes taken part and been told that it's impossible/undesirable etc. So I don't see the point in starting yet another. My point here is the double standard being applied.

You do understand the meaning of the word "relative" right? I mentioned that families are literally making a living out of parents sexually abusing their children online for paid clients. If you think that's no worse than an AI-generated picture of someone in a bikini, then we'll just have to disagree.

I think any site that is doing that should be punished. I also think that the outrage over Grok is nothing other than performative when those concerned have nothing more than a shoulder shrug about banning actual child sex abuse in the name of freedom of speech.

I've already answered this twice now.