FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Will Starmer ban Twitter (X) ?
Will Starmer ban Twitter (X) ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And then without any hint of irony, they will tell us how China is way too authoritarian." Im OK with any government (and i think there's a concensus across the house that this particular 'tool' is morally wrong) that addresses such things to protect people.. Yes there's a grey area in the laws, and therein lies a dilemma for governments as legislation is playing catch up but the issue in question is not something that anyone would want used upon their loved ones especially as has been reported under age .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And then without any hint of irony, they will tell us how China is way too authoritarian. Im OK with any government (and i think there's a concensus across the house that this particular 'tool' is morally wrong) that addresses such things to protect people.. Yes there's a grey area in the laws, and therein lies a dilemma for governments as legislation is playing catch up but the issue in question is not something that anyone would want used upon their loved ones especially as has been reported under age .. " You know that there are numerous tools available that can be used to make deep fakes right? Do you think China bans stuff telling people that they just want to take control of people's speech? It's always to "protect people" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech?" Gemini and chat got have inbuilt safeguarding so not really relevant to the issue.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And then without any hint of irony, they will tell us how China is way too authoritarian. Im OK with any government (and i think there's a concensus across the house that this particular 'tool' is morally wrong) that addresses such things to protect people.. Yes there's a grey area in the laws, and therein lies a dilemma for governments as legislation is playing catch up but the issue in question is not something that anyone would want used upon their loved ones especially as has been reported under age .. You know that there are numerous tools available that can be used to make deep fakes right? Do you think China bans stuff telling people that they just want to take control of people's speech? It's always to "protect people"" I don't live there, I'm not going to set an authorisation regime as any sort of benchmark to set standards by.. This is not a deep fake issue, this is people's images being changed without consent including minors.. The free speech point is being used as a smokescreen by Musk who can rectify this.. If he doesn't then countries have laws and must use them.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't live there, I'm not going to set an authorisation regime as any sort of benchmark to set standards by.. " But those are the standards that the British government is working towards. " This is not a deep fake issue, this is people's images being changed without consent including minors.. " Changing people's images is same as deep fake. Something that has been going on in the internet for a long time. " The free speech point is being used as a smokescreen by Musk who can rectify this.. If he doesn't then countries have laws and must use them.." They can just ban Grok AI and not ban X it these images are all they are worried about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If he had any balls he would. what was once a fairly good platform now distributes content with the same value as a plate of cold shit" 'Fairly good platform' 🤣🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't live there, I'm not going to set an authorisation regime as any sort of benchmark to set standards by.. But those are the standards that the British government is working towards. This is not a deep fake issue, this is people's images being changed without consent including minors.. Changing people's images is same as deep fake. Something that has been going on in the internet for a long time. The free speech point is being used as a smokescreen by Musk who can rectify this.. If he doesn't then countries have laws and must use them.. They can just ban Grok AI and not ban X it these images are all they are worried about." In your opinion they are but i doubt any subjective viewpoint would agree theirs or any UK political party aims to go to such a level as china has, some of the legislation brought in by Thatcher which Blair failed to change were and are retrograde but they're nowhere near the example you've chosen.. You have strong views on free speech I recall? Deep fakes are covered by the current laws i believe but this latest tool isn't hence the issue is being looked at.. Maybe they will have to ban it if that's possible because musk seems to think its fine behind a Subscription to have images of people who don't consent to what's being done.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes there's a grey area in the laws, and therein lies a dilemma for governments as legislation is playing catch up but the issue in question is not something that anyone would want used upon their loved ones especially as has been reported under age .." Cameras have been used to make images of people without their consent for decades, including of people that are under age. Should we be banning those too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"gotta question the morals of those defending the right to steal peoples images posted on X in order to make make ai generated kiddy porn etc. and then have it hosted on X. wierdos "As no-one is doing that it's not really an issue.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In your opinion they are but i doubt any subjective viewpoint would agree theirs or any UK political party aims to go to such a level as china has, some of the legislation brought in by Thatcher which Blair failed to change were and are retrograde but they're nowhere near the example you've chosen.. " Blair went far and above what Thatcher did when it comes to taking away people's rights to speak. Sneaking in the 2003 communications act like online communication is same as postal communication, adding religious criticism as part of the public order act to name a few. Blair is an authoritarian fraud. " Deep fakes are covered by the current laws i believe but this latest tool isn't hence the issue is being looked at.. Maybe they will have to ban it if that's possible because musk seems to think its fine behind a Subscription to have images of people who don't consent to what's being done.. " I don't understand why a specific tool isn't covered by deep fake laws. Either way, tools like these have existed for a really long time on the internet. Keeping my views on free speech aside, banning X in the current environment would be a huge political mistake by Starmer. The backlash would be hard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any AI can invent and manipulate images at users request. This is hugely well documented. If this is the issue then ban all AI and photo manipulation software." But only one platform out there has a fact checker and our illustrious PM is the most called out world leader for lies. His MP’s who consistently spout nothing but his party line are being ratioed on a level never seen before. Meanwhile, courts are giving suspended sentences to individuals who are in possession of or actually making these images. Anyway, there’s nothing to worry about here because digital ID will fix it all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Gemini and chat got have inbuilt safeguarding so not really relevant to the issue.." Grok has over 18 safeguarding too. There are multiple examples online of those tools being used to create very dodgy fake images. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"gotta question the morals of those defending the right to steal peoples images posted on X in order to make make ai generated kiddy porn etc. and then have it hosted on X. wierdos
As no-one is doing that it's not really an issue. "it's been proven that this is exactly what's happening. i question the very odd behaviour which leads you to believe that it's not an issue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Gemini and chat got have inbuilt safeguarding so not really relevant to the issue.. Grok has over 18 safeguarding too. There are multiple examples online of those tools being used to create very dodgy fake images." I played around with Gemini now. I uploaded Starmer's picture in a suit and asked it to change the colour of the suit. Gemini refused to do so and said it won't modify pictures of public figures. Then I took the picture of a male model wearing a suit and asked it to replace the suit with just an underwear and sandals. Gemini did it without any questions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any AI can invent and manipulate images at users request. This is hugely well documented. If this is the issue then ban all AI and photo manipulation software." Yes they can.. Others have safeguarding built in.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any AI can invent and manipulate images at users request. This is hugely well documented. If this is the issue then ban all AI and photo manipulation software. Yes they can.. Others have safeguarding built in.. " Which safeguards does Photoshop have? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any AI can invent and manipulate images at users request. This is hugely well documented. If this is the issue then ban all AI and photo manipulation software. Yes they can.. Others have safeguarding built in.. " As mentioned above, I just tried it with Gemini. It refuses to do so for public figures but happily does it for other pictures. I guess they don't care about safeguarding plebs like us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Gemini and chat got have inbuilt safeguarding so not really relevant to the issue.. Grok has over 18 safeguarding too. There are multiple examples online of those tools being used to create very dodgy fake images. I played around with Gemini now. I uploaded Starmer's picture in a suit and asked it to change the colour of the suit. Gemini refused to do so and said it won't modify pictures of public figures. Then I took the picture of a male model wearing a suit and asked it to replace the suit with just an underwear and sandals. Gemini did it without any questions." So its safeguards protect Starmer but not you and me...that's about right.🙄 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Gemini and chat got have inbuilt safeguarding so not really relevant to the issue.. Grok has over 18 safeguarding too. There are multiple examples online of those tools being used to create very dodgy fake images. I played around with Gemini now. I uploaded Starmer's picture in a suit and asked it to change the colour of the suit. Gemini refused to do so and said it won't modify pictures of public figures. Then I took the picture of a male model wearing a suit and asked it to replace the suit with just an underwear and sandals. Gemini did it without any questions." As that shows, these are rapidly evolving and powerful technologies that all legislatiors and regulators are trying to keep up with. Of course platforms like X have legal and moral responsibilities and should be held to account when they fail, but the Govt is only talking about an outright ban for the one which has caused it the most political problems.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Gemini and chat got have inbuilt safeguarding so not really relevant to the issue.. Grok has over 18 safeguarding too. There are multiple examples online of those tools being used to create very dodgy fake images. I played around with Gemini now. I uploaded Starmer's picture in a suit and asked it to change the colour of the suit. Gemini refused to do so and said it won't modify pictures of public figures. Then I took the picture of a male model wearing a suit and asked it to replace the suit with just an underwear and sandals. Gemini did it without any questions. As that shows, these are rapidly evolving and powerful technologies that all legislatiors and regulators are trying to keep up with. Of course platforms like X have legal and moral responsibilities and should be held to account when they fail, but the Govt is only talking about an outright ban for the one which has caused it the most political problems. "Yeah there are numerous problems with how AI tools use data posted online by people. Copyrights, sexualising images, creators losing value over their content, news websites losing traffic to their websites, etc. And these aren't limited to Grok. Grok has its own safeguarding. But it is indeed a bit unhinged compared to the others. It's getting bigger scrutiny just because it's working on X and politicians obviously love a chance to impose bans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This useless cunt can’t catch a few dinghy’s. What chance has he got of shutting down a social media network" Harsh but true 🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Swap and change clothes on random people is one thing but to actually remove clothes even though its not actually them is wrong no matter who its done on, Elon/X needs to do something about it, A bit of harmless fun has got way out of control. But Starmer or the government making out they are suddenly concerned about the sexualization of children/Women when its just about trying to ban X, You wouldn't have sick cunts getting a slap on the wrist or lenient sentences for having/ making images or messing with Children if they was so concerned. The music industry has been sexualizing teenagers/Women for years " Really good points. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t have an issue with them doing this… All they have asked x to do is remove the feature as it’s basically producing CSAM and deepfake porn, All x came back with was “ we will just make it a paid feature” " if course you dint have an issue with them banning it, i remember befire musk brought it you were always using it in your arguments once it went into musks hands its terrible thing, sray on bluesky fabs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"gotta question the morals of those defending the right to steal peoples images posted on X in order to make make ai generated kiddy porn etc. and then have it hosted on X. wierdos
As no-one is doing that it's not really an issue. "But if they ask “would you remove the algorithm in grok that allows people to do this!” And your answer is “we will just make it a paid feature instead!” Isn’t of course we will…is it! Imagine being on the wrong side of an argument when CSAM and deepfake AI porn is the subject… I don’t think that a hill I’d want to die on! Jeez! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t have an issue with them doing this… All they have asked x to do is remove the feature as it’s basically producing CSAM and deepfake porn, All x came back with was “ we will just make it a paid feature” if course you dint have an issue with them banning it, i remember befire musk brought it you were always using it in your arguments once it went into musks hands its terrible thing, sray on bluesky fabs" Blue-sky which is absolutely full of anti-Semitism. Naturally Starmer has no issues that that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any AI can invent and manipulate images at users request. This is hugely well documented. If this is the issue then ban all AI and photo manipulation software. Yes they can.. Others have safeguarding built in.. Which safeguards does Photoshop have?" 
Guess what my answer is..?
Google it (other search engines are also an option)
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any AI can invent and manipulate images at users request. This is hugely well documented. If this is the issue then ban all AI and photo manipulation software. Yes they can.. Others have safeguarding built in.. Which safeguards does Photoshop have?
Guess what my answer is..?
Google it (other search engines are also an option)
"🫡 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Gemini and chat got have inbuilt safeguarding so not really relevant to the issue.. Grok has over 18 safeguarding too. There are multiple examples online of those tools being used to create very dodgy fake images. I played around with Gemini now. I uploaded Starmer's picture in a suit and asked it to change the colour of the suit. Gemini refused to do so and said it won't modify pictures of public figures. Then I took the picture of a male model wearing a suit and asked it to replace the suit with just an underwear and sandals. Gemini did it without any questions. As that shows, these are rapidly evolving and powerful technologies that all legislatiors and regulators are trying to keep up with. Of course platforms like X have legal and moral responsibilities and should be held to account when they fail, but the Govt is only talking about an outright ban for the one which has caused it the most political problems. "The government aren't banning it, that's down to Ofcom yes? They've said if it gets to that then they will support Ofcom.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any AI can invent and manipulate images at users request. This is hugely well documented. If this is the issue then ban all AI and photo manipulation software. Yes they can.. Others have safeguarding built in.. Which safeguards does Photoshop have?
Guess what my answer is..?
Google it (other search engines are also an option)
🫡" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The government aren't banning it, that's down to Ofcom yes? They've said if it gets to that then they will support Ofcom.. " That's a ridiculous way to brush off responsibility. Are you saying that ofcom isn't accountable to anyone? Even the government? If they aren't accountable to anyone, who gave them the rights to control what people access online? If they are accountable to the government, then the government is responsible for the ban too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The government aren't banning it, that's down to Ofcom yes? They've said if it gets to that then they will support Ofcom.. That's a ridiculous way to brush off responsibility. Are you saying that ofcom isn't accountable to anyone? Even the government? If they aren't accountable to anyone, who gave them the rights to control what people access online? If they are accountable to the government, then the government is responsible for the ban too." Who is brushing off responsibility? It's simply a fact that they are the regulator and a correction regards who it is who has the power and can.. Not sure they'll do so .. Of course such things are run by the ministers and ultimately the PM and cabinet.. You might as well say its the voters who elect said party.. Or even the apathetic who don't vote.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The government aren't banning it, that's down to Ofcom yes? They've said if it gets to that then they will support Ofcom.. That's a ridiculous way to brush off responsibility. Are you saying that ofcom isn't accountable to anyone? Even the government? If they aren't accountable to anyone, who gave them the rights to control what people access online? If they are accountable to the government, then the government is responsible for the ban too. Who is brushing off responsibility? It's simply a fact that they are the regulator and a correction regards who it is who has the power and can.. Not sure they'll do so .. Of course such things are run by the ministers and ultimately the PM and cabinet.. You might as well say its the voters who elect said party.. Or even the apathetic who don't vote.. " Indirectly ofcom is still run by the government. The government can't let these institutions do censorship on behalf of them and claim "We aren't banning it. It's ofcom that's banning it". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The government aren't banning it, that's down to Ofcom yes? They've said if it gets to that then they will support Ofcom.. That's a ridiculous way to brush off responsibility. Are you saying that ofcom isn't accountable to anyone? Even the government? If they aren't accountable to anyone, who gave them the rights to control what people access online? If they are accountable to the government, then the government is responsible for the ban too. Who is brushing off responsibility? It's simply a fact that they are the regulator and a correction regards who it is who has the power and can.. Not sure they'll do so .. Of course such things are run by the ministers and ultimately the PM and cabinet.. You might as well say its the voters who elect said party.. Or even the apathetic who don't vote.. Indirectly ofcom is still run by the government. The government can't let these institutions do censorship on behalf of them and claim "We aren't banning it. It's ofcom that's banning it"." They like all such regulatory bodies being set up and appointed by politicians and funded by the public purse are answerable to us via them etc.. We've seen under the tories how such appointments are politically swayed by who they pick and that's as old as the hills everywhere.. In most cases it works OK, there's a distancing etc to keep fingers clean if it goes pear shaped.. Tbh in this instance whereby we are looking at some of our most vulnerable in society being used by wrong uns as wank fodder and a company that's dragging its heels crying its about free speech Bellshill then any government has a duty to its citizens to act directly or via the appropriate regulatory body.. Anyone screaming he's a shit Pm is fine, water off his back no doubt.. But no one can justify its acceptable and doesn't need resolving.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Indirectly ofcom is still run by the government. The government can't let these institutions do censorship on behalf of them and claim "We aren't banning it. It's ofcom that's banning it". They like all such regulatory bodies being set up and appointed by politicians and funded by the public purse are answerable to us via them etc.. We've seen under the tories how such appointments are politically swayed by who they pick and that's as old as the hills everywhere.. In most cases it works OK, there's a distancing etc to keep fingers clean if it goes pear shaped.. " If people believe that the government shouldn't take responsibility for what these institutions do, then yes. But I don't think that's the case. If the ofcom is doing censorship, the government is doing censorship. There is a reason why Labour received a lot of flak for the ID verification checks on the adult sites. " Tbh in this instance whereby we are looking at some of our most vulnerable in society being used by wrong uns as wank fodder and a company that's dragging its heels crying its about free speech Bellshill then any government has a duty to its citizens to act directly or via the appropriate regulatory body.. Anyone screaming he's a shit Pm is fine, water off his back no doubt.. But no one can justify its acceptable and doesn't need resolving.. " So why just stop with Twitter? Why not ban Gemini too which also does the same? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Indirectly ofcom is still run by the government. The government can't let these institutions do censorship on behalf of them and claim "We aren't banning it. It's ofcom that's banning it". They like all such regulatory bodies being set up and appointed by politicians and funded by the public purse are answerable to us via them etc.. We've seen under the tories how such appointments are politically swayed by who they pick and that's as old as the hills everywhere.. In most cases it works OK, there's a distancing etc to keep fingers clean if it goes pear shaped.. If people believe that the government shouldn't take responsibility for what these institutions do, then yes. But I don't think that's the case. If the ofcom is doing censorship, the government is doing censorship. There is a reason why Labour received a lot of flak for the ID verification checks on the adult sites. Tbh in this instance whereby we are looking at some of our most vulnerable in society being used by wrong uns as wank fodder and a company that's dragging its heels crying its about free speech Bellshill then any government has a duty to its citizens to act directly or via the appropriate regulatory body.. Anyone screaming he's a shit Pm is fine, water off his back no doubt.. But no one can justify its acceptable and doesn't need resolving.. So why just stop with Twitter? Why not ban Gemini too which also does the same? " Its not censorship.. That's a very poor thing to say given the subject is about protection of people who don't consent to what is being done.. There's a child protection element here too as its already gone down that vile route.. Maybe they will.. There's many elements about tech and social media that require attention.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Indirectly ofcom is still run by the government. The government can't let these institutions do censorship on behalf of them and claim "We aren't banning it. It's ofcom that's banning it". They like all such regulatory bodies being set up and appointed by politicians and funded by the public purse are answerable to us via them etc.. We've seen under the tories how such appointments are politically swayed by who they pick and that's as old as the hills everywhere.. In most cases it works OK, there's a distancing etc to keep fingers clean if it goes pear shaped.. If people believe that the government shouldn't take responsibility for what these institutions do, then yes. But I don't think that's the case. If the ofcom is doing censorship, the government is doing censorship. There is a reason why Labour received a lot of flak for the ID verification checks on the adult sites. Tbh in this instance whereby we are looking at some of our most vulnerable in society being used by wrong uns as wank fodder and a company that's dragging its heels crying its about free speech Bellshill then any government has a duty to its citizens to act directly or via the appropriate regulatory body.. Anyone screaming he's a shit Pm is fine, water off his back no doubt.. But no one can justify its acceptable and doesn't need resolving.. So why just stop with Twitter? Why not ban Gemini too which also does the same? Its not censorship.. That's a very poor thing to say given the subject is about protection of people who don't consent to what is being done.. There's a child protection element here too as its already gone down that vile route.. Maybe they will.. There's many elements about tech and social media that require attention.. " If Farage becomes PM and bans blue sky because a few accounts in blue sky shared deep fake content, will you call that censorship or just safeguarding people? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"it appears the pro-pedo lobby are now labelling attempts to prevent the kiddy porn etc that is blighting social media as censorship. how sickeningly low are these pro-pedo lobbyists prepare to stoop? " Bit rich coming from a party who have been running most of the councils where the grooming gangs operated, isn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Indirectly ofcom is still run by the government. The government can't let these institutions do censorship on behalf of them and claim "We aren't banning it. It's ofcom that's banning it". They like all such regulatory bodies being set up and appointed by politicians and funded by the public purse are answerable to us via them etc.. We've seen under the tories how such appointments are politically swayed by who they pick and that's as old as the hills everywhere.. In most cases it works OK, there's a distancing etc to keep fingers clean if it goes pear shaped.. If people believe that the government shouldn't take responsibility for what these institutions do, then yes. But I don't think that's the case. If the ofcom is doing censorship, the government is doing censorship. There is a reason why Labour received a lot of flak for the ID verification checks on the adult sites. Tbh in this instance whereby we are looking at some of our most vulnerable in society being used by wrong uns as wank fodder and a company that's dragging its heels crying its about free speech Bellshill then any government has a duty to its citizens to act directly or via the appropriate regulatory body.. Anyone screaming he's a shit Pm is fine, water off his back no doubt.. But no one can justify its acceptable and doesn't need resolving.. So why just stop with Twitter? Why not ban Gemini too which also does the same? Its not censorship.. That's a very poor thing to say given the subject is about protection of people who don't consent to what is being done.. There's a child protection element here too as its already gone down that vile route.. Maybe they will.. There's many elements about tech and social media that require attention.. If Farage becomes PM and bans blue sky because a few accounts in blue sky shared deep fake content, will you call that censorship or just safeguarding people?" Firstly I'm not familiar with blue sky so can't comment.. If farage was pm now and ofcom were as they are on this issue then I think nigh on everyone would support it and him.. Why wouldn't they..? Would you support a ban on this type of activity regardless of who is pm if the provider doesn't sort it out? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be interesting to see US response if this goes ahead..." It will be pretty much as you might expect it, the neo cons will spin it and gave a go at a 'left' leaning government.. Maybe Trump will send delta in to 'capture' the head of Ofcom.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be interesting to see US response if this goes ahead... It will be pretty much as you might expect it, the neo cons will spin it and gave a go at a 'left' leaning government.. Maybe Trump will send delta in to 'capture' the head of Ofcom.. "🙏🙏🙏🙏🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be interesting to see US response if this goes ahead... It will be pretty much as you might expect it, the neo cons will spin it and gave a go at a 'left' leaning government.. Maybe Trump will send delta in to 'capture' the head of Ofcom..
🙏🙏🙏🙏🤣"
Shall I assume you won't contribute to the hostage release fund raising.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be interesting to see US response if this goes ahead... It will be pretty much as you might expect it, the neo cons will spin it and gave a go at a 'left' leaning government.. Maybe Trump will send delta in to 'capture' the head of Ofcom..
🙏🙏🙏🙏🤣
Shall I assume you won't contribute to the hostage release fund raising.."I'll tweet my support  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Bit rich coming from a party who have been running most of the councils where the grooming gangs operated, isn't it? " i'm not a political party running any councils. 🤡👞👞 it's a bit rich that the previous anti-pedo warriors crusading about grooming gangs have become the pro-pedo lobby and are campaigning for the right to produce kiddy porn etc directly in chat via X ..... sickening 🤮🤮🤮 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be interesting to see US response if this goes ahead... It will be pretty much as you might expect it, the neo cons will spin it and gave a go at a 'left' leaning government.. Maybe Trump will send delta in to 'capture' the head of Ofcom..
🙏🙏🙏🙏🤣
Shall I assume you won't contribute to the hostage release fund raising..
I'll tweet my support "Don't use it.. Full of iffy types who frequent sites like this.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Will be interesting to see US response if this goes ahead... It will be pretty much as you might expect it, the neo cons will spin it and gave a go at a 'left' leaning government.. Maybe Trump will send delta in to 'capture' the head of Ofcom..
🙏🙏🙏🙏🤣
Shall I assume you won't contribute to the hostage release fund raising..
I'll tweet my support
Don't use it..
Full of iffy types who frequent sites like this.. "😳😳😳🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If people believe that the government shouldn't take responsibility for what these institutions do, then yes. But I don't think that's the case. If the ofcom is doing censorship, the government is doing censorship. There is a reason why Labour received a lot of flak for the ID verification checks on the adult sites. Tbh in this instance whereby we are looking at some of our most vulnerable in society being used by wrong uns as wank fodder and a company that's dragging its heels crying its about free speech Bellshill then any government has a duty to its citizens to act directly or via the appropriate regulatory body.. Anyone screaming he's a shit Pm is fine, water off his back no doubt.. But no one can justify its acceptable and doesn't need resolving.. So why just stop with Twitter? Why not ban Gemini too which also does the same? Its not censorship.. That's a very poor thing to say given the subject is about protection of people who don't consent to what is being done.. There's a child protection element here too as its already gone down that vile route.. Maybe they will.. There's many elements about tech and social media that require attention.. If Farage becomes PM and bans blue sky because a few accounts in blue sky shared deep fake content, will you call that censorship or just safeguarding people? Firstly I'm not familiar with blue sky so can't comment.. If farage was pm now and ofcom were as they are on this issue then I think nigh on everyone would support it and him.. Why wouldn't they..? Would you support a ban on this type of activity regardless of who is pm if the provider doesn't sort it out?" Blue sky is the site were most left wingers told they are flooding to after Musk bought Twitter. You are again pretending like Ofcom is an independent organisation. Farage wins the election, he appoints new people to run ofcom and they ban Bluesky because they found a few accounts posting deep fakes of women. Will you be supportive of it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Bit rich coming from a party who have been running most of the councils where the grooming gangs operated, isn't it? i'm not a political party running any councils. 🤡👞👞 it's a bit rich that the previous anti-pedo warriors crusading about grooming gangs have become the pro-pedo lobby and are campaigning for the right to produce kiddy porn etc directly in chat via X ..... sickening 🤮🤮🤮" Labour party ran the councils. And now they are pretending like they want to protect the kids. It's sickening to see people like you using something as sensitive as child pornography as a political tool just to take down a platform that has opinions different to yours🤮🤮🤮🤮 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If people believe that the government shouldn't take responsibility for what these institutions do, then yes. But I don't think that's the case. If the ofcom is doing censorship, the government is doing censorship. There is a reason why Labour received a lot of flak for the ID verification checks on the adult sites. Tbh in this instance whereby we are looking at some of our most vulnerable in society being used by wrong uns as wank fodder and a company that's dragging its heels crying its about free speech Bellshill then any government has a duty to its citizens to act directly or via the appropriate regulatory body.. Anyone screaming he's a shit Pm is fine, water off his back no doubt.. But no one can justify its acceptable and doesn't need resolving.. So why just stop with Twitter? Why not ban Gemini too which also does the same? Its not censorship.. That's a very poor thing to say given the subject is about protection of people who don't consent to what is being done.. There's a child protection element here too as its already gone down that vile route.. Maybe they will.. There's many elements about tech and social media that require attention.. If Farage becomes PM and bans blue sky because a few accounts in blue sky shared deep fake content, will you call that censorship or just safeguarding people? Firstly I'm not familiar with blue sky so can't comment.. If farage was pm now and ofcom were as they are on this issue then I think nigh on everyone would support it and him.. Why wouldn't they..? Would you support a ban on this type of activity regardless of who is pm if the provider doesn't sort it out? Blue sky is the site were most left wingers told they are flooding to after Musk bought Twitter. You are again pretending like Ofcom is an independent organisation. Farage wins the election, he appoints new people to run ofcom and they ban Bluesky because they found a few accounts posting deep fakes of women. Will you be supportive of it?" No I'm simply stating the facts plus I've added some context that all politicians act the same way.. If under farage Ofcom took that decision after trying to get blue sky to sort out anything that was illegal then yes.. Is it illegal to do that? Nore that your avoiding my question above, given that do you think its acceptable for some of what grok has allowed? With people who dont consent to their images being changed? Not sure why anyone has any reluctancy in condemning such things, it really is about decency and trying to protect people from sone of the scum who do such things.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If Farage becomes PM and bans blue sky because a few accounts in blue sky shared deep fake content, will you call that censorship or just safeguarding people? Firstly I'm not familiar with blue sky so can't comment.. If farage was pm now and ofcom were as they are on this issue then I think nigh on everyone would support it and him.. Why wouldn't they..? Would you support a ban on this type of activity regardless of who is pm if the provider doesn't sort it out? Blue sky is the site were most left wingers told they are flooding to after Musk bought Twitter. You are again pretending like Ofcom is an independent organisation. Farage wins the election, he appoints new people to run ofcom and they ban Bluesky because they found a few accounts posting deep fakes of women. Will you be supportive of it? No I'm simply stating the facts plus I've added some context that all politicians act the same way.. If under farage Ofcom took that decision after trying to get blue sky to sort out anything that was illegal then yes.. Is it illegal to do that? " In both cases, it could be easily construed as a politician using an opportunity to take down a platform that goes against their political views. It's not about legal/illegal. If Starmer decides to take down X, it would be a hugely unpopular move that would lead to wide spread protests and Labour will be well on its way to be wiped out in the elections. And Labour will deserve everything that happens to them. " Nore that your avoiding my question above, given that do you think its acceptable for some of what grok has allowed. With people who dont consent to their images being changed? " I work in tech and I have seen enough to know that Grok isn't the only one with the problem. Is starmer happy to ban Gemini, chatgpt and all opensource models that don't have safeguarding? Someone on X posted a picture of Starmer himself wearing bikini that he generated using ChatGPT. As I mentioned above, Gemini blocks you from changing images of public figures but not for plebs like you and me. So Why focus only on Grok? Also, why try to ban Twitter instead of banning just Grok? " Not sure why anyone has any reluctancy in condemning such things, it really is about decency and trying to protect people from sone of the scum who do such things.." Oh I condemn such things. But I am not foolish enough to believe that politicians are doing it to protect the children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If Farage becomes PM and bans blue sky because a few accounts in blue sky shared deep fake content, will you call that censorship or just safeguarding people? Firstly I'm not familiar with blue sky so can't comment.. If farage was pm now and ofcom were as they are on this issue then I think nigh on everyone would support it and him.. Why wouldn't they..? Would you support a ban on this type of activity regardless of who is pm if the provider doesn't sort it out? Blue sky is the site were most left wingers told they are flooding to after Musk bought Twitter. You are again pretending like Ofcom is an independent organisation. Farage wins the election, he appoints new people to run ofcom and they ban Bluesky because they found a few accounts posting deep fakes of women. Will you be supportive of it? No I'm simply stating the facts plus I've added some context that all politicians act the same way.. If under farage Ofcom took that decision after trying to get blue sky to sort out anything that was illegal then yes.. Is it illegal to do that? In both cases, it could be easily construed as a politician using an opportunity to take down a platform that goes against their political views. It's not about legal/illegal. If Starmer decides to take down X, it would be a hugely unpopular move that would lead to wide spread protests and Labour will be well on its way to be wiped out in the elections. And Labour will deserve everything that happens to them. Nore that your avoiding my question above, given that do you think its acceptable for some of what grok has allowed. With people who dont consent to their images being changed? I work in tech and I have seen enough to know that Grok isn't the only one with the problem. Is starmer happy to ban Gemini, chatgpt and all opensource models that don't have safeguarding? Someone on X posted a picture of Starmer himself wearing bikini that he generated using ChatGPT. As I mentioned above, Gemini blocks you from changing images of public figures but not for plebs like you and me. So Why focus only on Grok? Also, why try to ban Twitter instead of banning just Grok? Not sure why anyone has any reluctancy in condemning such things, it really is about decency and trying to protect people from sone of the scum who do such things.. Oh I condemn such things. But I am not foolish enough to believe that politicians are doing it to protect the children." Politicians eh.. Yet you still wouldn't agree that if they refuse to change it from the current way it is a government should act.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Bit rich coming from a party who have been running most of the councils where the grooming gangs operated, isn't it? i'm not a political party running any councils. 🤡👞👞 it's a bit rich that the previous anti-pedo warriors crusading about grooming gangs have become the pro-pedo lobby and are campaigning for the right to produce kiddy porn etc directly in chat via X ..... sickening 🤮🤮🤮 Labour party ran the councils. And now they are pretending like they want to protect the kids. It's sickening to see people like you using something as sensitive as child pornography as a political tool just to take down a platform that has opinions different to yours🤮🤮🤮🤮 i'm not taking down any platforms nor do i have the power to do so. 🤡 i'm also very comfortable that my opinion differs from the pro-pedo lobbyists posting on this thread. They are so far within their ideology that they are using it to defend a simple request You would think that a simple request to deny people the access to produce CSAM and deepfake AI porn would be a slam dunk on the yes/no scale Apparently not….." It's not a simple request. Anyone who understands the technology knows that it's a difficult problem to solve. Even ChatGPT and Gemini have the same problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few simple questions have been made unnecessarily complicated. Is there a concerning issue with misuse and manipulation with images on Grok/ X ? - Yes Is there a similar issue on other platforms and AI tools ? - Yes Should these issues be tackled equally by politicians and regulators? - Yes Is the Government targeting all those tools and platforms equally? - No Has the Government been repeatedly embarrassed and exposed for misinformation by X, not least the recent El Fattah scandal ? - Yes Is the Government currently hugely unpopular? - Yes We are seeing a political process, not a legal or moral one." 
This has all the writings of the Tel Aviv football fans thread. You have people pretending like the institutions are operating with some good intention and supporting them when it it's crystal clear that's not the case. And when they are exposed, you will see the usual suspects going silent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few simple questions have been made unnecessarily complicated. Is there a concerning issue with misuse and manipulation with images on Grok/ X ? - Yes Is there a similar issue on other platforms and AI tools ? - Yes Should these issues be tackled equally by politicians and regulators? - Yes Is the Government targeting all those tools and platforms equally? - No Has the Government been repeatedly embarrassed and exposed for misinformation by X, not least the recent El Fattah scandal ? - Yes Is the Government currently hugely unpopular? - Yes We are seeing a political process, not a legal or moral one.
This has all the writings of the Tel Aviv football fans thread. You have people pretending like the institutions are operating with some good intention and supporting them when it it's crystal clear that's not the case. And when they are exposed, you will see the usual suspects going silent."I agree with this, the silence was deafening on that once the truth came out. That only lasts until the next event comes into focus and the echo chambers spin up again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Bit rich coming from a party who have been running most of the councils where the grooming gangs operated, isn't it? i'm not a political party running any councils. 🤡👞👞 it's a bit rich that the previous anti-pedo warriors crusading about grooming gangs have become the pro-pedo lobby and are campaigning for the right to produce kiddy porn etc directly in chat via X ..... sickening 🤮🤮🤮 Labour party ran the councils. And now they are pretending like they want to protect the kids. It's sickening to see people like you using something as sensitive as child pornography as a political tool just to take down a platform that has opinions different to yours🤮🤮🤮🤮 i'm not taking down any platforms nor do i have the power to do so. 🤡 i'm also very comfortable that my opinion differs from the pro-pedo lobbyists posting on this thread. They are so far within their ideology that they are using it to defend a simple request You would think that a simple request to deny people the access to produce CSAM and deepfake AI porn would be a slam dunk on the yes/no scale Apparently not….. Very disappointing from you as you're generally a thoughtful poster. Can you point to where anyone on here has expressed an 'ideology' ? A belief in freedom of speech is a value, not an ideology unless you've really bought into far far left thoughts that hold all liberal values as expressions of 'white privilege' ?" YOU are the one who mentioned left/right… and now you mention liberal and white privilege I have only mentioned CSAM and Deepfake AI porn So.. which one of us is speaking ideology? You are very evasive at answering direct questions… that’s your MO… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few simple questions have been made unnecessarily complicated. Is there a concerning issue with misuse and manipulation with images on Grok/ X ? - Yes Is there a similar issue on other platforms and AI tools ? - Yes Should these issues be tackled equally by politicians and regulators? - Yes Is the Government targeting all those tools and platforms equally? - No Has the Government been repeatedly embarrassed and exposed for misinformation by X, not least the recent El Fattah scandal ? - Yes Is the Government currently hugely unpopular? - Yes We are seeing a political process, not a legal or moral one.
This has all the writings of the Tel Aviv football fans thread. You have people pretending like the institutions are operating with some good intention and supporting them when it it's crystal clear that's not the case. And when they are exposed, you will see the usual suspects going silent."To be fair in this case I think we can all support the (alleged) objective of stopping illegal image misuse but what's concerning is the failure to question the political motives simply they are anti-X, in the same way they went along with the police lies and misinformation used to ban football supporters they didn't like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X should install appropriate guardrails to prevent harm, it is industry standard to do so. That is the first step and important to remove the noise of the faux outraged. However, there is also a point that not all users are harmed and some users want other users to use this function on their images. With the correct guardrails and authentication policies that can be achieved. If that is in place only people willing to share their images for manipulation and people wanting to see the output would see it. The issue of underage image manipulation should be manageable because laws are in place to close this down and the people that are generating them. If the correct guardrails are again in place a user would be known and not anonymous, the law can then be applied as it is today. What I can see is a system that has not been thoroughly considered, it doesn't need banning, it needs to be encouraged to to be part of the solution of understanding how expanding tech capability and services are developed to avoid exploitation in the future. " The way I see it, there are two problems here: 1) Generation of manipulated images 2) Publishing those images Problem 1 is a really hard one to solve. As you said, someone might have a legit reason to manipulate images. And even if you try to write some laws banning some type of content, there are so many open source models available that any tech savvy person can take and do whatever the hell they want to. Problem 2 is a relatively easy one to solve. One could work on some regulations for social media and porn websites to take down manipulated images involving children and have a process for someone whose image has been posted without their consent to file a complaint with the site to take it down. There are already laws about posting images of children. But there is no legal framework against posting someone's image without consent, manipulated or not. It's high time we had one though, especially with proliferation of cameras everywhere. It's not just AI manipulated image that's the problem. Even direct images taken without consent, like upskirting, etc. Instead of working on such a framework, trying to ban such a widely used platform looks like political opportunism more than anything | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A few simple questions have been made unnecessarily complicated. Is there a concerning issue with misuse and manipulation with images on Grok/ X ? - Yes Is there a similar issue on other platforms and AI tools ? - Yes Should these issues be tackled equally by politicians and regulators? - Yes Is the Government targeting all those tools and platforms equally? - No Has the Government been repeatedly embarrassed and exposed for misinformation by X, not least the recent El Fattah scandal ? - Yes Is the Government currently hugely unpopular? - Yes We are seeing a political process, not a legal or moral one.
This has all the writings of the Tel Aviv football fans thread. You have people pretending like the institutions are operating with some good intention and supporting them when it it's crystal clear that's not the case. And when they are exposed, you will see the usual suspects going silent.
To be fair in this case I think we can all support the (alleged) objective of stopping illegal image misuse but what's concerning is the failure to question the political motives simply they are anti-X, in the same way they went along with the police lies and misinformation used to ban football supporters they didn't like."I agree. Image manipulation is definitely a problem that has to be sorted out. But blanket banning one social media platform is simply not the right solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Bit rich coming from a party who have been running most of the councils where the grooming gangs operated, isn't it? i'm not a political party running any councils. 🤡👞👞 it's a bit rich that the previous anti-pedo warriors crusading about grooming gangs have become the pro-pedo lobby and are campaigning for the right to produce kiddy porn etc directly in chat via X ..... sickening 🤮🤮🤮 Labour party ran the councils. And now they are pretending like they want to protect the kids. It's sickening to see people like you using something as sensitive as child pornography as a political tool just to take down a platform that has opinions different to yours🤮🤮🤮🤮 i'm not taking down any platforms nor do i have the power to do so. 🤡 i'm also very comfortable that my opinion differs from the pro-pedo lobbyists posting on this thread. They are so far within their ideology that they are using it to defend a simple request You would think that a simple request to deny people the access to produce CSAM and deepfake AI porn would be a slam dunk on the yes/no scale Apparently not….. Very disappointing from you as you're generally a thoughtful poster. Can you point to where anyone on here has expressed an 'ideology' ? A belief in freedom of speech is a value, not an ideology unless you've really bought into far far left thoughts that hold all liberal values as expressions of 'white privilege' ? YOU are the one who mentioned left/right… and now you mention liberal and white privilege I have only mentioned CSAM and Deepfake AI porn So.. which one of us is speaking ideology? You are very evasive at answering direct questions… that’s your MO… " What is your direct question I haven't answered? I may have BO but not sure about an M0 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X should install appropriate guardrails to prevent harm, it is industry standard to do so. That is the first step and important to remove the noise of the faux outraged. However, there is also a point that not all users are harmed and some users want other users to use this function on their images. With the correct guardrails and authentication policies that can be achieved. If that is in place only people willing to share their images for manipulation and people wanting to see the output would see it. The issue of underage image manipulation should be manageable because laws are in place to close this down and the people that are generating them. If the correct guardrails are again in place a user would be known and not anonymous, the law can then be applied as it is today. What I can see is a system that has not been thoroughly considered, it doesn't need banning, it needs to be encouraged to to be part of the solution of understanding how expanding tech capability and services are developed to avoid exploitation in the future. The way I see it, there are two problems here: 1) Generation of manipulated images 2) Publishing those images Problem 1 is a really hard one to solve. As you said, someone might have a legit reason to manipulate images. And even if you try to write some laws banning some type of content, there are so many open source models available that any tech savvy person can take and do whatever the hell they want to. Problem 2 is a relatively easy one to solve. One could work on some regulations for social media and porn websites to take down manipulated images involving children and have a process for someone whose image has been posted without their consent to file a complaint with the site to take it down. There are already laws about posting images of children. But there is no legal framework against posting someone's image without consent, manipulated or not. It's high time we had one though, especially with proliferation of cameras everywhere. It's not just AI manipulated image that's the problem. Even direct images taken without consent, like upskirting, etc. Instead of working on such a framework, trying to ban such a widely used platform looks like political opportunism more than anything" A new legal framework definitely needed, although not easy to draft when tech moves so quickly and v difficult to contain with local legislation. Also doesn't help that UK and EU are so keen on excessive regulation while US leans strongly towards a wild west approach on free speech. They really need common ground but banning X will drop a bomb on that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X should install appropriate guardrails to prevent harm, it is industry standard to do so. That is the first step and important to remove the noise of the faux outraged. However, there is also a point that not all users are harmed and some users want other users to use this function on their images. With the correct guardrails and authentication policies that can be achieved. If that is in place only people willing to share their images for manipulation and people wanting to see the output would see it. The issue of underage image manipulation should be manageable because laws are in place to close this down and the people that are generating them. If the correct guardrails are again in place a user would be known and not anonymous, the law can then be applied as it is today. What I can see is a system that has not been thoroughly considered, it doesn't need banning, it needs to be encouraged to to be part of the solution of understanding how expanding tech capability and services are developed to avoid exploitation in the future. The way I see it, there are two problems here: 1) Generation of manipulated images 2) Publishing those images Problem 1 is a really hard one to solve. As you said, someone might have a legit reason to manipulate images. And even if you try to write some laws banning some type of content, there are so many open source models available that any tech savvy person can take and do whatever the hell they want to. Problem 2 is a relatively easy one to solve. One could work on some regulations for social media and porn websites to take down manipulated images involving children and have a process for someone whose image has been posted without their consent to file a complaint with the site to take it down. There are already laws about posting images of children. But there is no legal framework against posting someone's image without consent, manipulated or not. It's high time we had one though, especially with proliferation of cameras everywhere. It's not just AI manipulated image that's the problem. Even direct images taken without consent, like upskirting, etc. Instead of working on such a framework, trying to ban such a widely used platform looks like political opportunism more than anything" I don't disagree with what you are saying, it is roughly line with my first post. Where you are making a different argument is cross platform control, but if we consider the point of bringing these "new AI tech" services into a joint guardrail collective that is a shared responsibility we would be making a positive step in the right direction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X should install appropriate guardrails to prevent harm, it is industry standard to do so. That is the first step and important to remove the noise of the faux outraged. However, there is also a point that not all users are harmed and some users want other users to use this function on their images. With the correct guardrails and authentication policies that can be achieved. If that is in place only people willing to share their images for manipulation and people wanting to see the output would see it. The issue of underage image manipulation should be manageable because laws are in place to close this down and the people that are generating them. If the correct guardrails are again in place a user would be known and not anonymous, the law can then be applied as it is today. What I can see is a system that has not been thoroughly considered, it doesn't need banning, it needs to be encouraged to to be part of the solution of understanding how expanding tech capability and services are developed to avoid exploitation in the future. The way I see it, there are two problems here: 1) Generation of manipulated images 2) Publishing those images Problem 1 is a really hard one to solve. As you said, someone might have a legit reason to manipulate images. And even if you try to write some laws banning some type of content, there are so many open source models available that any tech savvy person can take and do whatever the hell they want to. Problem 2 is a relatively easy one to solve. One could work on some regulations for social media and porn websites to take down manipulated images involving children and have a process for someone whose image has been posted without their consent to file a complaint with the site to take it down. There are already laws about posting images of children. But there is no legal framework against posting someone's image without consent, manipulated or not. It's high time we had one though, especially with proliferation of cameras everywhere. It's not just AI manipulated image that's the problem. Even direct images taken without consent, like upskirting, etc. Instead of working on such a framework, trying to ban such a widely used platform looks like political opportunism more than anything I don't disagree with what you are saying, it is roughly line with my first post. Where you are making a different argument is cross platform control, but if we consider the point of bringing these "new AI tech" services into a joint guardrail collective that is a shared responsibility we would be making a positive step in the right direction. " Very good idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No I'm simply stating the facts plus I've added some context that all politicians act the same way.. If under farage Ofcom took that decision after trying to get blue sky to sort out anything that was illegal then yes.. Is it illegal to do that? In both cases, it could be easily construed as a politician using an opportunity to take down a platform that goes against their political views. It's not about legal/illegal. If Starmer decides to take down X, it would be a hugely unpopular move that would lead to wide spread protests and Labour will be well on its way to be wiped out in the elections. And Labour will deserve everything that happens to them. Nore that your avoiding my question above, given that do you think its acceptable for some of what grok has allowed. With people who dont consent to their images being changed? I work in tech and I have seen enough to know that Grok isn't the only one with the problem. Is starmer happy to ban Gemini, chatgpt and all opensource models that don't have safeguarding? Someone on X posted a picture of Starmer himself wearing bikini that he generated using ChatGPT. As I mentioned above, Gemini blocks you from changing images of public figures but not for plebs like you and me. So Why focus only on Grok? Also, why try to ban Twitter instead of banning just Grok? Not sure why anyone has any reluctancy in condemning such things, it really is about decency and trying to protect people from sone of the scum who do such things.. Oh I condemn such things. But I am not foolish enough to believe that politicians are doing it to protect the children. Politicians eh.. Yet you still wouldn't agree that if they refuse to change it from the current way it is a government should act.. You have conveniently ignored every other point I have raised. ChatGPT and Gemini also has the problem. Simply put, it's a really difficult technological problem to solve. If Starmer really sees it as a problem, shouldn't he ban all the AI agents in the market? Remember that even if he bans it, any tech savvy person can easily use the open source models available." Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.." Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from." What I'm seeing is how surface level reactions to close everything down leans into a gap in understanding of how these systems actually work, and how they can be used legitimately. There is a market for image manipulation tools, OF and other self promoters have been seen to manipulate this ability on Grok to drive traffic for $$$$'s. You know as well as I do, once a tool is in the hands of a user the unknowns suddenly become known. Beta testing on a global scale does bring problems when the name is Musk and he needs to do better on the release and risk side of things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from." See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response? "I think you're mixing up your posters. You accused me of not answering direct questions but won't say what they were! 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response? "This is an example of a gap in understanding I mentioned... Being available to paying customers only would allow for greater moderation and compliance by removing anonymity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response?
This is an example of a gap in understanding I mentioned... Being available to paying customers only would allow for greater moderation and compliance by removing anonymity. "So images of children are OK because they might be picked up by moderators as long as people pay? From a bloke who's company has cut back a lot on moderators.. Im pretty sure you dont mean that do you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from." Your whole point has been to go off on tangents and introduce several areas of whataboutery rather than agree that a ban if needed will be the right thing to do to protect people from what's been happening.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response?
I think you're mixing up your posters. You accused me of not answering direct questions but won't say what they were! 🤣"No… that wasn’t aimed at you.. that was aimed at lost.. he likes whataboutery and pseudo mind tricks changing the narrative or the subject Has opinions on everything yet definitive positions on nothing It would honestly be quite impressive if game didn’t recognise game…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response?
This is an example of a gap in understanding I mentioned... Being available to paying customers only would allow for greater moderation and compliance by removing anonymity.
So images of children are OK because they might be picked up by moderators as long as people pay?
From a bloke who's company has cut back a lot on moderators..
Im pretty sure you dont mean that do you?"Read back carefully what I wrote, and then look at your reply. You seem emotionally charged. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Banning a tool in isolation is pretty stupid and useless. Rather, the government should promptly figure out some red lines, publish those and evaluate (or encourage challenges against) all providers who cross that line, then act accordingly, which could include full of partial bans, fines or deadlines for change. Anything else smells like politicised knee-jerk nonsense. The legislation is currently out of date and unable to keep up with change. Wouldn't it be good if there were a department that could proactively keep up with communication and technology, updating policies and laws on a regular basis..." Regulations on data construction and manipulation is still catching out governments, and time is now not an excuse for that to be a thing. I agree calls for the banning of tools is useless, more of a break the machine Luddite reaction. There needs to be more governance on application capabilities and regional acceptance, in the same way hardware and software is already managed, call it AI and the barriers seem to drop. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response?
This is an example of a gap in understanding I mentioned... Being available to paying customers only would allow for greater moderation and compliance by removing anonymity.
So images of children are OK because they might be picked up by moderators as long as people pay?
From a bloke who's company has cut back a lot on moderators..
Im pretty sure you dont mean that do you?
Read back carefully what I wrote, and then look at your reply.
You seem emotionally charged."sorry, that was quick reply and I should have expanded my answer. Taking away a function that can be used by anonymous users for harm will reduce harm. If the function is then used for harm by known (subscribers, paying members) the correct action of law enforcement can be supported. The challenge is allowing people to use tools as intended and within the law without being overbearing, and also taking out those that wish to abuse the tools. A global AI highway code is needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response?
This is an example of a gap in understanding I mentioned... Being available to paying customers only would allow for greater moderation and compliance by removing anonymity.
So images of children are OK because they might be picked up by moderators as long as people pay?
From a bloke who's company has cut back a lot on moderators..
Im pretty sure you dont mean that do you?
Read back carefully what I wrote, and then look at your reply.
You seem emotionally charged.
sorry, that was quick reply and I should have expanded my answer.
Taking away a function that can be used by anonymous users for harm will reduce harm.
If the function is then used for harm by known (subscribers, paying members) the correct action of law enforcement can be supported.
The challenge is allowing people to use tools as intended and within the law without being overbearing, and also taking out those that wish to abuse the tools. A global AI highway code is needed."That is well explained and makes a lot of sense, thank you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response?
This is an example of a gap in understanding I mentioned... Being available to paying customers only would allow for greater moderation and compliance by removing anonymity.
So images of children are OK because they might be picked up by moderators as long as people pay?
From a bloke who's company has cut back a lot on moderators..
Im pretty sure you dont mean that do you?
Read back carefully what I wrote, and then look at your reply.
You seem emotionally charged."Your saying let it be because we have removed anonymity and they are paying us.. In other words its ok to carry on what some have been doing..? That's how I read it..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response?
This is an example of a gap in understanding I mentioned... Being available to paying customers only would allow for greater moderation and compliance by removing anonymity.
So images of children are OK because they might be picked up by moderators as long as people pay?
From a bloke who's company has cut back a lot on moderators..
Im pretty sure you dont mean that do you?
Read back carefully what I wrote, and then look at your reply.
You seem emotionally charged.
sorry, that was quick reply and I should have expanded my answer.
Taking away a function that can be used by anonymous users for harm will reduce harm.
If the function is then used for harm by known (subscribers, paying members) the correct action of law enforcement can be supported.
The challenge is allowing people to use tools as intended and within the law without being overbearing, and also taking out those that wish to abuse the tools. A global AI highway code is needed."Thanks for clarifying.. So the tool will still be available but you trust musk to set up the proper safeguards so that people are accountable.. Of course under that idea no one will ever think of using false information to get round such checks will they? I can see that there might be uses for something like this for a fashion company perhaps where one model is photographed in one set of clothes then the tool changes the clothing the brand wants to market, happy for one of the tech savvy ones on here to clarify what else it can be used for.. Images of estranged partners or potential stalking victims with face covered in ejaculate I dont see as being acceptable for anyone paying to access the tool.. Just code it out.. A bit like limitations on the keys to the armour to use a totally different analogy.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X is a propaganda platform with lots of free porn, including (unacceptably) child pornography. The great thing is: there are plenty of good other platforms that work as alternative. Twitter was really good; X, sadly more of a propaganda platform." Every social media platform is used as propaganda, I can't comment on the (unacceptably) child pornography as I haven't seen it, If you're talking about the recent removing of clothes issue, Yes it should be removed from the site | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Being reported that UK, Canada and Australia all working on a joint ban of X. At the same time that Musk's Starlink is providing only Internet access in Iran..." Interestingly, Indonesia just banned Grok, not X. The fact that the supposed liberal democracies are using this as an opportunity to go after X says a lot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X is a propaganda platform with lots of free porn, including (unacceptably) child pornography. The great thing is: there are plenty of good other platforms that work as alternative. Twitter was really good; X, sadly more of a propaganda platform." That content is obviously illegal under existing laws so I hope you have reported it for prosecution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X is a propaganda platform with lots of free porn, including (unacceptably) child pornography. The great thing is: there are plenty of good other platforms that work as alternative. Twitter was really good; X, sadly more of a propaganda platform. That content is obviously illegal under existing laws so I hope you have reported it for prosecution." I did better: I don't use X at all, not into supporting child pornography in any way. Hope you do the same. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response?
This is an example of a gap in understanding I mentioned... Being available to paying customers only would allow for greater moderation and compliance by removing anonymity.
So images of children are OK because they might be picked up by moderators as long as people pay?
From a bloke who's company has cut back a lot on moderators..
Im pretty sure you dont mean that do you?
Read back carefully what I wrote, and then look at your reply.
You seem emotionally charged.
sorry, that was quick reply and I should have expanded my answer.
Taking away a function that can be used by anonymous users for harm will reduce harm.
If the function is then used for harm by known (subscribers, paying members) the correct action of law enforcement can be supported.
The challenge is allowing people to use tools as intended and within the law without being overbearing, and also taking out those that wish to abuse the tools. A global AI highway code is needed.
Thanks for clarifying..
So the tool will still be available but you trust musk to set up the proper safeguards so that people are accountable..
Of course under that idea no one will ever think of using false information to get round such checks will they?
I can see that there might be uses for something like this for a fashion company perhaps where one model is photographed in one set of clothes then the tool changes the clothing the brand wants to market, happy for one of the tech savvy ones on here to clarify what else it can be used for..
Images of estranged partners or potential stalking victims with face covered in ejaculate I dont see as being acceptable for anyone paying to access the tool..
Just code it out..
A bit like limitations on the keys to the armour to use a totally different analogy..
"Do you know if the extreme end of the examples you described are feasible through a simple AI request? I would suggest they are not. The issue of image misuse is not new and as technologies have expanded people have had cheaper and easier ways to create their own images and put them online for a global audience to see. When the numbers of people who have access to peoples images run into the millions it becomes more likely that someone will be a bad actor. Knowing who that bad actor is will allow the platform owner to remove the person and if serious enough provide law enforcement information they would need to prosecute. The knee jerk reaction to ban is over kill, removing the function to unknown people is a first step, the next phase will need to be more considered due to the company wanting to make a return on the functionality of the tools it develops, as you mentioned this service could be a time saving and cash saving tool for the fashion industry. I could see this fitting into any online market place, a person uploads an image and the clothes are placed on the image of that person and it would look as real as if they were actually wearing the clothes. I could see it working in many other real world applications, the key for the developers is to consider how it can be abused and manage it, rather than deploy and wait to see how it is abused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd have it banned simply for having a stupid name, previously and currently." Twitter was quite a good name. At least it was for the original site that only allowed simple 140 character messages. It stopped making sense as they grew up. Grok is quite a good name for an AI, being geek slang for "understand". I agree with you on X though, it's a stupid name. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response?
This is an example of a gap in understanding I mentioned... Being available to paying customers only would allow for greater moderation and compliance by removing anonymity.
So images of children are OK because they might be picked up by moderators as long as people pay?
From a bloke who's company has cut back a lot on moderators..
Im pretty sure you dont mean that do you?
Read back carefully what I wrote, and then look at your reply.
You seem emotionally charged.
sorry, that was quick reply and I should have expanded my answer.
Taking away a function that can be used by anonymous users for harm will reduce harm.
If the function is then used for harm by known (subscribers, paying members) the correct action of law enforcement can be supported.
The challenge is allowing people to use tools as intended and within the law without being overbearing, and also taking out those that wish to abuse the tools. A global AI highway code is needed.
Thanks for clarifying..
So the tool will still be available but you trust musk to set up the proper safeguards so that people are accountable..
Of course under that idea no one will ever think of using false information to get round such checks will they?
I can see that there might be uses for something like this for a fashion company perhaps where one model is photographed in one set of clothes then the tool changes the clothing the brand wants to market, happy for one of the tech savvy ones on here to clarify what else it can be used for..
Images of estranged partners or potential stalking victims with face covered in ejaculate I dont see as being acceptable for anyone paying to access the tool..
Just code it out..
A bit like limitations on the keys to the armour to use a totally different analogy..
Do you know if the extreme end of the examples you described are feasible through a simple AI request? I would suggest they are not.
The issue of image misuse is not new and as technologies have expanded people have had cheaper and easier ways to create their own images and put them online for a global audience to see. When the numbers of people who have access to peoples images run into the millions it becomes more likely that someone will be a bad actor. Knowing who that bad actor is will allow the platform owner to remove the person and if serious enough provide law enforcement information they would need to prosecute.
The knee jerk reaction to ban is over kill, removing the function to unknown people is a first step, the next phase will need to be more considered due to the company wanting to make a return on the functionality of the tools it develops, as you mentioned this service could be a time saving and cash saving tool for the fashion industry. I could see this fitting into any online market place, a person uploads an image and the clothes are placed on the image of that person and it would look as real as if they were actually wearing the clothes. I could see it working in many other real world applications, the key for the developers is to consider how it can be abused and manage it, rather than deploy and wait to see how it is abused.
"I dont and it sounds like you dont either, no doubt some fab expert might do however the people who make these codes etc have the ability to do so.. Begs the question why they didnt but we know the answers dont we.. If only they had thought of how it might be misused when they designed it eh.. My thought is they knew full well especially given musks views and that plus the making it attractive to some for less than decent use got the nod.. The cat is pretty much h out of the bag with ai, and the Web that's always how it was going to be.. But there still has to be checks and balances.. We ban individuals, bad actors from driving, from entering football stadia as required which doesn't prevent others responsible use and enjoyment of such things .. Musk has it within his power to sort it out and whilst I dont think (and have repeated it) they will ban x which they ultimately can the issue needs sorting and governments have a duty to look at things like this as tech development gets even faster.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X is a propaganda platform with lots of free porn, including (unacceptably) child pornography. The great thing is: there are plenty of good other platforms that work as alternative. Twitter was really good; X, sadly more of a propaganda platform. That content is obviously illegal under existing laws so I hope you have reported it for prosecution. I did better: I don't use X at all, not into supporting child pornography in any way. Hope you do the same." How do you know about whats on there if you don't use it ?🤷 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X is a propaganda platform with lots of free porn, including (unacceptably) child pornography. The great thing is: there are plenty of good other platforms that work as alternative. Twitter was really good; X, sadly more of a propaganda platform. That content is obviously illegal under existing laws so I hope you have reported it for prosecution. I did better: I don't use X at all, not into supporting child pornography in any way. Hope you do the same. How do you know about whats on there if you don't use it ?🤷 " you're hypocritical by defending X; you have your sad agenda and you must stick to it, I know. I used Twitter, it then became X and the difference is vast, so I stopped using X. What's the point of reporting child pornography in a platform that was bought with pedophile's money. Time to grow up, old man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X is a propaganda platform with lots of free porn, including (unacceptably) child pornography. The great thing is: there are plenty of good other platforms that work as alternative. Twitter was really good; X, sadly more of a propaganda platform. That content is obviously illegal under existing laws so I hope you have reported it for prosecution. I did better: I don't use X at all, not into supporting child pornography in any way. Hope you do the same. How do you know about whats on there if you don't use it ?🤷 you're hypocritical by defending X; you have your sad agenda and you must stick to it, I know. I used Twitter, it then became X and the difference is vast, so I stopped using X. What's the point of reporting child pornography in a platform that was bought with pedophile's money. Time to grow up, old man. " Coolio! 😊 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wasn't intentional but fucking hell you've got some hypocrisy given you refuse to say that a ban might be needed and correct if musk puts profit once more above protecting innocent people including children.. Your zealotry over free speech without any responsibility regardless of the potential consequence for others.. Profit? Do you really think he is profiting out of manipulated and illegal images? Do you know how the online advertising market works and how damaging it is for a brand to be advertised next to such content? My point anyway was about why just banning one tool when you have many other tools with the same problem. I don't see where your hypocrisy allegations are coming from. See what I mean about avoiding answering direct questions……. One trick? So if your response to “could you remove that function?” Is “I’ll just put it behind the premium paywall!” … do you think that is an acceptable response? So… “some” money is going to be made from it? So let’s try a direct question! Let’s see if we can get a direct answer for once
Acceptable response?
This is an example of a gap in understanding I mentioned... Being available to paying customers only would allow for greater moderation and compliance by removing anonymity.
So images of children are OK because they might be picked up by moderators as long as people pay?
From a bloke who's company has cut back a lot on moderators..
Im pretty sure you dont mean that do you?
Read back carefully what I wrote, and then look at your reply.
You seem emotionally charged.
sorry, that was quick reply and I should have expanded my answer.
Taking away a function that can be used by anonymous users for harm will reduce harm.
If the function is then used for harm by known (subscribers, paying members) the correct action of law enforcement can be supported.
The challenge is allowing people to use tools as intended and within the law without being overbearing, and also taking out those that wish to abuse the tools. A global AI highway code is needed.
Thanks for clarifying..
So the tool will still be available but you trust musk to set up the proper safeguards so that people are accountable..
Of course under that idea no one will ever think of using false information to get round such checks will they?
I can see that there might be uses for something like this for a fashion company perhaps where one model is photographed in one set of clothes then the tool changes the clothing the brand wants to market, happy for one of the tech savvy ones on here to clarify what else it can be used for..
Images of estranged partners or potential stalking victims with face covered in ejaculate I dont see as being acceptable for anyone paying to access the tool..
Just code it out..
A bit like limitations on the keys to the armour to use a totally different analogy..
Do you know if the extreme end of the examples you described are feasible through a simple AI request? I would suggest they are not.
The issue of image misuse is not new and as technologies have expanded people have had cheaper and easier ways to create their own images and put them online for a global audience to see. When the numbers of people who have access to peoples images run into the millions it becomes more likely that someone will be a bad actor. Knowing who that bad actor is will allow the platform owner to remove the person and if serious enough provide law enforcement information they would need to prosecute.
The knee jerk reaction to ban is over kill, removing the function to unknown people is a first step, the next phase will need to be more considered due to the company wanting to make a return on the functionality of the tools it develops, as you mentioned this service could be a time saving and cash saving tool for the fashion industry. I could see this fitting into any online market place, a person uploads an image and the clothes are placed on the image of that person and it would look as real as if they were actually wearing the clothes. I could see it working in many other real world applications, the key for the developers is to consider how it can be abused and manage it, rather than deploy and wait to see how it is abused.
I dont and it sounds like you dont either, no doubt some fab expert might do however the people who make these codes etc have the ability to do so..
Begs the question why they didnt but we know the answers dont we..
If only they had thought of how it might be misused when they designed it eh..
My thought is they knew full well especially given musks views and that plus the making it attractive to some for less than decent use got the nod..
The cat is pretty much h out of the bag with ai, and the Web that's always how it was going to be..
But there still has to be checks and balances..
We ban individuals, bad actors from driving, from entering football stadia as required which doesn't prevent others responsible use and enjoyment of such things ..
Musk has it within his power to sort it out and whilst I dont think (and have repeated it) they will ban x which they ultimately can the issue needs sorting and governments have a duty to look at things like this as tech development gets even faster.."All tech / software that is released to the public will show unknown behaviour as it is used in millions of different ways, some of which were never thought of or tested against, that is the nature of the beast. AI is susceptible to this due to the nature of use, prompts and the amount of use x combinations there are. However, there could be some simple rules that could be applied in terms of image manipulation, one of them being a unique paid service, being a known user etc. what is happening here is speed, the manipulation already occurred, and that is a very important point, but because anyone could put a person in a bikini it became a stampede, add Musk’s name into the mix and it’s end of days! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X is a propaganda platform with lots of free porn, including (unacceptably) child pornography. The great thing is: there are plenty of good other platforms that work as alternative. Twitter was really good; X, sadly more of a propaganda platform. That content is obviously illegal under existing laws so I hope you have reported it for prosecution. I did better: I don't use X at all, not into supporting child pornography in any way. Hope you do the same. How do you know about whats on there if you don't use it ?🤷 you're hypocritical by defending X; you have your sad agenda and you must stick to it, I know. I used Twitter, it then became X and the difference is vast, so I stopped using X. What's the point of reporting child pornography in a platform that was bought with pedophile's money. Time to grow up, old man. " Did you consider reporting what you had seen to the police? Would that have been a better option rather than ignoring it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X is a propaganda platform with lots of free porn, including (unacceptably) child pornography. The great thing is: there are plenty of good other platforms that work as alternative. Twitter was really good; X, sadly more of a propaganda platform. That content is obviously illegal under existing laws so I hope you have reported it for prosecution. I did better: I don't use X at all, not into supporting child pornography in any way. Hope you do the same. How do you know about whats on there if you don't use it ?🤷 you're hypocritical by defending X; you have your sad agenda and you must stick to it, I know. I used Twitter, it then became X and the difference is vast, so I stopped using X. What's the point of reporting child pornography in a platform that was bought with pedophile's money. Time to grow up, old man. Did you consider reporting what you had seen to the police? Would that have been a better option rather than ignoring it." To be fair he didn't see it as he's acknowledged not using it. A lot of this debate is being driven by people who not only hate X for political reasons, but don't use it and have no actual idea what they are talking about! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd have it banned simply for having a stupid name, previously and currently. Twitter was quite a good name. At least it was for the original site that only allowed simple 140 character messages. It stopped making sense as they grew up. Grok is quite a good name for an AI, being geek slang for "understand". I agree with you on X though, it's a stupid name." When he did the rebrand, his original plan was to make it an all-in-one platform like wechat in China. X is a good name for such an app. But the idea of emulating wechat was an idiotic one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Make it an offence ..." It already is an offence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Make it an offence ... It already is an offence." An offence that no one seems to have been prosecuted for, as I can't find any cases involving Grok ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Make it an offence ..." "It already is an offence." "An offence that no one seems to have been prosecuted for, as I can't find any cases involving Grok ? " We all know how slowly the wheels of justice turn, and Grok hasn't been around for very long. But to pick one aspect, creation or possession of explicit images that feature minors, *or appear to*, is already illegal. If no one is in the process of being prosecuted in relation to using Grok to do that in the UK, it can only be that there aren't any examples of it being done in the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Make it an offence ... It already is an offence." What offence are we talking about, that is the key point. There was reference to child images, so yes that is covered, but is it illegal for a person to take an image of any other that has been placed on the internet and alter that image from a suit to a bikini, or to change the pose of the person in the image? This is not new, satire type cartoons have often done this, why is a digital image different? This is where I believe the government needs to start, define what is and is not illegal, rather than throw out blanket statements of intent which maybe subject to failure from the start. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
The question people might want to ask is… why did x and musk drag this out
Maybe it wasn’t about “free speech “ after all
I still can’t get over the amount of people in this thread who chose “CSAM and deepfake AI porn” and the hill to die upon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X has now banned Grok from generating sexualised images of women and children after the UK made it illegal to create “non-consensual intimate” images A simple request… a simple conclusion See…. Now that wasn’t hard!
The question people might want to ask is… why did x and musk drag this out
Maybe it wasn’t about “free speech “ after all
I still can’t get over the amount of people in this thread who chose “CSAM and deepfake AI porn” and the hill to die upon "Ofcom is conducting an investigation into 'reports' of the misuse of AI imagery - the lack of reference to evidence is notable but let's see what they can they establish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X, Meta and all the others should be banned and replaced with a home grown alternative which is better managed. Before all the outcry of shutting down free speech come out - free speech is not the issue. The issue is lies. Lies and corruption which is being used to change peoples opinions, viewpoints and decisions. Again, some may say that people are intelligent enough to be able to tell when something is true or false and make their own decision. Really?? When something is said again and again and again, on many platforms, it becomes fact. We live in a World where false information is fed to us and many believe it (look at the amount of times on this very forum when a conversation is started based on a simple headline or "fact"). We are information rich yet factually we are very poor and unfortunately the wealthy, the politicians and other countries take full advantage of this for their own benefit (and certainly not ours)." Well said! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X, Meta and all the others should be banned and replaced with a home grown alternative which is better managed. Before all the outcry of shutting down free speech come out - free speech is not the issue. The issue is lies. Lies and corruption which is being used to change peoples opinions, viewpoints and decisions. Again, some may say that people are intelligent enough to be able to tell when something is true or false and make their own decision. Really?? When something is said again and again and again, on many platforms, it becomes fact. We live in a World where false information is fed to us and many believe it (look at the amount of times on this very forum when a conversation is started based on a simple headline or "fact"). We are information rich yet factually we are very poor and unfortunately the wealthy, the politicians and other countries take full advantage of this for their own benefit (and certainly not ours)." Agree fully but regarding your first point I'm not sure how it might work with the current legislation on monopoly etc.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X, Meta and all the others should be banned and replaced with a home grown alternative which is better managed. Before all the outcry of shutting down free speech come out - free speech is not the issue. The issue is lies. Lies and corruption which is being used to change peoples opinions, viewpoints and decisions. Again, some may say that people are intelligent enough to be able to tell when something is true or false and make their own decision. Really?? When something is said again and again and again, on many platforms, it becomes fact. We live in a World where false information is fed to us and many believe it (look at the amount of times on this very forum when a conversation is started based on a simple headline or "fact"). We are information rich yet factually we are very poor and unfortunately the wealthy, the politicians and other countries take full advantage of this for their own benefit (and certainly not ours)." That sounds awfully like that old favourite, I know what's true but people I disagree with don't, because they're stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X, Meta and all the others should be banned and replaced with a home grown alternative which is better managed. Before all the outcry of shutting down free speech come out - free speech is not the issue. The issue is lies. Lies and corruption which is being used to change peoples opinions, viewpoints and decisions. Again, some may say that people are intelligent enough to be able to tell when something is true or false and make their own decision. Really?? When something is said again and again and again, on many platforms, it becomes fact. We live in a World where false information is fed to us and many believe it (look at the amount of times on this very forum when a conversation is started based on a simple headline or "fact"). We are information rich yet factually we are very poor and unfortunately the wealthy, the politicians and other countries take full advantage of this for their own benefit (and certainly not ours)." Who decides what is true and what is not? "Independent" "unbiased" fact checking organisations? Sorry to break it for you. There is no such thing as that. Who else? The government? Yeah we know how that ends. Social media has evolved from fact checking organisations to community notes which provide much more clarity to news than your average paid for news and whatever the fact checking organisations were doing. If you don't believe that people are capable of judging the truth themselves, why do you even believe in democracy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"X, Meta and all the others should be banned and replaced with a home grown alternative which is better managed. Before all the outcry of shutting down free speech come out - free speech is not the issue. The issue is lies. Lies and corruption which is being used to change peoples opinions, viewpoints and decisions. Again, some may say that people are intelligent enough to be able to tell when something is true or false and make their own decision. Really?? When something is said again and again and again, on many platforms, it becomes fact. We live in a World where false information is fed to us and many believe it (look at the amount of times on this very forum when a conversation is started based on a simple headline or "fact"). We are information rich yet factually we are very poor and unfortunately the wealthy, the politicians and other countries take full advantage of this for their own benefit (and certainly not ours). Who decides what is true and what is not? "Independent" "unbiased" fact checking organisations? Sorry to break it for you. There is no such thing as that. Who else? The government? Yeah we know how that ends. Social media has evolved from fact checking organisations to community notes which provide much more clarity to news than your average paid for news and whatever the fact checking organisations were doing. If you don't believe that people are capable of judging the truth themselves, why do you even believe in democracy?" Indeed. A 'home grown, properly managed' platform sounds a lot like the BBC, an organisation where the senior leaders recently had to resign because their news programmes lied about Trump and which spent decades employing and protecting vile criminals and abusers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech?" Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech " Don’t go on it then, problem solved. I don’t like Coronation Street, so I don’t watch it. I don’t think it should be banned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech " twitter has always been no more than a digital toilet wall,it was full of headcases long before musk brought the platform, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If he had any balls he would. what was once a fairly good platform now distributes content with the same value as a plate of cold shit" Would hot shit have value? I take your point however. X should have the wind taken out of its sails a bit by major organisations, high profile people not using it. If the government, the Labour party, all of its MPs etc deleted their accounts and the the BBC, for example, did the same thing then Musk would start getting the message. They complain bitterly about something they use, so stop using it! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech Don’t go on it then, problem solved. I don’t like Coronation Street, so I don’t watch it. I don’t think it should be banned. " You’re from Manchester and you don’t like Coronation Street? Is that allowed?
I agree though, it’s awful. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech Don’t go on it then, problem solved. I don’t like Coronation Street, so I don’t watch it. I don’t think it should be banned. You’re from Manchester and you don’t like Coronation Street? Is that allowed?
I agree though, it’s awful."Practically treason round these parts but I’m sure you get my point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear. Labour using fake video of Reform's Matt Goodwin. One rule for them I guess "Would you ban that sort of thing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear. Labour using fake video of Reform's Matt Goodwin. One rule for them I guess "Well it seems like the reform right are trying to do a job on trying to smear Hannah Spencer, the green candidate… so nope, looks more like glass houses and throwing stones to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well it seems like the reform right are trying to do a job on trying to smear Hannah Spencer, the green candidate…" Can you tell us what Reform are saying about her, and why it's untrue? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech Don’t go on it then, problem solved. I don’t like Coronation Street, so I don’t watch it. I don’t think it should be banned. " I don't like oranges and I don't think pears should be banned,but X is used to promote hate, racism, porn, even trumpism and definitely should be banned. The cunt musk sees nothing wrong in using his AI for pedo porn ? Yeah that's great 🙄 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well it seems like the reform right are trying to do a job on trying to smear Hannah Spencer, the green candidate… Can you tell us what Reform are saying about her, and why it's untrue?" Which one would you like… secretly married/ secretly divorce Not really a plumber, not really working class because her partner works for astrozenica and earns 75k | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't like oranges and I don't think pears should be banned,but X is used to promote hate, racism, porn, even trumpism and definitely should be banned. The cunt musk sees nothing wrong in using his AI for pedo porn ? Yeah that's great 🙄" Internet in general is used to do everything you mentioned. Not just X. Maybe we should ban the internet? It's interesting seeing the number of authoritarians here with a fetish for banning things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't like oranges and I don't think pears should be banned,but X is used to promote hate, racism, porn, even trumpism and definitely should be banned. The cunt musk sees nothing wrong in using his AI for pedo porn ? Yeah that's great 🙄 Internet in general is used to do everything you mentioned. Not just X. Maybe we should ban the internet? It's interesting seeing the number of authoritarians here with a fetish for banning things." Authoritarians? If banning making sure Grok, or any other AI can’t produce CSAM, or other sexual images of people without permission .. I don’t think that’s an argument I want to be on the other side of …. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well it seems like the reform right are trying to do a job on trying to smear Hannah Spencer, the green candidate…" "Can you tell us what Reform are saying about her, and why it's untrue?" "Which one would you like… secretly married/ secretly divorce Not really a plumber, not really working class because her partner works for astrozenica and earns 75k" Ideally I'd like an actual quote from someone so that I can look it up and see what was said in context, as well as some sort of evidence that whatever was said isn't true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If banning making sure Grok, or any other AI can’t produce CSAM, or other sexual images of people without permission .. I don’t think that’s an argument I want to be on the other side of …." Will you also be supporting a ban on pencils and paper? Because people have been using those to produce CSAM and sexualised images of others for decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I don't like oranges and I don't think pears should be banned,but X is used to promote hate, racism, porn, even trumpism and definitely should be banned. The cunt musk sees nothing wrong in using his AI for pedo porn ? Yeah that's great 🙄 Internet in general is used to do everything you mentioned. Not just X. Maybe we should ban the internet? It's interesting seeing the number of authoritarians here with a fetish for banning things. Authoritarians? If banning making sure Grok, or any other AI can’t produce CSAM, or other sexual images of people without permission .. I don’t think that’s an argument I want to be on the other side of …." You can just ban Grok and every other AI that undresses people. In case you don't know, other AIs also can be made to do it. Either way, you don't have to ban the entire platform. No authoritarian ever said they are banning things to control people. It's always some weird justification to why they are banning things for the good of the people. You guys asking to ban an entire social media platform are authoritarians. There are no two ways about it, no matter how much you pretend like you are not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech Don’t go on it then, problem solved. I don’t like Coronation Street, so I don’t watch it. I don’t think it should be banned. I don't like oranges and I don't think pears should be banned,but X is used to promote hate, racism, porn, even trumpism and definitely should be banned. The cunt musk sees nothing wrong in using his AI for pedo porn ? Yeah that's great 🙄" You’ve completely missed the point, don’t go on it if you don’t like it. There is plenty of horrible stuff on the internet, should we ban the internet too? You’ve clearly got a bee in your bonnet about Elon Musk, were you so passionate about banning Twitter? I don’t have an X account, I’ve never used it… I know it’s not for me so I steer clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech Don’t go on it then, problem solved. I don’t like Coronation Street, so I don’t watch it. I don’t think it should be banned. I don't like oranges and I don't think pears should be banned,but X is used to promote hate, racism, porn, even trumpism and definitely should be banned. The cunt musk sees nothing wrong in using his AI for pedo porn ? Yeah that's great 🙄 You’ve completely missed the point, don’t go on it if you don’t like it. There is plenty of horrible stuff on the internet, should we ban the internet too? You’ve clearly got a bee in your bonnet about Elon Musk, were you so passionate about banning Twitter? I don’t have an X account, I’ve never used it… I know it’s not for me so I steer clear. " I dont like pedo porn so as long as I do t see it then it should be legal ? Is that the point ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech Don’t go on it then, problem solved. I don’t like Coronation Street, so I don’t watch it. I don’t think it should be banned. I don't like oranges and I don't think pears should be banned,but X is used to promote hate, racism, porn, even trumpism and definitely should be banned. The cunt musk sees nothing wrong in using his AI for pedo porn ? Yeah that's great 🙄 You’ve completely missed the point, don’t go on it if you don’t like it. There is plenty of horrible stuff on the internet, should we ban the internet too? You’ve clearly got a bee in your bonnet about Elon Musk, were you so passionate about banning Twitter? I don’t have an X account, I’ve never used it… I know it’s not for me so I steer clear. I dont like pedo porn so as long as I do t see it then it should be legal ? Is that the point ?" The problem is with you people pretending like Pedo porn is the reason why you want to ban X. Do you really think people are so stupid to not see why you really want to ban X? It's blatantly clear for anyone to see why left wingers want to ban X. All the reasons you mentioned for banning X could be applied for most of the internet. Not just X. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech Don’t go on it then, problem solved. I don’t like Coronation Street, so I don’t watch it. I don’t think it should be banned. I don't like oranges and I don't think pears should be banned,but X is used to promote hate, racism, porn, even trumpism and definitely should be banned. The cunt musk sees nothing wrong in using his AI for pedo porn ? Yeah that's great 🙄 You’ve completely missed the point, don’t go on it if you don’t like it. There is plenty of horrible stuff on the internet, should we ban the internet too? You’ve clearly got a bee in your bonnet about Elon Musk, were you so passionate about banning Twitter? I don’t have an X account, I’ve never used it… I know it’s not for me so I steer clear. I dont like pedo porn so as long as I do t see it then it should be legal ? Is that the point ? The problem is with you people pretending like Pedo porn is the reason why you want to ban X. Do you really think people are so stupid to not see why you really want to ban X? It's blatantly clear for anyone to see why left wingers want to ban X. All the reasons you mentioned for banning X could be applied for most of the internet. Not just X." When the owner of a socal media platform says he doesn't see any problem with AI generated ledk porn ? Are you saying it's ok for pedo porn ? Ok ... Whatever... We know now 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When the owner of a socal media platform says he doesn't see any problem with AI generated ledk porn ? Are you saying it's ok for pedo porn ? Ok ... Whatever... We know now 🤷♂️" This has been explained multiple times before. The nudes were generated by Grok. If you want to ban generation of nude pictures, why not just ban Grok, instead of X? And while you are at it, why not ban Chatgpt and Gemini because with the right prompts, you can undress people even in those AI tools? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well it seems like the reform right are trying to do a job on trying to smear Hannah Spencer, the green candidate… Can you tell us what Reform are saying about her, and why it's untrue? Which one would you like… secretly married/ secretly divorce Not really a plumber, not really working class because her partner works for astrozenica and earns 75k " I've checked the Social Media accounts for Reform, Farage and Goodwin and none of them are saying any of those things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When the owner of a socal media platform says he doesn't see any problem with AI generated ledk porn ? Are you saying it's ok for pedo porn ? Ok ... Whatever... We know now 🤷♂️ This has been explained multiple times before. The nudes were generated by Grok. If you want to ban generation of nude pictures, why not just ban Grok, instead of X? And while you are at it, why not ban Chatgpt and Gemini because with the right prompts, you can undress people even in those AI tools?" Personally I don't give a flying fuck of they ban X or Grok, I don't use either However ANY AI that allows generation of naked people especially children should be censored or banned, the fact musk didnt see any issue is disgusting but says more about him than his AI | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It seems increasingly likely that our hugely unpopular PM will ban the hugely popular social media platform X in the UK. The pretext for this is the use of Grok (Twitter AI tool) to manipulate images without consent. Strangely he is not proposing to ban Chat GPT, Photoshop, or the many other tools which do exactly the same thing. But I guess they haven't repeatedly exposed his lies and blunders so they're all good. Would you support this ban or are you in favour of free speech? Free speech ? X is a cesspit of hatred and lies, these things are not free speech Don’t go on it then, problem solved. I don’t like Coronation Street, so I don’t watch it. I don’t think it should be banned. I don't like oranges and I don't think pears should be banned,but X is used to promote hate, racism, porn, even trumpism and definitely should be banned. The cunt musk sees nothing wrong in using his AI for pedo porn ? Yeah that's great 🙄" Ban 'porn'- That's Fab gone then. Ban 'trumpism' - you mean the twice democratically elected President of the USA ? Ban 'hate' - great idea if you don't just mean the hate you disagree with. 'Pedo porn' is already illegal and Grok has mechanisms to stop it being used for that purposes. If you've seen such vile material on X you must report it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When the owner of a socal media platform says he doesn't see any problem with AI generated ledk porn ? Are you saying it's ok for pedo porn ? Ok ... Whatever... We know now 🤷♂️ This has been explained multiple times before. The nudes were generated by Grok. If you want to ban generation of nude pictures, why not just ban Grok, instead of X? And while you are at it, why not ban Chatgpt and Gemini because with the right prompts, you can undress people even in those AI tools? Personally I don't give a flying fuck of they ban X or Grok, I don't use either However ANY AI that allows generation of naked people especially children should be censored or banned, the fact musk didnt see any issue is disgusting but says more about him than his AI " Personally I don't use blue sky. But I won't support anyone banning it. As for AI, are you happy with banning Chatgpt and Gemini too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In relation to the question of will Starmer ban X I would say it's far better for far more beneficial to ban Starmer instead " Trying to work out whether that's witty or catty! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
