Post

I wrote section 230 to protect user speech, not a company's own speech. I've long said AI chatbot outputs are not protected by 230 and that it is not a close call. Given that the Trump administration is going to the mat to protect pedophiles, states should step in to hold Musk and X accountable.

Hairybusiness@hairybusiness.bsky.social

I am not a Section 230 expert but being that Twitter is creating and publishing these photos I wonder if they actually have any civil legal protection? @kenwhite.bsky.social ? @akivamcohen.bsky.social ?

1.2K reposts4.3K likes

It's very concerning that X's ai Grok has such little restriction. It's design and general basis leans toward a predatory design. It's lack of understanding of base ethics presents a serious security risk.

Thank you, Senator. There is no reason for ai chatbots to be protected under the rubric of free speech. Grok should have its CSAM and revenge-porn activities shut down and X should be suspended until that happens.

Also the original photos were put on X by other people who did not have the intention of having them edited by X's AI. X is providing those photos and altering them, producing illegal images. Have you talked with Oregon's AG yet?

Thank you for speaking up about this. Are you in communication with Oregon's AG about urgent action on this? Every day without charges in this industrial-scale CSAM and revenge porn scheme enables further abuse and trauma of women and children.

You claiming you wrote 230, and thinking it was some kind of protection, screams how fucking stupid you are. That minimalist protection of the the tech companies has opened the floodgates for what is destroying society. Fuck you.

Section 230 should not apply the moment a company decides what I see I get the original intent to protect speech by ensuring social media companies don’t get sued for user speech But why can’t I sue them when harm results if they choose & amplify speech? Why do we lose our right to sue?

Or (stick with me here) the Article I folks (like you) could use EVERY AVAILABLE MEANS to hold said pedophiles to account. There's nothing wrong with states stepping up, but your message above seems like you're effectively punting to 50 states to each 'sort it out' (likely in 50 different ways).

I think he's saying no new legislation is necessary and states could prosecute for production of CSAM based on current law.

Human on the hook would be dope. Should be standard for most AI/ML applications. If a doctor uses AI/ML (which is often very successful for diagnostics) and they fail to take proper care they'd be on the hook; if a social media platform makes Child Predobot, some person should be on the hook.

the manufacture/distribution of computer images that may be believed to depict an obscene visual of a minor = child porn & a federal offense. If Grok compiles the pixels, its corporate leadership is guilty. law enforcement need to grow a set & indict Grok’s corporate officers.18 USC 2252A (a)(3)(B).

I mean in this case it's both in terms of responsibility. Not user SPEECH, but the users requesting and disseminating revenge porn and CSAM seem pretty clearly criminally liable as well for such.

Yeah, there was some discussion of an esteemed web old head who had a rule, the gist of which was, you can't fire the computer, so don't let it make management decisions.

It's pretty fucking pathetic the grace you give these people. Republicans are annoying and fucking tenacious when they're in the minority and best Wyden can do is tweet "we can't do anything" and say Trump is protecting pedophiles instead of idk...maybe calling him the child rapist that he is?

Do you think Chuck Schumer is a competent leader? If not, why isn't Wyden trying to replace him? Was the government shutdown "promise" not extremely embarrassing?

I appreciate the thought that went in to section 230, but all these years later, isn’t it clear that these largest companies ever do not need special protection at all? And as long as there is protection at all, shouldn’t we expert courts to bend in favor of the company.

If a company can be liable for a user's speech no company will host anyone's speech If the user's speech is problematic then they can be held personally accountable; a site cannot reasonably make absolutely sure all problematic speech is gone within X hours. It will kill every small site on the net

I never said big tech companies shouldn't be broken up, or that Twitter shouldn't be held accountable for the output of the "AI" it created and runs I said repealing section 230 is not the answer to these problems, because it isn't; nor are ID-verification or anti-"obscenity" (loosely defined) laws

Big sites don't care because they know the law won't be applied to them / it will kill their competition, and are eager to gut user's speech anyway and just feed them propaganda Big media doesn't talk about it because it's their wet dream to kill the open internet and become gatekeepers once more

And all of this is fueled by western powers, not even just the US, seeing what an open internet and free flow of information/independent journalism did to the narrative around Israel's genocide in Gaza They do not want that to happen again and will kill the internet to ensure it doesn't

Section 230 protects providers from liability for user speech that passes through their systems. It provides no protection (nor should it) for the providers own speech.

KuroSan@kurosanarts.bsky.social

If you or I were to run a website with an AI bot that produces the sort of images we're seeing coming from X right now, I would expect a knock on the door from some chaps in uniform in the near future, leading to a lengthy prison stint and the rest of our lives on a list.....