If you're still on X are you ok with what Grok's been doing?

[user4532789]

Young girls, un-consenting women and now this

‪@eliothiggins.bsky.social‬
Just seen Grok putting the body of the victim of the ICE shooting in Minneapolis into a bikini. Digital corpse desecration now available to the public.
13:30 · 8 Jan 2026

It does indeed seem that X is likely breaching laws re the publication of CSAM.

For a social media platform, this isn't a "strict liability" offense - even if they publish CSAM they can avoid liability by taking reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent and remove illegal content.

I think it's quite clear that X is not yet doing enough (even Farage, who strongly rejects the possibility of banning X, has called their response inadequate). My question for Mr Farage would be that even if he thinks talk of banning X is extremely premature, is there not some point where it would become necessary.

I'm biased because I already wanted to see the back of X, but I'm surprised to see that the response from ongoing users on here isn't simply "it's too soon to threaten a ban, or for me personally to boycott" and that instead there's a lot of downplaying and deflecting going on.

Well, as the OP I think it's interesting that you understand motivations I don't actually have, but ok.

I'm not telling anyone they need to boycott x due to grok usage, and I'm certainly not blaming grok. I am blaming Elon Musk, and I do think there should be a pressure campaign on him to disable those features.

Is that ok with you? Or does my motivation not meet your standards?

Since I left x because I didn't enjoy the engagement on there, why on earth would I want a mass migration of x users to the platform I do use (although without much relish, as I've already said)?

If that's aimed at me, I can say I'm far from perfect, but no to all of the above except occasionally using amazon prime, which I try to do as little as possible.

There certainly is, along with turning into some sort of school spat between bluesky vs X or Starmer vs Musk.

Like India gives a fuck about any of that. It and other very conservative countries are fearing the rise in femicide and suicide for female victims.

IMHO, Musk is playing a dangerous game here. Countries might begin to get together more often to take on the tech giants which would be no bad thing.

Or maybe he just wants to be the biggest pornographer in the world and isn't bothered about losing non-porn users.🤷‍♀️

It’s been proven to push right wing content many times over. I’ll see if I can find the links
and this was the case whatever your original political views were

Its not my issue that you cannot be bothered to read... i just said that X can comply with UK law and continue as before....

If Bluesky had this feature and wouldn't remove it, then they should be banned too.
Its pretty grim that those on right will tolerate the abuse of women and child under the guise of "Free Speech"

Of course there are many AI models out there but aside from Grok, non advertise that they are designed to enable abuse and pornography

X isn't going to comply with our laws, so what do you suggest?

You’re on the internet, that is pretty full of awful stuff generally. Any takers for leaving that? from pp too

As for banning X and getting an influx on what you do use BlueSky, yes of course you and others will. People don’t just stop going online if you ban what they use.

You can do the same thing with other ai. Grok isn't unique. Even if grok was removed. People would just use other ai to do these things. It's new tech (albeit been around a while but new to many people) and as with everything available in the world. People are going to use it for good or bad. People are the problem and always have been. If everyone was using ai to do good and not once for bad then I don't believe this post would have been made.

Unfortunately there are disgusting people in this world.

Love your condescending tone OP. Still think your reasons are invalid.

Banning of sex-based pronouns is highly ideological both in intent and effect. The ban wasn’t applied just in borderline criminal cases but widely. The US bar for criminal speech is in any case extremely high (1st amendment) so the idea that Twitter was reluctantly forced into it by legal risk concerns just doesn’t seem plausible.

Being allowed to use sex-based pronouns but not in a ‘targeted’ way is neutering, because pronouns by their nature refer to people. And it neuters expression of one viewpoint, not on the basis of any evidenced harm but on offence to a belief system.

Criticising the leader is illegal in many places. If Musk started banning people across X for criticism of the leader (Trump, Putin, Charles II, and left-wing leaders too) would you say “well, just a commercial decision, neutrally applied, nothing to see here”? Or would you see that as a problem?

The Twitter files do not suggest a firm that was reluctantly arm-twisted, and the pattern of Twitter’s actions suggest ideological motivation not neutrality.

On lab-leak: it’s no more ‘misinformation’ than the wet market story is. We just don’t know and probably never will. Yet one view, the one that was socially stigmatised in Democratic circles, was labeled ‘misinformation’ and banned.

Other misinformation that was politically aligned was not banned. During BLM the were millions of posts based on a false premise about the frequency of police offers killing black suspects. They were not banned for mis-info.

The Hunter Biden laptop story was banned though it was true, but inconvenient to one side in an election.

These are political choices, directly applied in content moderation decisions in a way that just doesn’t happen now (or at least, I’m not aware of any legal viewpoints that are systematically suppressed or political stories nixed on X. Musk has his views that he expresses openly and as a member of the platform).

If you were fine with Twitter then, I don’t think you can use ‘it’s ideological’ or ‘but mis-info’ to support a ban now. Better to just say it’s not the ideology you want.

It’s been proven to push right wing content many times over.

And...?

Being right wing isn't a crime, or even an unusual political stance to have.

This isn't about left or right on X or any other platform/political view, its about basic standards.
X has plenty of people on it who support left of centre views too.

Anyone who supports Musk and Grok being able to do as they wish, should ask themselves how they would feel if they saw their DD or themselves sexualised as Grok can easily do.

They'd all soon change their tune.

Criticising the leader is illegal in many places. If Musk started banning people across X for criticism of the leader (Trump, Putin, Charles II, and left-wing leaders too) would you say “well, just a commercial decision, neutrally applied, nothing to see here”? Or would you see that as a problem?

They already ban people for being critical or opposition.

www.politico.eu/article/musks-x-suspends-opposition-accounts-turkey-protest-civil-unrest-erdogan-imamoglu-istanbul-mayor/

This is bang on, especially on old Twitter’s treatment of gender critical beliefs. It was a long, long way past a careful application of legally mandated standards. It was ideological. Old Twitter’s moderation took the political view that gender critical beliefs were essentially hate speech (while being totally fine with misogyny, of course; no shortage of that on old Twitter.) If that’s your view too, then just say so. Makes it easier to have a real conversation.

A good or a bad thing?

Bear in mind that is local law, applied in one place.

This topic came up because a PP said: in some places, in some circumstances, sex-based pronouns are illegal. Therefore old Twitter’s policy of suppressing them worldwide even when not illegal can’t be called ideological.

Old twitter also had no issues with cutesy anime porn featuring deliberately childlike images.

Just to make it clear, my point is that sites like twitter, Reddit, etc. amplified the 'celebration' of sex-positivity, pornography, sex work and the same sites shut down people who warned that this would lead exactly to where we are now - with AI producing life-like and manipulation of genuine people into pornographic images.

It's not an issue that started with grok/X

Exactly. Yet some folk only outraged when it's on Musk's platform. Funny that.

But the manipulation of images of actual people to be presented as sexualised objects is in many circumstances a crime in the UK. That is not the same as people consensually discussing sex or sexual activity even if you don’t like the subject. The first is non consensual (ie I don’t consent to have my image manipulated or distributed). The second is what someone finds arousing, which might not be what you find arousing, but doesn’t engage you or your image.

It appears there is a legal basis for action against X/Grok. This difference must be part of the basis.

The UK government will have to apply to court to remove access to Twitter. It’s more likely they will request that Grok is amended to remove this functionality. It will be interesting to see the public position of X.

There’s much worse porn out there to be concerned about than X. You can run a google search’children in bikinis’ and the images will be there, do we ban everyone?
Obv I’m not defending child porn but Musk added a sign in feature for Grok so criminals can be tracked and prosecuted.

They obviously want to ban it for ideological reasons and they are frightened that it’s the no.1 news source for the UK and has 20 million users and is politically damaging for them. Other countries that have banned X-
China, Iran Russia Myanmar and Turkmenistan.

This has turned into the most repressive government ever in the uk-

• Bringing in Digital ID against the wishes of the people
• cancelling local government elections
• Arresting 12,123 for online hate speech, the highest number in the world
• Holing the Palestine action protesters without charges, on remand.
• Talking of abolishing the H of Lords
• Doing away with jury trials for all but the most serious crimes, an 800 year right.
• UK's Online Safety Act overruled Wikipedia's open, anonymous model by potentially forcing identity verification or blocking unverified users, meaning Wikki may no longer operate in the uk.

We will become an international outlier where technology companies will not invest for fear of being fined out of existence, this is what they are doing to ideological opponents, fining and raising taxes on them I.e farmers, public schools, home owners, pubs etc.

Where have I ever once said x should be banned?

I've asked how people feel about the fact that Musk could disable this feature on Grok and has chosen not to, and have clearly said I think there should be pressure on him to do so.

No need to make stuff up.

I actually think it would be much more effective if the government just came off x.

The issue is what Grok does. that facilitates the creation of criminal material, distributes or otherwise generates it, then saying you place a retroactive tool to track activity is unlikely to mean any of the above are addressed.

You need a better argument to say “I have done what I can to avoid generation of these images”, not “you can still generate criminal images but I’ve got a register”

Also no one mentions CP or googling children in bikinis. Some of that stuff will be illegal if manipulated enough. Yuk

What a load of far right, ignorant, twaddle...

Right wing posters support child porn... under the guise of Free Speech....we get that

That list of countries that have banned it is stark. That pp want to join that short list more so. The rest of that stuff too.

Even if not the op, others would ban it.