Why won't X be held liable for distribution of child pornography?
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
397 points (99.5% liked)
Technology
5078 readers
611 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Pedophile in chief probably personally intervened.
Manufacturing consent is the name of the game. The bottom line is money, nobody gives a FUCK.
System of a Down - Boom!
4,000 hungry children leave us per hour from starvation, while BILLIONS are spent on BOMBS
CREATING DEATH SHOWERS
You can't blame a computer for what it does. Only the user who asks for the content is to blame. /s
According to this article it doesn't actually put out porn or child porn. It's gross but not porn. Relevant text:
"Nonconsensual AI-generated images of women in bikinis spreading their legs, and of children with so-called “donut glaze” on their faces"
I couldn't even get it to output nudity
I think it's disgusting that X probably doesn't see a problem with it, but it still wouldn't be legally classified as CSAM, no?
In some places it is CSAM and in others it is being working into convert into law.
I think the issues are:
- It can pass as real
- Unlike run-of-the-mill cartoon porn, real photos of children (even not CSAM) are involved, either in the training or as input for the generation
A: money
Why do you think? Rules are for poor people.
Because billionaires.
Billionaires have the tightest class solidarity
Cowards.
Coward$.
I'm not going to use that website to check, but is nobody making Tim Apple deepfakes to goad him? Cant somebody just ask it to recreate that emo-Elon picture that he tried to ban?
Cause they found funding fascism was easier.
Could Elon buy them? Does he have that much wealth power?
EDIT: to be clear, it’s not that I want him to.‘it’s just frightening that it even sounds plausible enough to question in ignorance
Google and apple? Absolutely zero chance of him doing that on his own. They each have a market capitalization of almost $4 trillion, and even though he’d only have to buy 51% of them that’s still way more than his net worth. And that’s not getting into how most of his wealth is in the form of tesla stock, which he can’t sell to much of without tanking the stock price. Plus corporations have ways to stop people who are trying to buy them out if they don’t want to be sold, like even though twitter was a publicly traded company musk still had to negotiate a deal with twitter’s management
He might be able to buy a significant portion of one or both companies stocks and then be able to vote for board members and stuff and try to gain influence that way, but that’s not the same as owning a controlling stake in the company, and frankly I don’t see him politically out manoeuvring alphabet or apple’s existing boards of directors
Nah. He can’t buy Apple (market cap $3.8T), or Google ($3.96T). He’s not a trillionaire yet.
To put it into perspective, if he managed to sell all of his ownerships of companies for the most optimistic idea of his current net worth*, he could still buy less than 19% of Apple.
He’d need several friends to chip in to even get to 50%. A trillion is a lot until inflation gets out of hand.
* $717 billion; probably $100 billion too high at least.
Should they pull every web browser, too? They can clearly be used for nefarious purposes.
The difference between the two is that, while the browser can be used to access child porn, X actively generated the porn.
The browser can access X & any website. Isn't material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?
The browser can access X & any website.
A browser doesn't activately generate it. X did.
Isn’t material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?
They're both equally as bad because they result in the same things: production and advancement of child porn.
Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Did you know there's a difference between truth & fiction? I doubt abuse victims would agree these are the same or equally as bad.
Pulling the X-only client while keeping the everything including X client doesn't seem to accomplish anything. Neither client is actively generating anything: it's server side. Your argument seems to be the client that accesses bad needs to be blocked, but the client that accesses bad & worse somehow does not.
Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Did you know there’s a difference between truth & fiction? I doubt abuse victims would agree these are the same or equally as bad.
Both equally propegate child sex abuse, and I'm sure the kids these deep fakes are on might agree with me. In both topics, a kid is getting exploited for sexual material.
Neither client is actively generating anything: it’s server side
Oh, so the generating and/or distributing technology of the child porn is in the possession, custody, and control of X? Seems to make my point: X generated and/or distributed the child porn. On top of that, it made revenue off it from the ads that supported the active distributed of said child porn. Whose paying the electricity bill as an expense to profit on the child porn? X.
Your argument seems to be the client that accesses bad needs to be blocked, but the client that accesses bad & worse somehow does not.
My point, going back to my origional supposition, is that it is absurd to blame Mozilla (or the like) for the nefarious uses of all its users when they merely are a tool through which the web is accessed, and they don't make a profit directly from whatever material is accessed.