this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
549 points (96.6% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

3381 readers
1303 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 63 points 23 hours ago (7 children)

This image seems like misleading bull shit. This seems to be the law referenced: https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-artificial-intelligence-nudification-x-elon-musk-deepfake-131184be939d540de093b567b12c9e16

It makes companies liable for people using ai for nudification (which of course includes children). Musk argues the law is a bit to far reaching ( claims the law considers some body parts, that are commonly displayed in public, as private parts and also that the company can get in trouble for people nudifying themselves).

I don't know how legitimate Musk's concerns are, but the image is extremely misleading.

[–] dumples@piefed.social 27 points 23 hours ago (1 children)
[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The damages are brought up in a civil trial, so I guess while someone could bring a case to trial for nudifying themselves, I imagine it'd be tossed out immediately:

An individual depicted in an image or video that was nudified in violation of this section may bring a civil action in district court against the person who violated this section

These are the body parts listed:

"Intimate parts" includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.

[–] 13igTyme@piefed.social 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I have no issues with completely banning those parts for children. Only a sick fuck like Elon would say any of those are normal to see on a child.

[–] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You can see most of that on my baby pictures.

From what I understand the law applies to adults too.

I'm all for stopping pedophiles, but laws need controlled scope and nuance. Reality is complex and I don't want to see innocent stuff criminalized more than we do already.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 51 minutes ago

You can see most of that on my baby pictures.

Sure, but it's one thing if your parents took a picture of you having a bath in the sink. It's another if someone took a picture of a baby at a beach then asked grok to generate an image of them having a bath in the sink.

The nuance here is somebody is using AI to generate these images, not that these images exist. Much like how it's legal and reasonable for me to take nude pictures to share with my partner, but it is not legal or reasonable for someone we don't know to take nude pictures of me through my window to send to my partner. The pictures exist in both situations, how they were obtained matters.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 6 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I haven't looked at this in depth, but some of the scholars I follow have suggested that this law is legally problematic, and there are good arguments to strike it down under the first amendment and section 230.

Section 230 is the federal safe harbor law that shields social media from liability for their users content, provided they take certain reasonable steps to moderate the user content. The federal law will preempt this Minnesota state law if they conflict.

[–] sobchak@programming.dev 2 points 18 hours ago

But in the case of AI, it's company a generated content.

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

Section 230 should only cover user contributed content, not corpo AI created content. And even then algorithm promoted content shouldn’t be covered either.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

He shouldn't have shoved it into every perverts hands.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Government wanting to blame tools instead of what people do with the tools.

Next we should make Milwaukee stop selling saw zaws because they cut down flock cameras, or hammers because they can beat people in the head.

[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] alanjaow@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago

Duuuude, it's like... they saw... all

[–] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 1 points 19 hours ago

Let's ban knives because people use them to kill!

[–] BrickEater@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Literally nothing that Racist PedoFascist does in legitimate. He just doesn't want to be sued because he made CP machine which I garuntee he gets high AF to and jerks off to. Especially since Epstein wouldn't let him on the island.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

here’s a quick way to determine if the concerns are legit:

are they from a capitalist? yes? then they are not legit concerns because fuck what they think. they **should be responsible ** for what ppl do on their platforms.

heck it’s why i worry about my own federated instance. my server is now beholden to content i did not create? nope. not gonna take that risk.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

The government is capitalist as well, this doesn't have much to do with the political spectrum.

It's a bit weird that you say they should be responsable and then mention the problems that it causes for smaller platforms like Lemmy. Your argument goes against your point. No instance would be able to take that risk.

That being said, at this point, it seems clear that X is literally trying to encourage it and isn't actually moderating properly it's platform.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

no see. i recognize that i can’t do it because i can’t afford what would be required to do it. this doesn’t mean i won’t donate to a service i feel needs help. just that i won't do it alone. a co-op lemmy instance is… very much not the same as a capitalist corporation run by a trillionaire.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

This new law ups what is required, to the point where I don't think any Lemmy instances would be able to meet it.

I don't think the law was written so it differentiates between X and Lemmy, though I might be mistaken.

[–] flandish@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

fair point and i’m not holding firm to imperfect ideas. also, here’s the thing: i think “if you host it you are responsible.” even if it’s a small lemmy instance or x.

because, small hosts will get swatted and shot. large corp hosts have lawyers. so .. they must all be responsible for what they host if that level of gap exists. i remember hosting in the 90’s, and even my own crap was stupid - just a db of payphone numbers, stuff like that for phreaks. i wasn’t stileproject lol. but … if a used posted shit, it was still on my server. (a beefy! 486 dx/2!)

i mean sure, maybe we could claim “if you are a corp, then responsible, if you are a non profit or self hosted then no..” but the thing abt the net is - any hole, anywhere, eventually gets filled with csam and horseshit. it fucking sucks. but it’s true.

if corps were held accountable for that which they allow, the massive bulk of the problems would disappear, just from a ratio pov, no? ignoring the other problem that musk wants to be allowed to host csam because he profits from it and is a pedo as well.