this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
671 points (97.1% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

3388 readers
1058 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
[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean... why would you imagine a person would block the banning of child porn? Occam's razor says he enjoys child porn.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Honestly, fuck Musk, but the fact that we're willing to throw away all of our principles simply because Musk is involved is pretty terrifying to witness. Remember, every privacy-violating and rights-stripping law is sold as being "for the children." And those selling those laws make a point to sell the laws in ways that appeal to both sides. When selling it to Democrats, they'll highlight Musk's opposition. When selling it to Republicans, they would find some Democrat who opposed it. And people of both parties eat it right up.

For example, even the headline is deceiving. Think about it critically. Why would the Minnesota legislature need to ban AI-generated child porn? Child porn is already incredibly illegal, regardless of how it's made.

What the law actually does is to attempt to ban or restrict AI-based nudify apps, where you can upload an image of someone and have it remove their clothes. This applies to images of everyone, not just children. And just like the case of facial scans and ID uploading, inevitably such a law will restrict a hell of a lot more than just child porn.

From another article:

In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI — whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere — said it does not contest the state’s interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota’s law “extends far beyond that goal,” banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation.

What legitimate uses might exist? Well what if I want to use a nudify program on images of myself? I don't particularly want to do that. But why shouldn't I be able to? My body. My image. My choice. My computer. What if a sex worker wants to do so? Or if you lock down LLMs to try to keep them from generating such images, what other types of images that have nothing to do with nonconsensual pornography will you also restrict?

You should generally be extremely skeptical of anyone selling a policy "for the children." In almost every case, the real goal is stripping away broader rights.

To me, this seems a lot like banning cameras in the name of fighting child pornography.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Well what if I want to use a nudify program on images of myself? I don’t particularly want to do that. But why shouldn’t I be able to?

"Well what if I want to use a bank robbery to withdraw money from my own bank account? I don't particularly want to do that. But why shouldn't I be able to?"

Get in front of a mirror and take a fucking picture of yourself nude if you so wish.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Have a better example?

Bank robbery is theft, hardly a protected First Amendment activity.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 1 points 39 minutes ago

you're kinda close, but still missing the mark... but if you didn't understand the point, you have your mind set to being stupid and stubborn & I won't waste energy trying to sway your opinion.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Think about it critically. Why would the Minnesota legislature need to ban AI-generated child porn? Child porn is already incredibly illegal, regardless of how it’s made.

To make a quick reply, you might want to look in to that. In some places if it isn't a deepfake of a real child it's as legal as the anime folk who draw the same awful shit, including some of the US.

Seems weird as fuck to me, because that's putting the burden of proof on law enforcement and the courts to show that a person or act in a very real looking image actually took place. Checking now I see some things saying it's not specifically criminalized in 10 states and some things saying 5.

I'd say at least the federal government has made it clear it's considered every bit as bad as non-ai images of the same thing, but I can't even bring myself to believe the federal government is doing a damn thing about child rape any more. :/

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

if it isn't a deepfake of a real child

This is literally what the law is trying to stop.

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Which is bad. Not good. Yes, if someone makes deepfake child porn of a real kid that's definitely very awful and bad. But it should also be just as illegal to make AI generated porn of children even if they're not deepfakes of real kids.

Anime/digital images of minors having sex having been a thing for decades has fucked things up. Those have been criminalized in some places in the world, but are considered distasteful but legal art in lots of others. Since AI generated images are fictional digital images created entirely by a computer and don't depict an actual crime taking place against an actual child, the can fall into the same legal area are hand drawn or digitally made images of the same thing.

Laws focusing only on deepfakes of real kids are not good things, because all they do is put the burden of proof on the prosecution. It means that they need to prove this massive collection of photos of child rape they found on Steve Miller's laptop are meant to depicting real kids, which means they need to find the real kids with nothing but AI generated photos of child rape before they can prove a crime has been committed.

When it's found that someone has images of kids being raped, that should be enough. Whether you can ever locate the actual kids in the photos, whether you can ever prove this person is guilty of raping kids, possession of the photos in and of itself should be enough for them to be locked up, cause farther investigation, and for them to be sent to prison even if no farther crimes are discovered.

No one should be able to say "Oh, those aren't fakes of real kids, it's just fictional art." and have that be an actual legal defense. This is potentially why Elon Musk wants to stop this bill. There are definitely people who want it to remain a legal loophole and possible viable defense for those caught with CSAM.