Enough Musk Spam

Elon was friend with Jeff but Jeff wasn't friends with him. Kinda awkward.

...and why do you think your calls were sent to voicemail?

Genuine question:

What's wrong with you?

But Elon Musk wants to offer a safe haven for CSAM creators.

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.

I still find it kind of funny that even the worst human beings on the face of the Earth can't tolerate him. Fuck Musk.

Dishonest clickbait for sure

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.

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.

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

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.

While they’re at it, why not ban murder, theft, and drunk driving?

They already have.

1. Murder
2. Theft
3. Drunk driving

I read the bill and there are explicit provisions about prohibiting websites from allowing users to create nudified images without technical skill. I don't know existing laws but they might not have put the onus on the company/website and just on the users. This is the full bill, it's a single page: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2025/0/HF/1606/versions/latest/

EDIT: Should point out that the bill is for any unwanted AI Generated nudes of identifiable people, not just minors.

PORNOGRAPHY the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures, movies, or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement

Pornography is not a wrong word to use, and children can never consent to sexual acts. If children are involved in pornography it is abuse material and nothing else. There is no need to make up a new word for it.

CSAM gives the same vibes as MAP instead of paedophile

yes and we should normalize referring it to the abuse that it is, however, boomers reading shared fb posts don’t know what csam is and do know that “p*rn bad”

I think you need to reread Orwell. And I'm not talking about 1984. Much of what Orwell wrote and was concerned about was the watering down and softening of language. And don't knee-jerk think of just the popular surface-level image of 1984. We're not talking government censorship or surveillance here. We're talking about the long-term watering down of the language to strip it of its impact and power.

I get that what you're saying is technically true, but we don't need our language to be perfectly technically accurate, if the cost is taking away all the power of the words.

"Child Sexual Abuse Material." Really? You just turned a 2 syllable label into a 10 syllable label. And you robbed the words of all their emotional impact and power.

"Child porn." I instantly know exactly what that is. That has a very clear and specific meaning that anyone can understand in an instant. Everyone has seen porn and calls it as such. Append the word -child in front of that, and healthy people will feel an instant sense of revulsion in their stomach. "Child porn" is a label with POWER.

"Child Sexual Abuse Material." What the fuck does that even mean? That could mean child porn. That could mean objects or tools used in the making of child porn. That could mean a newspaper article describing child porn. A book to train therapist on the effects of child abuse is, quite literally, "child sexual abuse material." All of these things are material relating to child sexual abuse. By trying to make the label as bland and inoffensive as possible, you've taken all the gravity from it.

CSAM and bloated labels like it really get under my skin. It's what Orwell warned us about.

And really, I think such things represent everything wrong with modern liberalism. A lot of liberal groups make the terrible mistake of focusing more on precise, perfectly non-offensive labeling than effective communication.

It's child porn. "Child sexual abuse material" is too weak and generic a word to be effective. Read your Orwell. He warned us about this.

Yup. This is basically Musk admitting it's a sizeable part of his revenue, he knows about it and doesn't want to lose the clientele. Ghoulish.

Ephebophilia is such an insane attempt for justification. Like, 'I'm only attracted to older children so it's fine!'

5. He doesn't have complete control over the output of Grok and doesn't want to be held responsible for what it vomits out.