| ▲ | trhway 10 hours ago |
| Internet routers, network cards, the computers, OS and various application software have no guardrails and is used for all the nefarious things. Why those companies aren't raided? |
|
| ▲ | sirnicolaz 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| This is like comparing the danger of a machine gun to that of a block of lead. |
| |
| ▲ | trhway 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | May be.
We do have codified in law definition of machine gun which clearly separates it from a block of lead. What codified in law definitions are used here to separate photoshop from Grok in the context of those deepfakes and CSAM? Without such clear legal definitions going after Grok while not going after photoshop is just an act of political pressure. | | |
| ▲ | bootsmann 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why do you think France doesn’t have such laws that delineate this legal definition? What you’re implying here is that Musk should be immune from any prosecution simply because he is right wing, which… |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bluescrn 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They don’t provide a large platform for political speech. This isn’t about AI or CSAM (Have we seen any other AI companies raided by governments for enabling creation of deepfakes, dangerous misinformation, illegal images, or for flagrant industrial-scale copyright infringement?) |
| |
| ▲ | direwolf20 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | No because most of those things aren't illegal and most of those companies have guard rails and because a prosecution requires a much higher standard of evidence than internet shitposting, and only X was stupid enough to make their illegal activity obvious. |
|
|
| ▲ | protocolture 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | trothamel 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Don't forget polaroid in that. |
