In the spirit of shitty "If's ..."

If kids ask a newspaper vendor for cigarettes and he provides them .. that's a no-no.

If kids ask a newspaper vendor for nudes and he provides them .. that's a no-no.

If kids ask Grok for CSAM and it provides them .. then ?

joe_mamba 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The existence and creation of cigarettes and adult nude magazines is fully legal, only their sale is illegal to kids. If kids try to illegally obtain those LEGAL items, it doesn't make the existence of those items illegal, just the act of sale to them.

Meanwhile, the existence/creation CSAM of actual people isn't legal, for anyone no matter the age.

	▲	notachatbot123 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Grok created those images.
	▲	pasc1878 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		And when the magazines get sold who is breaking the law and gets convicted it is not the children but the shop supplying the children. So when Grok provides the illegal pictures then by the same logic it is Grok that is breaking the law.

▲

abc123abc123 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If parents or school let children play with explosives or do drugs and they get hurt, that's a no-no.

If parents or school let children roam the internet unsupervised... then?

	▲	defrost 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> If parents or school let children play with explosives or do drugs The explosive sellers that provide explosives to someone without a certification (child or adult) get in trouble (in this part of the world) .. regardless of whether someone gets hurt (although that's an upscale). If sellers provide ExPo to certified parents and children get access .. that's on the parents. In that analagy of yours, if grok provided ExPo or CSAM to children .. that's a grok problem, (Ditto drugs). It's on the provider to children. ie Grok.
	▲	actionfromafar 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If MechaGrok sells explosives to children, that's a go-go?