| ▲ | ReptileMan 4 hours ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | mnewme 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I agree that users who break the law must be prosecuted. But that doesn’t remove responsibility from tool providers when harm is predictable, scalable, and preventable by design. We already apply this logic elsewhere. Car makers must include seatbelts. Pharma companies must ensure safety. Platforms must moderate illegal content. Responsibility is shared when the risk is systemic. |
| |
| ▲ | ReptileMan 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >But that doesn’t remove responsibility from tool providers when harm is predictable, scalable, and preventable by design. Platforms moderating illegal content is exactly what we are arguing about, so you can't use it as an argument. The rest cases you list are harms to the people using the tools/products. It is not harms that people using the tools inflict on third parties. We are literally arguing about 3d printer control two topics downstream. 3d printers in theory can be used for CSAM too. So we should totally ban them - right? So are pencils, paper, lasers, drawing tablets. | | |
| ▲ | mnewme 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That is not the argument. No one is arguing about banning open source LLMs that could potentially create problematic content on huggingface, but X provides not only an AI model, but a platform and distribution as well, so that is inherently different | | |
| ▲ | ReptileMan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | No it is not. X is dumb pipe. You have humans on both ends. Arrest them, summary execute them whatever. You go after X because it is a choke point and easy. | | |
| ▲ | mnewme 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | First you argue about the model, now the platform. Two different things. If a platform encourages and doesn’t moderate at all, yes we should go after the platform. Imagine a newspaper publishing content like that, and saying they are not responsible for their journalists |
|
| |
| ▲ | szmarczak 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You are literally trolling. No one is banning AI entirely. However AI shouldn't spit out adult content. Let's not enable people harm others easily with little to no effort. |
| |
| ▲ | JustRandom 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | thrance 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How? X is hostile to any party attempting to bring justice to its users that are breaking the law. This is a last recourse, after X and its owner stated plainly that they don't see anything wrong with generating CSAM or pornographic images of non-consenting people, and that they won't do anything about it. |
| |
| ▲ | ReptileMan 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Court order, ip of users, sue the users. It is not X job to bring justice. | | |
| ▲ | thrance 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | X will not provide these informations to the French Justice System. What then? Also insane that you believe the company that built a "commit crime" button bears no responsibility whatsoever in this debacle. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | moorebob 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But how would we bring down our political boogieman Elon Musk if we take that approach? Everything I read from X's competitors in the media tells me to hate X, and hate Elon. If we prosecute people not tools, how are we going to stop X from hurting the commercial interests of our favourite establishment politicians and legacy media? |
| |
| ▲ | mnewme 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | People defending allowing CSAM content was definitely not on my bingo card for 2026. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | kakacik 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You won't find much agreement with your opinion amongst most people. No matter of many "this should and this shouldn't" is written into text by single individual, thats not how morals work. |
