Sorry, but barrier to entry doesn't seem like a very good legal excuse. Goes in the same direction as NY attempts to ban 3D printing because - supposedly - it enables people to more easily make guns.

This is a political action by the French... slowly loosing their relevance, even inside the EU. Nothing else.

▲

janalsncm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I see what you’re getting at. You’re trying to draw a moral equivalence between photoshop and grok. Where that falls flat for me is the distribution aspect: photoshop would not also publish and broadcast the illegal material.

But police don’t care about moral equivalence. They care about the law. For the legal details we would need to consult French law. But I assume it is illegal to create and distribute the images. Heck, it’s also probably against Twitter’s TOS too so by all rights the grok account should be banned.

> This is a political action by the French

Maybe. They probably don’t like a foreign company coming in, violating their children, and getting away with it. But what Twitter did was so far out of line that I’d be shocked if French companies weren’t treated the same way.

▲

wtcactus 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> But I assume it is illegal to create and distribute the images.

I very much so expect it to be illegal to distribute the images, of course (creating them, not so much).

But the illegality, in a sane world (and until 5 minutes ago) used to be attached to the person actually distributing them. If some student distributes fake sexualized images of their colleague, I very much expect the perpetrator to be punished by the law (and by the school, since we are at it).

	▲	manfre 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Creating, possessing, and distributing CSAM is illegal in the US and many other countries. Can you explain why you think it should be legal to create something that is illegal to possess or distribute?