Whatever you think about X's image generation models, I don't see how it is related to the petition that the EFF is opposing.

Is generation of non-consensual imagery really a privacy issue?

If someone publishes a real naked photo of you, that was acquired without your consent, that would be a privacy issue.

If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.

> Grok AI generated large amounts of CSAM and nonconsensual intimate imagery

on it own? on Musk's orders?

"people used Grok AI to generate large amounts of CSAM and nonconsensual intimate imagery". people use all sorts of things to do all sorts of shit.

But they did resist locking it down, recall Musk making fun of concerns? They clearly don't take governance seriously, its whatever Musk is gravitating to in his filter bubble.

TY!

The EFF featured update / press release at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-... links to the letter, with color:

Our response[^1] to X’s petition debunks many claims the company uses in its arguments. For example, there’s little evidence the order placed an undue financial burden on X. In our letter, we note that the compliance cost is merely “a rounding error against the $200 billion valuation of X Corp. following the xAI merger.”

[^1]: public interest advocates opposing x petition 2026: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/07/02/public_interest_advocat...

The letter is more interesting than the cover, undersigned by Center for Digital Democracy, Check My Ads Institute, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Demand Progress Education Fund (“DPEF”), Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”), National Consumers League (“NCL”), Oregon Consumer Justice, Oregon Consumer League, Public Citizen, Travelers United and Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, and drafted by DPEF's Special Advisor Kate Oh (kate@demandprogress.org), EFF's Senior Staff Technologist William Budington (bill@eff.org), EPIC's Senior Counsel Sara Geoghegan (geoghegan@epic.org), and NCL's Senior Public Policy Manager Eden Iscil (edeni@nclnet.org).

The EFF does not blindly take the stance that "anything should be allowed as long as you do it with a computer". Their input here is very reasonable, and in standing with their principles.

The letter is more about privacy, not freedom.

They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.

i don't know how you're equating "computing freedom" with regulation of privacy guards. should FTC not care about that? can you elaborate?

Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom.

Basic human decency?

The US presidency is for sale. At least it costs real amounts of money compared to bribery elsewhere. Well not sure if that’s good or bad.