this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
547 points (96.1% liked)
Enough Musk Spam
3413 readers
544 users here now
For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.
No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.
Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.
Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.
Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This image seems like misleading bull shit. This seems to be the law referenced: https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-artificial-intelligence-nudification-x-elon-musk-deepfake-131184be939d540de093b567b12c9e16
It makes companies liable for people using ai for nudification (which of course includes children). Musk argues the law is a bit to far reaching ( claims the law considers some body parts, that are commonly displayed in public, as private parts and also that the company can get in trouble for people nudifying themselves).
I don't know how legitimate Musk's concerns are, but the image is extremely misleading.
Dishonest clickbait for sure
Always relevant
The damages are brought up in a civil trial, so I guess while someone could bring a case to trial for nudifying themselves, I imagine it'd be tossed out immediately:
These are the body parts listed:
I have no issues with completely banning those parts for children. Only a sick fuck like Elon would say any of those are normal to see on a child.
You can see most of that on my baby pictures.
From what I understand the law applies to adults too.
I'm all for stopping pedophiles, but laws need controlled scope and nuance. Reality is complex and I don't want to see innocent stuff criminalized more than we do already.
So, you think it's ok for people to nudify you? How about your mother? Sister? It's not ok to nudify anyone without their consent.
Actually, I'm not okay with that. But I'm also not okay with hamfisted laws that would probably criminalize my mom AI up-sampling my old baby pictures.
Nuance. It's needed.
Yeah, even for adults I feel this borders way too close on deepfakes. We needed to ban those years ago. I simply do not see any artistic nor educational context to justify nudifying someone without consent.
And this isn't unheard of, even in America. Even with caricatures you can wander close to libel if you're drawing someone like that .
Sure, but it's one thing if your parents took a picture of you having a bath in the sink. It's another if someone took a picture of a baby at a beach then asked grok to generate an image of them having a bath in the sink.
The nuance here is somebody is using AI to generate these images, not that these images exist. Much like how it's legal and reasonable for me to take nude pictures to share with my partner, but it is not legal or reasonable for someone we don't know to take nude pictures of me through my window to send to my partner. The pictures exist in both situations, how they were obtained matters.
My issue with a lot of these laws is a lack of this nuance.
And the unspoken idea that they can reasonably know the context. How can the AI bot know if consent was acquired? This is a practical concern, if you require the sufficiently improbable you are essentially banning a thing in all contexts. Even me making a photo of myself.
I am fine with people being unable to use AI to make nude photos of themselves in order to prevent people using AI to make nude images of others.
You need to consider the risk of letting anyone being allowed to make a nude image of anyone, versus the "cost" of if you want a nude photo of yourself you'll just have to take it in the mirror.
Most phone cameras use AI image enhancement. I'd need to buy a film camera to take a nude selfie. It's hamfisted overreach into the lives of the general public.
There's a difference between baby pictures and an AI generating nudes images from clothed pictures.
If you want to make nude fanart so bad, learn to draw.
If you want to eat hot food so bad, learn to cook over a fire. Electrical heat is evil for some unspecified reason.
Hello bad faith argument.
Yes, that's the point. It was bullshit logic when you used it too.
If I "just learn to draw" I can use it to draw nudes of people from clothed images. Or use photoshop.
Do you think this legislation has the nuance to handle even a distinction that broad? I don't.
What are you even talking about? This is exactly the distinction this legislation is about.
He shouldn't have shoved it into every perverts hands.
Literally nothing that Racist PedoFascist does in legitimate. He just doesn't want to be sued because he made CP machine which I garuntee he gets high AF to and jerks off to. Especially since Epstein wouldn't let him on the island.
I haven't looked at this in depth, but some of the scholars I follow have suggested that this law is legally problematic, and there are good arguments to strike it down under the first amendment and section 230.
Section 230 is the federal safe harbor law that shields social media from liability for their users content, provided they take certain reasonable steps to moderate the user content. The federal law will preempt this Minnesota state law if they conflict.
But in the case of AI, it's company a generated content.
So is adobe liable content created or altered in photoshop? You can see AI as an advanced computing platform that comes with a free "worker". A worker that the user controls and the company can't really.
If Elon can make his AI spout right wing talking points, he can make it censor itself from making nude images of children, and if he can't, he deserves the full weight of the law against him. This isn't free speech, it's csam, and I don't care what excuses and get out clauses you want to invent, stopping it is right.
Section 230 should only cover user contributed content, not corpo AI created content. And even then algorithm promoted content shouldn’t be covered either.
Yeah, its not naked kids specifically but "nudification" in general. And what's considered private? A woman's chest? OK but how far down? Stuff like that.
I'd imagine Google or Apple or any tech/AI company would do the same to protect their product or whatever. But they make it seem like this was a tool Elon specifically designed so he can see naked kids.
Elon's under the most scrutiny because Grok is the least restricted LLM. Of course om reasonably worried that they are blocking this for less savory reasons.
What do you mean by least restricted?
Grok will do a lot of things that Claude or gemini or OpenAI will refuse to do for you (at least without a lot of prodding)
And this is why whether it's Reddit or this site it doesn't make a difference. Clickbait and dumb people always dominate the conversation and nuance is immediately thrown out the window because nuance does not translate well on the internet when you are trying to gather points.
The worst part is that this guy actually has endless things you can point to to show what a scumbag he is but yet there has to be stuff like this that delegitimizes opposition to him.
Fuck that, he should be 100% liable if he sells a machine that is ised to make child porn wtf you mean clickbait. This is the only way to stop it, otherwise it's going to happen because the companies will make money off it.
Because law needs to be very precise and nuanced otherwise you end up with complete nonsense laws that infringe on the rights of people. I 100% agree AI child porn is awful and should be figured out. But if the law is no crafted correctly it creates problems. It's clickbait because the image just implies that Elon Musk is in favor of people generating child porn but I'm sure its more nuanced than that if you take a look. Thats all I'm saying
Why not make PC manufacturers responsible for crimes committed on the computer? Because it makes selling computers impossible, the technical requirements are impossible to fulfill in any economic feasible way.
Besides there are open source stable diffusion AI models already that you can train to generate this stuff locally, on your own PC. Do you want all open source AI banned?
Maybe you do. The AI corporations would love that too. I don't.
Wrong example. This is more like YouTube being responsible for hosting CSAM that gets uploaded to them. We do in fact hold then accountable.
The implication here is that AI gets trained on CSAM to perform such tasks and that's probably a line we need to draw immediately before this gets out of hand.
And you train it on what, Mr Epstein? 🤨
here’s a quick way to determine if the concerns are legit:
are they from a capitalist? yes? then they are not legit concerns because fuck what they think. they **should be responsible ** for what ppl do on their platforms.
heck it’s why i worry about my own federated instance. my server is now beholden to content i did not create? nope. not gonna take that risk.
The government is capitalist as well, this doesn't have much to do with the political spectrum.
It's a bit weird that you say they should be responsable and then mention the problems that it causes for smaller platforms like Lemmy. Your argument goes against your point. No instance would be able to take that risk.
That being said, at this point, it seems clear that X is literally trying to encourage it and isn't actually moderating properly it's platform.
no see. i recognize that i can’t do it because i can’t afford what would be required to do it. this doesn’t mean i won’t donate to a service i feel needs help. just that i won't do it alone. a co-op lemmy instance is… very much not the same as a capitalist corporation run by a trillionaire.
This new law ups what is required, to the point where I don't think any Lemmy instances would be able to meet it.
I don't think the law was written so it differentiates between X and Lemmy, though I might be mistaken.
just because someone is evil doesn't mean everything they say is wrong. heck, even nick fuentes sometimes stumbles ass backwards into a cogent point
granted it's completely by accident but still
the point is, if you assume what's good for him is bad for you because he's a capitalist, you'll be right about 90% of the time, but that's the same error rate AI summaries have and you should definitely double check those
should xAI be responsible for people using it to photoshop people's heads onto other people's naked bodies? yeah
can you infer this fact solely from the fact that elon musk disagrees? NO
Government wanting to blame tools instead of what people do with the tools.
Next we should make Milwaukee stop selling saw zaws because they cut down flock cameras, or hammers because they can beat people in the head.
Saws-Alls*
Duuuude, it's like... they saw... all
I'm not sure I'm seeing the legitimate use case of turning pictures of children into nude pictures of children.
The application has normal non fucked up things it's used for. It's not a "make naked kids app". It's like going after Photoshop.
Damn near anything can be used to do something illegal. It's the same overbearing government control that has been playing big brother to 3D printers. Go after the person doing something illegal instead of screwing with everyone and everything else.
No, no, hard disagree. First go after the people making the csam generator and refusing to countenance censoring it from that. No excuses. No comparing csam to free speech or 3D printing.
You just scraped right over me comparing it to Photoshop.
You're only like this because Musk is a douchebag. Take him out of the equation. It's a photo editor. There's tons of them. It's idiotic to go after a program or anything just because it can be used by bad people. Go after the people.
It's the same shit as tor or vpns or Linux or 3d printers or GrapheneOS. "oh. Think of the children. Think of the terrorists. Think of the violence". It's all the same bullshit.
What's the next stop down after going after a photo editor? I guess the only way to make sure they aren't used for csam is to only have photo editors that are used over the cloud so all images can be scanned and interpreted.
Let's ban knives because people use them to kill!