I doubt that either of the women mentioned in this article face the prospect of being depicted in their 'undies'.

Strangely, despite it being highly unlikely that it's a prospect I'll ever face personally, I happen to be quite cross about people being executed for protesting against totalitarian regimes.

Wtf are you trying to say?

I think that post was intended as an insult on their appearance. If so, it says a lot more about Long John Silver's personality than anything else.

An ugly mind, indeed.

Much like:

Automatic weapons are just a tool.

It doesn't do anything you couldn't do before, just makes it a whole lot easier. (I believe the current version of the US in particular has form here, as do as several South American nations).

Similarly:

Nuclear weapons are just a tool.

It doesn't do anything you couldn't do before, just makes it a whole lot easier.

The "making it easier" part is really the main part. The difference between local individual action and action at worldwide scale is the difference between argument and total war.

It doesn't just make things you could do before easier. It also enables things you could not do before.

If some sicko wants to look at a publicly-available picture of me (which will definitely include clothing) and imagine what I look like undressed while he's having a Thomas Tank somewhere in private, well, that's obviously extremely distasteful; but there's nothing I can do about it, because all the bad stuff is going on entirely within his own imagination -- and the inside of a person's head is the most private space there is.

The moment the aforementioned sicko does anything that exposes what belongs in his imagination to the world of reality, though, a line is crossed.

Criticise them on their policies and performance (there's plenty of room for that) and not their physical appearance, you mysoginistic dickhead.

Rushed amendments to legislation never led to poor & unexpected outcomes, did it.

It's been interesting to see how the message has slowly evolved since this story came to light as media outlets try to outdo each other. It's like a game of Chinese Whispers.

It started out as "Grok lets users make pictures of women in bikinis without their consent", then it became "sexualised images of women", then it became "sexualised images of women and girls". Then it became "naked images of women and children". Then it finally evolved to "Elon Musk allows paedofiles to make sexual images of naked children for profit, we must ban X and Grok immediately, won't somebody think of the children!!!!!!"

Regardless of that, it's a tool which clearly doesn't have any valid usecase. If somebody consents to be photographed naked then they could make real photos, so the only purpose for the tool would be to make naked photos of people that don't consent. Which is clearly wrong.

And why would anybody even bother? It's not like there is a shortage of porn on the internet. You can easily get more naked photos than will fit on your hard disk. It's almost impossible to search the internet without seeing naked people popping up everywhere. Actually, that would be a much better tool, an AI browser extension that puts clothes on pictures of naked people.

People do bother though. Whether it's just wanting free (now with a minor cost the user might have been paying anyway) pics made to order or an actual desire to victimise others, it's not going to go away because you personally don't see a use case.

& news outfits don't necessarily know everything immediately - it's less Chinese whispers/telephone game and more reacting to activists yelling at them repeatedly.

And why would anybody even bother? It's not like there is a shortage of porn on the internet.

You cannot be that naive. First there is never enough porn, second people create sexualized images of women they personally know, whether for their own gratification, or for harassing said women. Check e.g. [1]this year-old story about South Korea for the problems this causes

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpdlpj9zn9go

It started out as "Grok lets users make pictures of women in bikinis without their consent", then it became "sexualised images of women", then it became "sexualised images of women and girls". Then it became "naked images of women and children". Then it finally evolved to "Elon Musk allows paedofiles to make sexual images of naked children for profit, we must ban X and Grok immediately, won't somebody think of the children!!!!!!"

Has it occurred to you, that since "Grok" is an "AI" that includes an image generator, which appears to have either no guardrails, or limited ones which are easily overcome, that all of these things might actually be true? Well, all of them, except how you spelt the word "paedophile".

That's literally how the gutter press work. Whatever will get attention has always been afforded a higher priority than what's strictly accurate.

There used to be a time, though, when stories had to be at least vaguely plausible.

Now they know no-one is going to be able to test how true the story is, *and* they have plausible deniability that they fabricated it out of whole cloth.

... of faux moral outrage.

Me too.

However, this is a case where I think the outcry is fully justified.

And you've seen the material causing this hubub, have you? I admit I haven't, because there's no set of keywords that I'd want to enter in my browser in order to see them, so I may be talking out of my arse. But from descriptions I've read, this is mostly hyperbole and exaggeration, and it's only getting such a big deal made out of it because Elon.

> But from descriptions I've read, …

Oh, come off it! You'll have seen screeds of descriptions (and descriptions which are consistent across media) of the kind of material discussed here.

Perhaps you need to relax your prejudices, expand your media bubble a little, or just grow some gumption about how to parse news.

And you've seen the material causing this hubub, have you?

Have you ? I ask, only because actively seeking it out is a criminal act in itself. Personally, I have no direct way of telling what is or is not posted on "X" since I'd already left the platform when Musk bought it, because I was paying attention, and I happened to already have noticed what a repellent human being he is, and how he had immediately started to enshittify it, as he enshittifies everything he touches (whilst having a long history of claiming credit for creations that are not his).

If your reaction to "people are posting child porn" on whatever platform is to go to have a look and check it out for yourself, perhaps you should stop using a computer, before the courts order that you have to stop using a computer.

Clearly you didn't get as far as the second sentence of my post, rendering your reply largely nonsensical.

I did, in fact, get to your third sentence, which, by your own admission in the second sentence, is hyperbole and speculation. Your first sentence is encouraging others to either commit a criminal act in order to disprove your speculation, or accept what you said at face value, and it was grade-A bollocks, so I won't be doing that.

On what grounds do you consider this outrage to be "faux"?

It probably wouldn't even be a thing if Elon's name wasn't associated with it. Why is all the focus on the platform, and not the people creating the content? The Taylor Swift deepfake furore happened before Grok was in the game, because guess what, anybody can download Easy Diffusion or whatever and produce far more worrisome content than what Grok is allegedly producing, and I doubt that the genie can be put back in the bottle - guardrails on hosted platforms are containment theatre, nothing more. So why obsess about whatever mildly spicy content Grok can create, except that it's given the Elon-haters something new to rant about?

You're right, it absolutely wouldn't be a thing. If it were any other CSAM website the entire domain would resolve to /dev/null about the day after it were found and 99.9999999999% of the population wouldn't be any the wiser. Unfortunately it's UK government policy to simp US billionaires. The government would really rather the whole thing would go away, but it won't. They should have just banned it soon as it was known about like any other similar site, then it would be Musk who would have had to do something about X and Grok to get it back online, not the government.

CSAM = mild spicy content? Whatever you say.

Why have X & Grok not been banned in the UK already? There is no need to pass a new law, just use existing laws against obscenity and CSAM and block the entire site.

This could have been done on Jan 7th. How many illegal images has Grok created in the 7 days that UKgov has been dragging its feet?

could if be that Elongated Muskrat has dirt on those in power?

Those old 'mob' tricks worked for a reason and SKUM is powerful enough to make a lot of people's lives a wreck without blinking.

He, like Trump simply does not care. Their whole Modus Operandii is Me, more money for me and Me and to hell with anyone else

Ask yourself why Trump is sending out begging emails... The emails are designed to drain your bank accounts.

Ask yourself why Trump is sending out begging emails... The emails are designed to drain your bank accounts.

He's a firm believer in trickle up economics.

FREE SPEECH! We have to have FREE SPEECH!

Frozen peaches, get your frozen peaches here! No need to freeze your own peaches!

Are they just trying to avoid upsetting the orange toddler?

His big tech funders seem to call up him pretty quick when anyone threatens to take a penny or two out of their pockets.

Would he back up Ol' Musky? I've no idea if those two have tiffs in public just for shits 'n' giggles, to pump stocks somehow or if it's real.

and watch the mental health of the nation get better.

As for Twatter... it is the worst of them all and if you use it, ask yourself why you are continuing to line the pockets of the worlds richest man...

I’m now calling it Titter.

Titter ye not, please yourselves

Or "witter" as that accurately describes what most users do on there.

> Grok .. caused controversy .. when users prompted it to create images of naked or barely dressed people – mostly women, some underage – from real photos.

On 11th January 2025, The Guardian website has an image taken from X/Twitter of Elon Musk in a bikini.

It has not yet been taken down, despite the obvious

That image was generated by and posted by Mr Musk himself.

So consent for the image and its publication is implicit.

In strong contrast to the images the article is referring to.

“…and asking why it has taken "so long" to introduce the nudification ban "when reports of these disturbing Grok deepfakes appeared in August 2025."”

Quite simple - it hadn’t hit the mainstream media back then.

Puritanism is back with vengeance!

You prefer sexual abuse then…?

I'm not sure that decrying the facilitation of creation and public dissemination of sexualised images of real people without their consent, including children (by definition without consent) actually qualifies as "puritanism".

Pushing known limits, getting reactions, forging new, if not forbidden, trails.

These guys are absolutely full of shit and hate.

Shut the fucker down, stop X in its tracks.

Do it.