Once you’ve traded your principles for proximity to power, do you even run your own company?
Archived version: https://archive.is/20260109213037/https://www.theverge.com/policy/859902/apple-google-run-by-cowards
deleted by creator
Pedophile in chief probably personally intervened.
Manufacturing consent is the name of the game. The bottom line is money, nobody gives a FUCK.
System of a Down - Boom!
4,000 hungry children leave us per hour from starvation, while BILLIONS are spent on BOMBS
CREATING DEATH SHOWERS
You can’t blame a computer for what it does. Only the user who asks for the content is to blame. /s
According to this article it doesn’t actually put out porn or child porn. It’s gross but not porn. Relevant text:
“Nonconsensual AI-generated images of women in bikinis spreading their legs, and of children with so-called “donut glaze” on their faces”
I couldn’t even get it to output nudity
I think it’s disgusting that X probably doesn’t see a problem with it, but it still wouldn’t be legally classified as CSAM, no?
In some places it is CSAM and in others it is being working into convert into law.
I think the issues are:
- It can pass as real
- Unlike run-of-the-mill cartoon porn, real photos of children (even not CSAM) are involved, either in the training or as input for the generation
deleted by creator
A: money
Because billionaires.
Why do you think? Rules are for poor people.
Billionaires have the tightest class solidarity
Cowards.
Coward$.
Cause they found funding fascism was easier.
I’m not going to use that website to check, but is nobody making Tim Apple deepfakes to goad him? Cant somebody just ask it to recreate that emo-Elon picture that he tried to ban?
Could Elon buy them? Does he have that much wealth power?
EDIT: to be clear, it’s not that I want him to.‘it’s just frightening that it even sounds plausible enough to question in ignorance
Nah. He can’t buy Apple (market cap $3.8T), or Google ($3.96T). He’s not a trillionaire yet.
To put it into perspective, if he managed to sell all of his ownerships of companies for the most optimistic idea of his current net worth*, he could still buy less than 19% of Apple.
He’d need several friends to chip in to even get to 50%. A trillion is a lot until inflation gets out of hand.
* $717 billion; probably $100 billion too high at least.
Should they pull every web browser, too? They can clearly be used for nefarious purposes.
The difference between the two is that, while the browser can be used to access child porn, X actively generated the porn.
The browser can access X & any website. Isn’t material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?
The browser can access X & any website.
A browser doesn’t activately generate it. X did.
Isn’t material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?
They’re both equally as bad because they result in the same things: production and advancement of child porn.
Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Did you know there’s a difference between truth & fiction? I doubt abuse victims would agree these are the same or equally as bad.
Pulling the X-only client while keeping the everything including X client doesn’t seem to accomplish anything. Neither client is actively generating anything: it’s server side. Your argument seems to be the client that accesses bad needs to be blocked, but the client that accesses bad & worse somehow does not.
Actual child sexual abuse is equally as bad as fiction? Did you know there’s a difference between truth & fiction? I doubt abuse victims would agree these are the same or equally as bad.
Both equally propegate child sex abuse, and I’m sure the kids these deep fakes are on might agree with me. In both topics, a kid is getting exploited for sexual material.
Neither client is actively generating anything: it’s server side
Oh, so the generating and/or distributing technology of the child porn is in the possession, custody, and control of X? Seems to make my point: X generated and/or distributed the child porn. On top of that, it made revenue off it from the ads that supported the active distributed of said child porn. Whose paying the electricity bill as an expense to profit on the child porn? X.
Your argument seems to be the client that accesses bad needs to be blocked, but the client that accesses bad & worse somehow does not.
My point, going back to my origional supposition, is that it is absurd to blame Mozilla (or the like) for the nefarious uses of all its users when they merely are a tool through which the web is accessed, and they don’t make a profit directly from whatever material is accessed.
