zlacker

>>vikave+(OP)
> Prosecutors say they are now investigating whether X has broken the law across multiple areas.

This step could come before a police raid.

This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers.

>>Altern+ut
> This looks like plain political pressure. No lives were saved, and no crime was prevented by harassing local workers.

The company made and released a tool with seemingly no guard-rails, which was used en masse to generate deepfakes and child pornography.

>>moolco+Du
I'm of two minds about this.

One the one hand, it seems "obvious" that Grok should somehow be legally required to have guardrails stopping it from producing kiddie porn.

On the other hand, it also seems "obvious" that laws forcing 3D printers to detect and block attempts to print firearms are patently bullshit.

The thing is, I'm not sure how I can reconcile those two seemingly-obvious statements in a principled manner.

>>pdpi+cm3
It is very different. It is YOUR 3d printer, no one else is involved. You might print a knife and kill somebody with it, you go to jail, not third party involved.

If you use a service like Grok, then you use somebody elses computer / things. X is the owner from computer that produced CP. So of course X is at least also a bit liable for producing CP.

>>_tramp+1o3
How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?

>>pdpi+so3
This might be an unpopular opinion but I always thought we might be better off without Web 2.0 where site owners aren’t held responsible for user content

If you’re hosting content, why shouldn’t you be responsible, because your business model is impossible if you’re held to account for what’s happening on your premises?

Without safe harbor, people might have to jump through the hoops of buying their own domain name, and hosting content themselves, would that be so bad?

>>jazzyj+oB3
What about webmail, IM, or any other sort of web-hosted communication? Do you honestly think it would be better if Google were responsible for whatever content gets sent to a gmail address?

>>pdpi+fM3
Messages are a little different than hosting public content but sure, a service provider should know its customers and stop doing business with any child sex traffickers planning parties over email.

I would prefer 10,000 service providers to one big one that gets to read all the plaintext communication of the entire planet.

>>jazzyj+5W3
In a world where hosting services are responsible that way, their filtering would need to be even more sensitive than it is today, and plenty of places already produce unreasonable amounts of false positives.

As it stands, I have a bunch of photos on my phone that would almost certainly get flagged by over-eager/overly sensitive child porn detection — close friends and family sending me photos of their kids at the beach. I've helped bathe and dress some of those kids. There's nothing nefarious about any of it, but it's close enough that services wouldn't take the risk, and that would be a loss to us all.