zlacker

[return to "X offices raided in France as UK opens fresh investigation into Grok"]
â—§
1. Altern+ut[view] [source] 2026-02-03 13:39:21
>>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.

â—§â—©
2. moolco+Du[view] [source] 2026-02-03 13:45:38
>>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.

â—§â—©â—ª
3. pdpi+cm3[view] [source] 2026-02-04 05:42:13
>>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.

◧◩◪◨
4. _tramp+1o3[view] [source] 2026-02-04 06:02:29
>>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.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. pdpi+so3[view] [source] 2026-02-04 06:06:18
>>_tramp+1o3
How does that mesh with all the safe harbour provisions we've depended on to make the modern internet, though?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. jazzyj+oB3[view] [source] 2026-02-04 07:59:01
>>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?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. termin+rW3[view] [source] 2026-02-04 10:43:06
>>jazzyj+oB3
You know this site would not be possible without those protections, right?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. jazzyj+pc5[view] [source] 2026-02-04 17:48:19
>>termin+rW3
On the contrary HN is one of the most heavily moderated forums out here and serves as a great example of a right-size community where sex trafficking is not happening under the nose of an ambivalent host

(Snark aside, in your opinion are there comments on HN that dang would be criminally liable for if it weren't for safe harbor?)

[go to top]