> People are mad at X for political reasons, and they think this is their lever to get rid of X.

I don't give a shit about X. Truly, I wake up and exist for weeks at a time without realizing the website exists or that anything happened on it whatsoever.

What I'm laughing at is Apple, who has had decades to forfeit their App Store monopoly. They didn't, largely because of pants-on-head stupid ideologues like Gruber defending their backwards logic. And then again with the client side scanning controversy, and now again when Gruber is mad that the shoe is on the other foot.

Apple is fascist. That's all there is to it. It's just a long, painful let-down for certain cheerleaders who really, really want to see the App Store used as a cudgel for good, vindicating the bootlicking apologists who put us in this miserable position.

Illegality is a floor, not a ceiling. It is justified to adhere to and promote a morality that sets higher standards than the law, including taking the view that creating and distributing indecent images of people should be prohibited.

I think you are wrong to see this as purely political. Women being portrayed as nude, battered, covered in semen, and so on are genuinely horrified. Such images would not be tolerated if they were sourced from a political ally.

Furthermore, I don't think that fake nudes of the US President are morally equivalent to fake nudes of minor public figures who are 99% women, even if the law treats them the same. We need to take into account the completely different lives that men and women online experience, where women are constantly subjected to sexualization and abuse.

This is one of those topics that discussion on HN is hopeless because women are so underrepresented.

> I find this whole thing extremely tendentious. CSAM is illegal and people are banned from X for producing or posting it.

Remember that time Elon Musk apologized for banning someone that posted CSAM and then unbanned them? I sure do, considering that was the reason why I left Twitter three years ago.

Apple isn't the enemy of my enemy, though. Last I checked, Tim Cook gave a convicted rapist a golden trophy for his manufacturing prowess, did he not? I quite dislike convicted rapists.

Thus, I am convinced that Apple is working with the pedophiles, and not against them. You're mistaken if you think the App Store is a tool for enforcing justice.

The same capabilities might be present in many available models, but I do think that the public/social aspect in usage is quite different— people can’t come into my Google account and save nudified versions of my family photos directly to my Google drive, but X generated a lot of attention because the users are directly replying or quoting other users and @ing them with the modified photos.

Grok has never been "wide open" to undress people. Anyone reporting that is being extremely duplicitous. Any image-to-image on Grok has stringent NSFW filters for exactly this scenario. People have worked out jailbreaks and those get dealt with.

This is the sort of thing that is technically correct, but misses the emotional aspect that people want to be able to control their public perception. Of course people could (and did) do this with older tools or by hand. It doesn't matter to them. And since Elon/X are the villain du jour, it's a good lever to punish them.

>If I have like ... a mole somewhere under my clothes, Grok cannot know about that right?

unless some ex spoke about that gross mole you had in twitter or some data that was scraped somewhere, no.

Not sure what the actual odds are of it knowing if you have a mole or not.

> This is such a weird issue for me, who is blind.

I'm not sure what your mental model is for someone's visual likeness.

I'd propose a blind-inclusive analogy of what is happening on Twitter is anyone can create a realistic sexdoll with the same face and body proportions as any user online.

Doesn't that feel gross, even if the sexdoll's genitalia wouldn't match the real person's?

Do you have a daughter? A sister? A mother? A wife?

Any woman that happens to matter to you in anyway?

Maybe when someone post a picture of her, and someone else asks an overhaul of the picture of her covered in semen, you can philosophize about the technicalities of whether those were her covered in semen or if that was an extrapolation of how they would like covered in semen.

Maybe you can debate this with the coomers in X even.

I am ignorant and I don't know how to quantify any of these things, but it just seems strange to me that entities accounting for such a large part of the US economy have no leverage over 47.

A topic in the news lately is the upcoming midterm elections. Could they not threaten him with an aggressive informational warfare type of campaign? After all, he benefitted from the coordinated influence campaign that russia undertook during the 2016 elections.

Only because they personally chose the 'obey in advance' starting with funding his inauguration and power leveled him up.

https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/twenty-lessons-fig...

The best thing to do right now is politely email hn@ycombinator.com to bring the mistake to their attention. I’ve worked with them in the past, and I’m confident they’ll unflag it.

Disastrous response from the hacker ethic group.

I guess it’s like how the hippies were mostly bought out by the 80’s - what was that saying from SLC Punk, “I didn’t sell out, I bought in”?

I think many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what and why people flag on this site. And as someone who also used to have this misunderstanding, I'll explain how I changed my mind on this topic.

A lot of people view flagging as "that is a troll post/comment" or "that was made in bad faith". But I think another reason many people flag is "this topic is highly unlikely to generate any useful discussion" or "this topic may be fine for discussion, but not on HN".

FWIW, I disagree with the flagging in this instance. Most importantly, I did learn something useful in the comments (the bit about how Apple previously almost banned Tumbler due to unintentional CSAM). But I also don't really begrudge folks who voted to flag. Political topics always have a lower bar for flagging IMO, because they nearly always devolve into useless tribal warfare - useless tribal warfare that you can easily get in spades on nearly any other forum/social media site online. And just look at the comments on this post. Most of them I'd characterize as generally uninsightful, and even disregarding my opinion, tons of the comments here are downvoted. So if some folks are a little too trigger happy to flag because they're at least trying to keep HN's uniquely high value discussions, I don't really blame them.

So while I disagree with the flagging in this instance, I also disagree that HN generally has a problem with bad-faith flagging.