this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2026
357 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

5068 readers
260 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

all 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bristlecone@lemmy.world 15 points 19 hours ago
[–] Kalon@lemmy.world 104 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Why won't X be held liable for distribution of child pornography?

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 57 points 1 day ago

Pedophile in chief probably personally intervened.

[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Manufacturing consent is the name of the game. The bottom line is money, nobody gives a FUCK.

System of a Down - Boom!

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 10 points 1 day ago

4,000 hungry children leave us per hour from starvation, while BILLIONS are spent on BOMBS

CREATING DEATH SHOWERS

[–] artyom@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago

You can't blame a computer for what it does. Only the user who asks for the content is to blame. /s

[–] sausager@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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"

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 4 points 1 day ago

I couldn't even get it to output nudity

[–] kungen@feddit.nu 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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?

[–] ILikeTraaaains@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

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
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] belated_frog_pants@beehaw.org 14 points 23 hours ago

Billionaires have the tightest class solidarity

[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 22 points 1 day ago

Why do you think? Rules are for poor people.

[–] slothrop@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 day ago

Because billionaires.

[–] jasoman@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago

Cause they found funding fascism was easier.

[–] doleo@lemmy.one 8 points 1 day ago

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?

[–] 4am@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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

[–] TheRealKuni@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah. He can’t buy Apple (market cap $3.8T), or Google ($3.96T). He’s not a trillionaire yet.

[–] calliope@retrolemmy.com 4 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

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.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Should they pull every web browser, too? They can clearly be used for nefarious purposes.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

The difference between the two is that, while the browser can be used to access child porn, X actively generated the porn.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

The browser can access X & any website. Isn't material produced from actual child sexual abuse worse than fictions generated without it?

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

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.