So let me get this straight. America authorities spent years championing a ban on TikTok, rushed it through the Supreme Court with claims of grave nationwide safety threats, got a 9-0 ruling blessing government censorship of a complete platform utilized by 170 million People… and now it’s the US State Division considering that it’s all cool to threaten the UK for considering similar action in opposition to X’s Grok chatbot over its era of sexualized deepfake photos, together with these of youngsters?
Everyone knows that the US might be hypocritical, however this all appears a bit excessive.
Right here’s what really occurred: the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom opened an investigation into whether or not X violated the nation’s On-line Security Act by permitting Grok to create and distribute non-consensual intimate photos (NCII). This isn’t some theoretical concern—as I detailed final week, Grok has been churning out sexualized images at an alarming price, with customers publicly producing “undressing” content material and worse, in lots of instances concentrating on actual ladies and ladies. UK Expertise Secretary Liz Kendall instructed Parliament that Ofcom may impose fines as much as £18 million or seek a court order to block X entirely if violations are discovered.
Enter Sarah B. Rogers, the Trump-appointed Below Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, who determined this was the proper second to threaten a close US ally. In an interview with GB Information, Rogers declared:
I might say from America’s perspective … nothing is off the desk relating to free speech. Let’s wait and see what Ofcom does and we’ll see what America does in response.
She went additional, accusing the British authorities of wanting “the flexibility to curate a public sq., to suppress political viewpoints it dislikes” and claiming that X has “a political valence that the British authorities is antagonistic to.”
That is weapons-grade nonsense, and Rogers is aware of it.
The UK isn’t investigating X as a result of they don’t like Elon Musk’s politics. They’re investigating as a result of Grok is getting used to create sexualized deepfakes of actual folks with out consent, together with minors. Until Rogers is ready to face up and argue that producing non-consensual sexualized imagery of actual folks—together with kids—is by some means quintessential “conservative speech” that the US should defend, she’s intentionally mischaracterizing what’s taking place right here. Is that actually the hill the State Division needs to die on? That deepfake NCII is conservative speech?
As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson put it:
“It’s concerning the era of felony imagery of youngsters and girls and ladies that’s not acceptable. We can not stand by and let that proceed. And that’s the reason we’ve taken the motion now we have.”
However right here’s the place the hypocrisy turns into really spectacular: simply this week, the Republican-led Senate unanimously passed the DEFIANCE Act for the second time. This laws would create a federal civil explanation for motion permitting victims of non-consensual deepfake intimate imagery to sue the producers of such content material. It doesn’t matter what you consider that exact invoice (I’ve my issues concerning the specifics of how the invoice works), it’s fairly one thing when you might have the State Division’s mafioso-like menace being issued to the UK in the event that they take any motion to reply to what’s taking place on X on the identical time the MAGA-led US Senate is voting unanimously to maneuver ahead on a invoice that might have the same affect.
So let’s evaluate the US authorities’s place:
- Banning a complete social media platform as a result of China would possibly entry knowledge (that they’ll already purchase from knowledge brokers anyway)? Completely advantageous, rush it by means of SCOTUS.
- Permitting victims to sue over non-consensual sexualized deepfakes? Nice concept, unanimous Senate help.
- One other nation investigating whether or not a platform violated legal guidelines in opposition to producing sexualized deepfakes of minors? UNACCEPTABLE CENSORSHIP, NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE.
The MAGA mindset in a nutshell: performative nonsense when it matches inside a sure bucket (on this case the “OMG Europeans censoring Elon”) regardless of that it conflicts with acknowledged beliefs elsewhere.
It’s vital to contemplate all of this in mild of the entire TikTok ban fiasco. When the Supreme Court docket blessed Congress’s resolution to ban an app primarily based on obscure nationwide safety issues—issues so pressing that the Biden administration instantly determined to not implement the ban after profitable in courtroom and which Trump has continued to not implement for a complete yr—America successfully torched its ethical authority to criticize different nations for limiting platforms.
As I wrote when that ruling got here down, we primarily mentioned it’s okay to create a Nice Firewall of America. We instructed the world that when you declare “nationwide safety” loudly sufficient, with ample “bipartisan help,” you may ban no matter app you need, First Modification issues be damned. Chinese language officers have pointed to the US’s TikTok ban to justify their very own web restrictions, and now we’re handing authoritarian regimes one other reward: the US will threaten retaliation when you attempt to implement legal guidelines in opposition to platforms producing sexualized imagery of youngsters.
While you blow up the precept that nations shouldn’t ban apps primarily based on content material issues, you don’t get to out of the blue rediscover these rules when it’s your billionaire’s app on the chopping block.
And make no mistake about what Rogers is de facto defending right here. Grok continues to generate sexualized content material at scale. Elon Musk continues working X like an edgelord teenager who is aware of he’s wealthy sufficient to keep away from penalties, and girls—particularly younger ladies—proceed dealing with harassment and abuse by way of these instruments.
The State Division’s threats aren’t about defending free speech. They’re about defending Musk’s enterprise pursuits. It’s about sustaining the double normal that acquired us right here: American firms can do no matter they need globally, however international firms working in America face existential threats for much much less.
The UK is investigating potential violations of legal guidelines in opposition to producing sexualized imagery of minors and non-consenting adults. If the State Division thinks that’s “censorship,” they need to clarify why the Senate simply voted unanimously to let victims sue over precisely that conduct.
Look, the UK’s investigation could or could not lead wherever. Ofcom could discover violations, or it might not. They might impose fines, or they might not. They might search to dam X, or they might not. However the one factor the US authorities completely can not do with a straight face is threaten them for even contemplating it.
You don’t get to ban TikTok after which act outraged when different nations ponder comparable actions in opposition to American firms. You don’t get to go unanimous laws permitting lawsuits over deepfake NCII whereas your State Division calls investigations into that very same deepfake NCII “censorship.” You don’t get to spend years claiming that nationwide safety justifies any restriction on platforms after which out of the blue uncover that “free speech” means different nations can’t implement their legal guidelines.
There are not any rules right here, solely sheer abuse of energy. And Sarah Rogers’s menace to the UK makes that abundantly clear: the foundations we claimed justified banning TikTok apparently solely apply after we’re those doing the banning.
Extra Legislation-Associated Tales From Techdirt:
Justice Gorsuch Reminds: The Fourth Amendment Isn’t Dead Yet
Trump, Ellison Wage War On ‘Woke Netflix’ In Effort To Scuttle Warner Brothers Deal, Dominate U.S. Media
Trump Tries To Disappear Impeachment References At Smithsonian
