Comment by chrisjj
11 hours ago
If the French suspected Grok/X of something as serious as CSAM, you can bet they would have mentioned it their statement. They didn't. Porn, they did.
11 hours ago
If the French suspected Grok/X of something as serious as CSAM, you can bet they would have mentioned it their statement. They didn't. Porn, they did.
The first two points of the official document, which I re-quote below, are about CSAM.
> complicité de détention d’images de mineurs présentant un caractère pédopornographique
> complicité de diffusion, offre ou mise à disposition en bande organisée d'image de mineurs présentant un caractère pédopornographique
[1]: https://www.tribunal-de-paris.justice.fr/sites/default/files...
> The first two points of the official document, which I re-quote below, are about CSAM.
Sorry, but that's a major translation error. "pédopornographique" properly translated is child porn, not child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The difference is huge.
They are words for the same thing, it's like arguing they can't seize laptops because the warrant says computers.
Quote from US doj [1]:
> The term “child pornography” is currently used in federal statutes and is defined as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person less than 18 years old. While this phrase still appears in federal law, “child sexual abuse material” is preferred, as it better reflects the abuse that is depicted in the images and videos and the resulting trauma to the child. In fact, in 2016, an international working group, comprising a collection of countries and international organizations working to combat child exploitation, formally recognized “child sexual abuse material” as the preferred term.
Child porn is csam.
[1]: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-06/child_sexual_abuse_materi...
1 reply →
Maybe US law makes a distinction, but in Europe there is no difference. Sexual depictions of children (real or not) is considered child pornography and will get you sent to the slammer.