EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-petition-waive-privacy-violation-order-should-be-rejected

by Terretta • 20 days ago

153 75 20 days ago

eff.org

ChrisArchitect2• 20 days ago

Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-...

Terretta2• 20 days ago

TY!

The EFF featured update / press release at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-... links to the letter, with color:

Our response[^1] to X’s petition debunks many claims the company uses in its arguments. For example, there’s little evidence the order placed an undue financial burden on X. In our letter, we note that the compliance cost is merely “a rounding error against the $200 billion valuation of X Corp. following the xAI merger.”

[^1]: public interest advocates opposing x petition 2026: https://www.eff.org/files/2026/07/02/public_interest_advocat...

The letter is more interesting than the cover, undersigned by Center for Digital Democracy, Check My Ads Institute, Constitutional Alliance, Consumer Action, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, Demand Progress Education Fund (“DPEF”), Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”), National Consumers League (“NCL”), Oregon Consumer Justice, Oregon Consumer League, Public Citizen, Travelers United and Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, and drafted by DPEF's Special Advisor Kate Oh (kate@demandprogress.org), EFF's Senior Staff Technologist William Budington (bill@eff.org), EPIC's Senior Counsel Sara Geoghegan (geoghegan@epic.org), and NCL's Senior Public Policy Manager Eden Iscil (edeni@nclnet.org).

ChrisArchitect2• 20 days ago

Can update the link to the blog post; no need for this to be an arstechnica PDF

delichon• 20 days ago

Grok AI generated large amounts of CSAM and nonconsensual intimate imagery

Grok Imagine has been considerably locked down in terms of intimate imagery over the last few weeks. E.g. Harley Quinn used to be one of the easiest characters to manipulate, with or without any resemblance to Margot Robbie. No more. X still serves up explicit hardcore, and Imagine used to get at least in that neighborhood, but that has been squelched. For prurient purposes, nerfed. Not at all limited to CSAM or real people. The pressure they're getting from all over seems to explain it.

thinkcontext• 20 days ago

But they did resist locking it down, recall Musk making fun of concerns? They clearly don't take governance seriously, its whatever Musk is gravitating to in his filter bubble.

CSMastermind• 20 days ago

Reddit did the same. Tumblr died when it banned porn. There seems to be a very perverse incentive for social media platforms to be as permissive as possible.

Personally, I'd be in favor of banning all sexual content on X, but it really feels like a legislative solution applying to all social media platforms might be the best solution.

And yes I realize the slippery slope that could put us on.

WatchDog2• 20 days ago

Whatever you think about X's image generation models, I don't see how it is related to the petition that the EFF is opposing.

Is generation of non-consensual imagery really a privacy issue?

If someone publishes a real naked photo of you, that was acquired without your consent, that would be a privacy issue.

If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.

righthand2• 20 days ago

Is it private data if it was scraped from my social media profile marked private but leaked through a shared party? My expectation was that image would only be shared with those I wanted to see it (form of privacy).

dualvariable• 20 days ago

In an ideal world, generated non-consensual imagery should be illegal through invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness, but I think only a limited number of states have those laws.

numpad05• 20 days ago

"CSAM" is a codeword for anime. Users of this term routinely reject focusing on real kids and abuses. I assume "privacy" must be therefore a codeword too, especially considering that nonconsensual shocking images can be handled by defamation laws than privacy laws and principles.

totetsu2• 20 days ago

I think the terminology here can confuse the issue a bit. And because its such a socially pernicious and stigmatized topic, it's hard to even talk about the phrasing without without raising doubts as to why you would get caught up in the weeds on such an issue. But, I would say there is use in making the distinction between something that is CSAM, where its a record of abuse that has happened to a real child, and sexualized depictions of children, or content promoting the sexualization of children. The social and personal harms are distinct, and if we are to firmly understand the arguments for/against guardrails on generative AI, then it's a distinction that needs to be made I think.

xracy4• 20 days ago

If someone generates a naked photo of you, even if it looks identical to a real photo, it's not your private data.

"You see, your honor, it's not a picture of them, it's a picture of their reflection in the mirror."

I feel like this discussion is a question of what the exact structure of the hydrogen-filled blimp should look like, and not a discussion of the fact that THE BLIMP IS FILLED WITH HYDROGEN.

Like we got so deep into the lawyered-definition of words, that we skipped right over the clearly wrong/awful intent.

chrisjj6• 20 days ago

Grok AI generated large amounts of CSAM

A myth. CSAM is evidence of real-world abuse. Grok fakes are by definition not that.

nailer• 19 days ago

The original issue was specifically to do with bikini photos - parents often upload pictures of children in bathing suits without this being considered CSAM content, so Grok (and all other AI models) weren't moderating this. Here's the original article from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/grok-says-safeguard...

charcircuit3• 20 days ago

Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom.

Jabrov• 20 days ago

The letter is more about privacy, not freedom.

They're arguing X is a massive privacy risk and should not get any exemptions.

charcircuit3• 20 days ago

EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.

The EFF's mission statement supports them prioritizing freedom and innovation over privacy.

reaperducer• 20 days ago

Why is the EFF arguing for less freedom on how computers can be used? The EFF should be against the government restricting computing freedom.

Basic human decency?

numpad05• 20 days ago

So not privacy?

solid_fuel2• 20 days ago

The EFF does not blindly take the stance that "anything should be allowed as long as you do it with a computer". Their input here is very reasonable, and in standing with their principles.

schoen3• 20 days ago

The novel thing for EFF here, as I see it, isn't the idea that some uses of computers are illegal. Rather, it's the suggestion that tech companies have a duty to police or restrict users' use of their technology.

When I worked at EFF we argued in about 20 different contexts that tech companies are not responsible for user activity even if they know that some of it is unlawful in some way, and that tech companies do not have a duty to restrict users in order to deter some kind of unlawful behavior.

We said that about copyright infringement (again and again and again, including before the Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster), about counterfeiting, about housing discrimination, about distribution of existing child porn, about manufacture of weapons, about evading law enforcement surveillance, and about every kind of tort in content moderation (the intermediaries do not have a duty to prevent people from publishing content that civilly harms others). Oh, also money laundering with cryptocurrency mixer code. And prostitution.

In every case EFF's position was that there might be unlawful ways to use technology but the technology developer or operator didn't have a duty to prevent or discourage it, or to design the technology to prevent or discourage it, or to help the government or private parties catch people doing something unlawful.

I know there are several different legal doctrines in play there and some of them may have limitations in terms of actual knowledge (although EFF usually also argued for defining this narrowly!), so maybe one could argue that if Grok obtains actual knowledge of some improper use that it might have a duty to prevent that use in that case. But it would have been historically exceptional for EFF to say that there was a general duty to design technology to deter or detect any form of unlawful use.

There may also be a distinction in several of the relevant legal doctrines between inventing a technology (or making it available to others to use themselves on their own devices) versus hosting it on a cloud service, where the operator has more knowledge and more control than in other settings. EFF still historically preferred in basically every case to try to minimize the technology creator's or operator's liability for what users did.

someonebaggy• 20 days ago

When they oppose AB1043 (California parental controls act) it seems like they are taking that stance, that the government must not regulate computers because they are computers. What's different about the Grok situation?

gradientsrneat• 19 days ago

EFF has, on multiple occasions, specifically defended Kiwifarms, a site which unabashedly exists to turn people into hate-celebrities, with some members having kept "kill counts" of harrassed targets who committed suicide. The site is also known for spreading absurd false accusations, which has at least as much negative impact as AI revenge porn.

The EFF is not consistent in its principles. It has partisan bias. However, it can still be worth situationally supporting for certain causes.

dimator• 20 days ago

i don't know how you're equating "computing freedom" with regulation of privacy guards. should FTC not care about that? can you elaborate?

croes• 20 days ago

Their are two kinds of freedoms, freedom to and freedom from.

And they often contradict.

People should have freedom from abuse of their images, your freedom to abuse them

Edit: fixed "freedom of" to "freedom from", thanks to Alpha3031

Alpha3031• 20 days ago

Not really that important but I think the latter is more commonly referred to as "freedom from" rather than "freedom of"? I'm not 100% sure if I parsed that correctly.

Y-bar• 20 days ago

Privacy is a facet of freedom.

It gives the ability to speak and communicate without fear of being censored or surveillance (edit to add: and when there is censorship & surveillance it gives helps regain some of said freedom). It supports other freedoms like voting and freedom of association. It reduces the ability of others to harass or threaten or stalk you, making your daily life easier. It allows for whistleblowing against illegal acts of companies or government entities. Journalists and their sources often need it as part of their ability to freely do their jobs.

camgunz5• 20 days ago

Privacy is a requirement for freedom. You would act differently if everyone/the government knew everything you were thinking/saying/doing. The watchers would also act differently (think about all the accusations of incompetence when people post violent things on Facebook and then go on shooting sprees).

maxlin2• 19 days ago

The article link appropriately disqualifies itself of not being partisan by the fact of the article explicitly having links to share it on multiple semi-dead platforms but not X. X, which they left with arguments about "reach" which don't pass half a smell test.

Hope EFF digs itself out of the mud it finds itself in today in the future.

hn_acker3• 19 days ago

The article link appropriately disqualifies itself of not being partisan

Where does EFF call itself non-partisan, and how is that relevant to Twitter's/X's violations of privacy? Definitions of partisan include [1]:

An adherent to a party or faction.
A fervent, sometimes militant, supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.

By the second definition and arguably by the first as well, EFF is fundamentally a partisan organization [2]:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading nonprofit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF champions user privacy, free expression, and innovation through impact litigation, policy analysis, grassroots activism, and technology development. EFF's mission is to ensure that technology supports freedom, justice, and innovation for all people of the world.

"Reach" was only ever one reason EFF stopped posting on X. Among yet other reasons, EFF had partisan reasons for leaving X [3]:

Twitter was never a utopia. We've criticized the platform for about as long as it’s been around. Still, Twitter did deserve recognition from time to time for vociferously fighting for its users’ rights. That changed. Musk fired the entire human rights team and laid off staffers in countries where the company previously fought off censorship demands from repressive regimes.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/partisan

[2] https://www.eff.org/about

[3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/04/eff-leaving-x

maxlin2• 18 days ago

Lots of words to say nothing. Obviously the original mission statement of EFF has been bipartisan, turning against Musk and by that turning a lot more anti-freedom of speech and anti-liberty has soiled their image.

Them continuing on such extremely partisan platforms like Truth Social for the left (BlueSky) just makes them unsupportable. Which is something I'd thought I'd never say, but that's the world we live in. Where champions of justice get attacked, and censorious hate mills get even officially boosted.

Just read your own arguments. X bad because it fires a team they'd never needed to have as a social media company just to stay afloat, especially as it was proven that those firings were tacitly necessary for the platform to survive?

"previously" fought off censorship demands

This just proves you're either uninformed or lying on purpose. The furor with which Musk pushed Brazil and De Moraes to not censor people on X was awe-inspiring. Something the old Twitter never managed to do in such scale.

EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

Related Stories