State Department Threatens UK Over Grok Investigation, Because Only The US Is Allowed To Ban Foreign Apps
from the fighting-csam-is-censorship? dept
So let me get this straight. The United States government spent years championing a ban on TikTok, rushed it through the Supreme Court with claims of grave national security threats, got a 9-0 ruling blessing government censorship of an entire platform used by 170 million Americans… and now it’s the US State Department thinking that it’s all cool to threaten the United Kingdom for considering similar action against X’s Grok chatbot over its generation of sexualized deepfake images, including those of children?
We all know that the US can be hypocritical, but this all seems a bit over the top.
Here’s what actually happened: the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom opened an investigation into whether X violated the country’s Online Safety Act by allowing Grok to create and distribute non-consensual intimate images (NCII). This isn’t some theoretical concern—as I detailed last week, Grok has been churning out sexualized images at an alarming rate, with users publicly generating “undressing” content and worse, in many cases targeting real women and girls. UK Technology Secretary Liz Kendall told Parliament that Ofcom could impose fines up to £18 million or seek a court order to block X entirely if violations are found.
Enter Sarah B. Rogers, the Trump-appointed Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, who decided this was the perfect moment to threaten a close US ally. In an interview with GB News, Rogers declared:
I would say from America’s perspective … nothing is off the table when it comes to free speech. Let’s wait and see what Ofcom does and we’ll see what America does in response.
She went further, accusing the British government of wanting “the ability to curate a public square, to suppress political viewpoints it dislikes” and claiming that X has “a political valence that the British government is antagonistic to.”
This is weapons-grade nonsense, and Rogers knows it.
The UK isn’t investigating X because they don’t like Elon Musk’s politics. They’re investigating because Grok is being used to create sexualized deepfakes of real people without consent, including minors. Unless Rogers is prepared to stand up and argue that generating non-consensual sexualized imagery of real people—including children—is somehow quintessential “conservative speech” that the US must defend, she’s deliberately mischaracterizing what’s happening here. Is that really the hill the State Department wants to die on? That deepfake NCII is conservative speech?
As UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson put it:
“It’s about the generation of criminal imagery of children and women and girls that is not acceptable. We cannot stand by and let that continue. And that is why we’ve taken the action we have.”
But here’s where the hypocrisy becomes truly spectacular: just this week, the Republican-led Senate unanimously passed the DEFIANCE Act for the second time. This legislation would create a federal civil cause of action allowing victims of non-consensual deepfake intimate imagery to sue the producers of such content. No matter what you think of that particular bill (I have my concerns about the specifics of how the bill works), it’s quite something when you have the State Department’s mafioso-like threat being issued to the UK if they take any action to respond to what’s happening on X at the same time the MAGA-led US Senate is voting unanimously to move forward on a bill that could have a similar impact.
So let’s review the US government’s position:
- Banning an entire social media platform because China might access data (that they can already buy from data brokers anyway)? Perfectly fine, rush it through SCOTUS.
- Allowing victims to sue over non-consensual sexualized deepfakes? Great idea, unanimous Senate support.
- Another country investigating whether a platform violated laws against generating sexualized deepfakes of minors? UNACCEPTABLE CENSORSHIP, NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE.
The MAGA mindset in a nutshell: performative nonsense when it fits within a certain bucket (in this case the “OMG Europeans censoring Elon”) no matter that it conflicts with stated beliefs elsewhere.
It’s important to consider all of this in light of the whole TikTok ban fiasco. When the Supreme Court blessed Congress’s decision to ban an app based on vague national security concerns—concerns so urgent that the Biden administration immediately decided not to enforce the ban after winning in court and which Trump has continued to not enforce for an entire year—America effectively torched its moral authority to criticize other countries for restricting platforms.
As I wrote when that ruling came down, we essentially said it’s okay to create a Great Firewall of America. We told the world that if you claim “national security” loudly enough, with sufficient “bipartisan support,” you can ban whatever app you want, First Amendment concerns be damned. Chinese officials have pointed to the US’s TikTok ban to justify their own internet restrictions, and now we’re handing authoritarian regimes another gift: the US will threaten retaliation if you try to enforce laws against platforms generating sexualized imagery of children.
When you blow up the principle that countries shouldn’t ban apps based on content concerns, you don’t get to suddenly rediscover those principles when it’s your billionaire’s app on the chopping block.
And make no mistake about what Rogers is really defending here. Grok continues to generate sexualized content at scale. Elon Musk continues running X like an edgelord teenager who knows he’s rich enough to avoid consequences, and women—especially young women—continue facing harassment and abuse via these tools.
The State Department’s threats aren’t about defending free speech. They’re about protecting Musk’s business interests. It’s about maintaining the double standard that got us here: American companies can do whatever they want globally, but foreign companies operating in America face existential threats for far less.
The UK is investigating potential violations of laws against generating sexualized imagery of minors and non-consenting adults. If the State Department thinks that’s “censorship,” they should explain why the Senate just voted unanimously to let victims sue over exactly that conduct.
Look, the UK’s investigation may or may not lead anywhere. Ofcom may find violations, or it may not. They may impose fines, or they may not. They may seek to block X, or they may not. But the one thing the US government absolutely cannot do with a straight face is threaten them for even considering it.
You don’t get to ban TikTok and then act outraged when other countries contemplate similar actions against American companies. You don’t get to pass unanimous legislation allowing lawsuits over deepfake NCII while your State Department calls investigations into that same deepfake NCII “censorship.” You don’t get to spend years claiming that national security justifies any restriction on platforms and then suddenly discover that “free speech” means other countries can’t enforce their laws.
There are no principles here, only sheer abuse of power. And Sarah Rogers’s threat to the UK makes that abundantly clear: the rules we claimed justified banning TikTok apparently only apply when we’re the ones doing the banning.
Filed Under: defiance act, elon musk, grok, ncii, online safety act, sarah rogers, state department, tiktok ban, uk
Companies: tiktok, twitter, x
Comments on “State Department Threatens UK Over Grok Investigation, Because Only The US Is Allowed To Ban Foreign Apps”
Sounds like would be fun to watch the enjoying dumpster fire if the try, as X gets. Sued out of existence, because the defiance act passes and they can’t even claim section 230 protections because their own bot is the instrument of creating the offending images, making it their own content.
The Trump regime weaponising government to try and defend pedophillia? How unlike them.
The ooner sillicon Valley types are made to follow the laws of the nations they operate in or face consequences, the better.
The UK has passed a law making it illegal to make nude or sexual fake images of people without their permission
The UK could choose to ask isps to block x .
I think the trump government is of the opinion that if the UK blocks or asks a usa based app to follow the under 18 verification laws it’s censorship
You can’t censor AI. That is not a thing. Regardless that a human prompted it. So investigating X over disgusting Grok-generated content cannot be censorship.
Thanks for your authoritarian nonsense, government.
Speaking of Grok-generated deepfakes
I received a tip that a certain porn site is being flooded with (nonconsensual, of course) deepfake incest porn featuring all kinds of celebrities, politicians, etc. A quick check — and it only took a quick check, because it was immediately obvious — confirmed this. My informant also pointed out that it’s coming from Grok and that the motivation appears to be financial: every one of these videos has links to a different web site hosted in operations that specialize in facilitating abuse, e.g. Cloudflare.
By the way, “flooded” in this instance means “tens of thousands”.
Someone has invested time and effort and money in setting this up; obviously they intend to profit from it. And since they’re creating so much content with Grok, one would think Elon et.al. would be aware of this: it’s got to stand out in their logs.
They’re allowed to ban an app from their country if they wish.
What they’re not allowed to do is to try to control it, or censor speech on it. X is not within their jurisdiction.
P.S. The UK government is fuucking insane. If you’re taking their side, you’re the baddies.
This is inevitably going to sound snarky despite not intending to be, but weren’t you against the UK being able to regulate US companies? Because this is exactly the sort of sovereignty issue that comes up.
Eh, yes you can. Using national security doesn’t mean you can’t be worried about speech in other contexts. Not every justification is on equal/similar moral footing (even taking for granted that moral authority is the correct lens when it comes to international relations, which isn’t always the case). The point is moot because they don’t actually care about free speech, but that argument is flawed.
TBF, they’re both censorship. Even under the definition TD usually prefers.
There is the fundamental conservative principle- there’s an in-group and an out-group. They’re mad because the out-group is trying to regulate the in-group. Nothing else matters, to them. Not consistency, morality, hypocrisy, or anything else. (As an aside, to anyone still wondering how the Trump/Elon “break up” was going, note who is getting in-group protection here).
Re:
Where did Mike said he was for UK being able to regulate US companies?
Did you miss the whole point he was making? That the whole thing reeks of sheer hypocrisy and double-standards.
Freudian slip
She went further, accusing the British government of wanting “the ability to curate a public square, to suppress political viewpoints it dislikes” and claiming that X has “a political valence that the British government is antagonistic to.”
Today I learned that supporting the creation and posting of non-consensual naked or near naked deepfakes of women and young girls is considered a ‘political viewpoint’ to republicans. I’d say I was surprised but I try not to lie and this entirely within character for the GOP and it’s members at this point.
The UK needs to absolutely hammer home what the US regime is claiming here, that trying to go after a site for creating and posting naked and near naked deepfakes of women and children is considered not just unacceptable but political persecution to the Trump regime.
Re:
Everything always is. Especially when you operate on nothing but thin air and an identity.
Re: If that's their stance, they should say it directly
If the US Government wants to take the stance that the right to create and distribute nonconsensual sexual deepfakes of people, including minors, is an important free speech matter, they shouldn’t send some Undersecretary to talk in veiled waffling ways about free speech and censorship.
They should have their top leadership – Trump and Vance and, since this is an international matter, Rubio, and ideally Miller too – stage a big public appearance where, speaking with one voice, they say openly, loudly and proudly, that they think that the right to create and distribute nonconsensual sexual deepfakes of people, including minors, is an important free speech matter.
If they don’t have the guts to do that, they should shut up about the matter.
The UK is correct in taking action on this. Brazil was correct as well for taking action against X for allowing coup-fomenting accounts to run rampant, but Techdirt and others collectively shat themselves over the idea of the country taking a social media company to task. Now, Bolsonaro is rightfully in prison and Trump is trying to destroy the world. I hope that more countries keep taking X and other noxious American tech companies to task. Maybe we’ll learn something from them and use that in the future when we rebuild after Trump and Trumpism.
You can’t censor AI. That is not a thing. Regardless that a human prompted it. So investigating X over disgusting Grok-generated content cannot be censorship.
Thanks for your authoritarian nonsense, government.
If that's their stance, they should say it directly
If the US Government wants to take the stance that the right to create and distribute nonconsensual sexual deepfakes of people, including minors, they should send some Undersecretary to talk in veiled waffling ways about free speech and censorship.
They should have their top leadership – Trump and Vance and, since this is an international matter, Rubio, and ideally Miller too – stage a big public appearance where, speaking with one voice, they say openly, loudly and proudly, that they think that the right to create and distribute nonconsensual sexual deepfakes of people, including minors.
If they don’t have the guts to do that, they should shut up about the matter.
Re: Please delete. Posted before proofreading.
Please delete. Posted before proofreading.
So ban access to X outright. Don’t see a downside to that honestly. It’s a platform for anti social propaganda. It’s amplifying and sowing hate. In the end only the super rich gain from that platform.
The whole Twitter/Grok debacle is exactly why we need the Online Safety Bill and why American websites like 4chan need to obey UK law.
Enemies, not friends
As a veteran diplomat said, visibly irritated, in the secrecy of a corridor, when the ICC issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu for war crimes, “It’s not a question of laws. The court was set up to target enemies, not friends”. By “enemies” he was probably referring to the warrant issued for Putin for the same crimes, months before.
This is how criminal gangs and corrupt states think, not democracies.