You are only liable if you know - or should know - that you possess it. You can help someone out by mailing their sealed letter containing CSAM and be fine since you have no reason to suspect the sealed letter isn't legal. X can store CSAM so long as they have reason to think it is legal.
Note that things change. In the early days of twitter (pre X) they could get away with not thinking of the issue at all. As technology to detect CSAM marches on they need to use it (or justify why it shouldn't be used - too many false positives???). As a large platform for such content they need to push the state of the art in such detection.. At no point do they need perfection - but they need to show they are doing their reasonable best to stop this.
The above is of course my opinion. I think the courts will go a similar direction, but time will tell...
> You are only liable if you know - or should know - that you possess it.
Which he does and responded with “I will blame and punish users.” Which yeah, you should, but you also need to fix your bot. He’s certainly has no issue doing that when Grok outputs claims/arguments that make him look bad or otherwise engages in what he considers “wrongthink,” but suddenly when there are real, serious consequences he gets to hide behind “it’s just a user problem”?
This is the same thing YouTube and social media companies have been getting away with for so long. They claim their algorithms will take care of content problems, then when they demonstrably fail they throw their hands up and go “whoops! Sorry we are just too big for real people to handle all of it but we’ll get it right this time.” Rinse repeat.
Blame and punish should be a part of this. However that only works if you can find who to blame and punish. We also should put guard rails on so people don't make mistakes. (generating CSAM should not be an easy mistake to make when you don't intend it, but in other contexts someone may accidentally ask for the wrong thing)
Note that things change. In the early days of twitter (pre X) they could get away with not thinking of the issue at all. As technology to detect CSAM marches on they need to use it (or justify why it shouldn't be used - too many false positives???). As a large platform for such content they need to push the state of the art in such detection.. At no point do they need perfection - but they need to show they are doing their reasonable best to stop this.
The above is of course my opinion. I think the courts will go a similar direction, but time will tell...