Apologies if I missed this earlier, however a fairly decisive move on Musk / Grok and similar. A provision from the OSA may come into force as soon as this week. *
The UK will bring into force a law which will make it illegal to create non-consensual intimate images, following widespread concerns over Elon Musk's Grok AI chatbot.
The Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the government would also seek to make it illegal for companies to supply the tools designed to create such images.
Speaking to the Commons, Kendall said AI-generated pictures of women and children in states of undress, created without a person's consent, were not "harmless images" but "weapons of abuse". ... It is currently illegal to share deepfakes of adults in the UK, but until now legislation which would make it a criminal offence to create or request them has not been enforced, despite passing in June 2025.
* This is I think normal. There are provisions from the Equality Act 2010 which are still not in force in England, unlike Wales and Scotland.
So the government wants Britain to be an AI hub while banning all AI models that can be used to create images, which is most of them. Not to mention Photoshop!
It’s difficult to see what they’re actually trying to achieve, except for getting into an argument about freedom of speech with the wealthiest man in America - a man who carries a large megaphone and has the ear of the President?
Problem is they can't do nothing if Grok is allowing people to break various laws.
Now there is the problem those laws are now impossible to control due to the way AI works but the Government isn't willing to say that out loud as it emphasis how impotent they are.
Apologies if I missed this earlier, however a fairly decisive move on Musk / Grok and similar. A provision from the OSA may come into force as soon as this week. *
The UK will bring into force a law which will make it illegal to create non-consensual intimate images, following widespread concerns over Elon Musk's Grok AI chatbot.
The Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the government would also seek to make it illegal for companies to supply the tools designed to create such images.
Speaking to the Commons, Kendall said AI-generated pictures of women and children in states of undress, created without a person's consent, were not "harmless images" but "weapons of abuse". ... It is currently illegal to share deepfakes of adults in the UK, but until now legislation which would make it a criminal offence to create or request them has not been enforced, despite passing in June 2025.
* This is I think normal. There are provisions from the Equality Act 2010 which are still not in force in England, unlike Wales and Scotland.
So the government wants Britain to be an AI hub while banning all AI models that can be used to create images, which is most of them. Not to mention Photoshop!
It’s difficult to see what they’re actually trying to achieve, except for getting into an argument about freedom of speech with the wealthiest man in America - a man who carries a large megaphone and has the ear of the President?
Problem is they can't do nothing if Grok is allowing people to break various laws.
Now there is the problem those laws are now impossible to control due to the way AI works but the Government isn't willing to say that out loud as it emphasis how impotent they are.
I don’t even understand what it is they want AI companies to stop doing.
They won’t create “adult” content at the moment if you ask them, so the government must be trying to redefine “adult” or “explicit” to mean any AI-generated image intended to be of an identifiable individual.
Apologies if I missed this earlier, however a fairly decisive move on Musk / Grok and similar. A provision from the OSA may come into force as soon as this week. *
The UK will bring into force a law which will make it illegal to create non-consensual intimate images, following widespread concerns over Elon Musk's Grok AI chatbot.
The Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the government would also seek to make it illegal for companies to supply the tools designed to create such images.
Speaking to the Commons, Kendall said AI-generated pictures of women and children in states of undress, created without a person's consent, were not "harmless images" but "weapons of abuse". ... It is currently illegal to share deepfakes of adults in the UK, but until now legislation which would make it a criminal offence to create or request them has not been enforced, despite passing in June 2025.
* This is I think normal. There are provisions from the Equality Act 2010 which are still not in force in England, unlike Wales and Scotland.
So the government wants Britain to be an AI hub while banning all AI models that can be used to create images, which is most of them. Not to mention Photoshop!
It’s difficult to see what they’re actually trying to achieve, except for getting into an argument about freedom of speech with the wealthiest man in America - a man who carries a large megaphone and has the ear of the President?
Problem is they can't do nothing if Grok is allowing people to break various laws.
Now there is the problem those laws are now impossible to control due to the way AI works but the Government isn't willing to say that out loud as it emphasis how impotent they are.
Compare and contrast the rights obsession with "protecting our women" with their casual attitude to the worlds richest man promoting AI pornography uncensored.
Apologies if I missed this earlier, however a fairly decisive move on Musk / Grok and similar. A provision from the OSA may come into force as soon as this week. *
The UK will bring into force a law which will make it illegal to create non-consensual intimate images, following widespread concerns over Elon Musk's Grok AI chatbot.
The Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the government would also seek to make it illegal for companies to supply the tools designed to create such images.
Speaking to the Commons, Kendall said AI-generated pictures of women and children in states of undress, created without a person's consent, were not "harmless images" but "weapons of abuse". ... It is currently illegal to share deepfakes of adults in the UK, but until now legislation which would make it a criminal offence to create or request them has not been enforced, despite passing in June 2025.
* This is I think normal. There are provisions from the Equality Act 2010 which are still not in force in England, unlike Wales and Scotland.
So the government wants Britain to be an AI hub while banning all AI models that can be used to create images, which is most of them. Not to mention Photoshop!
It’s difficult to see what they’re actually trying to achieve, except for getting into an argument about freedom of speech with the wealthiest man in America - a man who carries a large megaphone and has the ear of the President?
Problem is they can't do nothing if Grok is allowing people to break various laws.
Now there is the problem those laws are now impossible to control due to the way AI works but the Government isn't willing to say that out loud as it emphasis how impotent they are.
Compare and contrast the rights obsession with "protecting our women" with their casual attitude to the worlds richest man promoting AI pornography uncensored.
Donald Trump vows to be protector of women ‘whether they like it or not’
There’s little information coming out of the place, others are saying that authorities are confiscating satellite phones and Starlink terminals. Yesterday they were seen with RF jammers to try and prevent people in the cities from getting online, after internet and mobile networks were cut completely.
The protestors are very brave, and I don't see how they can win without an alternative power centre that has force backing it up.
That’s not how most spontaneous revolutions work. The government gets overthrown, usually by losing the support of the military, and then new power centres emerge from that. Sometimes, but not always, based on existing structures. Russia 1917 or France 1789 are examples of that.
I have to say it doesn’t look good for the protestors though and not just because the regime is killing them in their multiple thousands. There’s no sign of the armed forces wavering and without that they have no chance of prevailing.
Russia 1917 was very uncertain, the Bolsheviks certainly weren't in pole position when it first started, and it needed another civil war to settle it. The aftermath of the French Revolution in 1789 was very unstable for years, including during the Directory - which never really worked.
The scary bit is that moderate (ish) people were in the driving seat for both initially.
That was also true of the Iranian revolution, with a long time critic of the Shah, Shapour Bahktiar taking power as the Imperial regime crumbled. He was eventually murdered in Paris at the orders of the Islamic Republic. A great missed turning in Iranian history.
Pollster note that the 24% - pre Zahawi defection - is the lowest for Reform since April. All usual caveats apply - it's one poll, wait to see if it's picked up elsewhere etc, this may just be an outlier. However, it is part of a broad downwards trend in Reform support since what appears to have been their peak around October. That coincides with the Conservative ratings starting some sort of recovery from rock bottom, and the salience of immigration starting to gradually decline on most important issue. https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2010957530479129035
Pollster note that the 24% - pre Zahawi defection - is the lowest for Reform since April. All usual caveats apply - it's one poll, wait to see if it's picked up elsewhere etc, this may just be an outlier. However, it is part of a broad downwards trend in Reform support since what appears to have been their peak around October. That coincides with the Conservative ratings starting some sort of recovery from rock bottom, and the salience of immigration starting to gradually decline on most important issue. https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2010957530479129035
Tories are a great bet for next GE. Labour will fix some of the crap from the last govt but have terrible comms and unfavourable media so will get zero credit for it, but it will reduce Reform's appeal by 2028/9.
There’s little information coming out of the place, others are saying that authorities are confiscating satellite phones and Starlink terminals. Yesterday they were seen with RF jammers to try and prevent people in the cities from getting online, after internet and mobile networks were cut completely.
The protestors are very brave, and I don't see how they can win without an alternative power centre that has force backing it up.
That’s not how most spontaneous revolutions work. The government gets overthrown, usually by losing the support of the military, and then new power centres emerge from that. Sometimes, but not always, based on existing structures. Russia 1917 or France 1789 are examples of that.
I have to say it doesn’t look good for the protestors though and not just because the regime is killing them in their multiple thousands. There’s no sign of the armed forces wavering and without that they have no chance of prevailing.
Russia 1917 was very uncertain, the Bolsheviks certainly weren't in pole position when it first started, and it needed another civil war to settle it. The aftermath of the French Revolution in 1789 was very unstable for years, including during the Directory - which never really worked.
The scary bit is that moderate (ish) people were in the driving seat for both initially.
That was also true of the Iranian revolution, with a long time critic of the Shah, Shapour Bahktiar taking power as the Imperial regime crumbled. He was eventually murdered in Paris at the orders of the Islamic Republic. A great missed turning in Iranian history.
The Revolution is always betrayed.
This is because in a violent, lawless situation, the winners are those best at lawlessness and violence. So it spirals.
Apologies if I missed this earlier, however a fairly decisive move on Musk / Grok and similar. A provision from the OSA may come into force as soon as this week. *
The UK will bring into force a law which will make it illegal to create non-consensual intimate images, following widespread concerns over Elon Musk's Grok AI chatbot.
The Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the government would also seek to make it illegal for companies to supply the tools designed to create such images.
Speaking to the Commons, Kendall said AI-generated pictures of women and children in states of undress, created without a person's consent, were not "harmless images" but "weapons of abuse". ... It is currently illegal to share deepfakes of adults in the UK, but until now legislation which would make it a criminal offence to create or request them has not been enforced, despite passing in June 2025.
* This is I think normal. There are provisions from the Equality Act 2010 which are still not in force in England, unlike Wales and Scotland.
I’m surprised that those who hate Musk, Trump, Miller and co haven’t just been flooding the internet with naked fake images of Melania, Ivanka, Mrs Miller, Mrs Vance, Nazi Barbie etc generated by Grok so that those senior politicians have to face what is being enabled and suddenly might not find that it falls under free speech.
Perhaps it's because they aren't horrible people?
The problem that they may or may not recognise is that it's not just Grok.
We are now into the world of local text-to-video "AI". Some can run on your computer. Some will automatically buy compute time on the cloud (Amazon etc). More and more, they are being made easy to setup - I saw a test app (for mobile) that just needs you to setup a cloud account with Amazon, and it does the rest.
So they are going to fall down the rabbit hole of chasing freeware on the internet. See the War On Encryption and the nascent War On VPNs.
There is no clear answer here - stopping this technology is now nearly impossible. Too put meaningful speed bumps out there would require intrusion on a scale that would make the Chinese State giggle - we are talking about the state having full, continuous, access to your devices.
This is the thinking I went through yesterday they made me conclude that this technology will destroy democracy.
The technology is out there now and I don't think you can stop it without very drastic authoritarian steps (either 100% monitoring, or banning men from using any sort of compute device).
The history of porn use on the internet would suggest that the technology will be widely used by men. Its use will be motivated not just to titillate, but to intimidate and punish women. This will provide a backlash from women.
So you either have men using this technology to psychologically subjugate women, or you have the female backlash against this technology imposing authoritarian controls on technology to prevent that.
Democracy dies either way.
I think that's an over-reaction. Word processors are legal, but if I use a word processor to write a terrorist manifesto or CSAM, those actions are illegal. WhatsApp is legal, but if I use it to send unwanted pictures of my genitals, or I send someone dozens of harassing messages an hour, those actions are illegal.
We have generative AI for images. Some people will use them inappropriately, but we can criminalise that behaviour without criminalising the technology. We can ask the technology providers to put in basic safeguards, without expecting those safeguards to be foolproof. We can put in "speed bumps" that stop 95% of inappropriate activity and you use the threat of law for the rest.
Grok have a tool with apparently no safeguards. They had complaints very quickly and they chose to ignore them. Fine, then we take action against Grok/X.
Isn't there a bit of a subtle difference? If I use Word to write CSAM text stories, it's probably illegal (I assume it is), but then either share it with others, at which point I'm quite likely to get caught, or I keep it for myself, in which case I'd be very unlikely to be nicked, but I only get to read back my own unpleasant fantasies, which probably doesn't give much more gratification than just having them in the first place.
The difference with the local AI is that I give it a innocent picture of a kid, tell it I what I want it to do to them, and it produces original filth for my gratification, all held only in memory on the device. The AI does the "creativity", so it's way more than just a fantasy, and virtually the minute I'm done with it, it's gone forever (slightly more technically complex than that, but it lingers way less than anything written to disk).
It's going to be very hard to police this, given with a system built as I describe, you've pretty much got to be caught in the act of viewing to be nicked.
Of course, this does all presume that we think dirty men viewing virtual versions of their dirtiest illegal fantasies is actually a problem for society, as well as their own consciences. There is a side to me that thinks whilst all this material is repugnant, if it's result is to *reduce* the production of real CSAM, because it's so much easier and less risky to go for the virtual option, a few less real kids raped isn't such a bad outcome.
I suppose at least part of the jigsaw is answering the question, is this the probable effect of turning a blind eye to virtual CSAM, or instead would effectively normalising it just drive demand for real, "authentic", CSAM from the pervert class? I somehow don't think I fancy signing off on the ethics approval for that particular study.
The way this is being used is to share the images for reasons of intimidation, or to make money from them. It's a mistake to think of this in terms of private titillation. The social aspect is strong.
There’s little information coming out of the place, others are saying that authorities are confiscating satellite phones and Starlink terminals. Yesterday they were seen with RF jammers to try and prevent people in the cities from getting online, after internet and mobile networks were cut completely.
The protestors are very brave, and I don't see how they can win without an alternative power centre that has force backing it up.
That’s not how most spontaneous revolutions work. The government gets overthrown, usually by losing the support of the military, and then new power centres emerge from that. Sometimes, but not always, based on existing structures. Russia 1917 or France 1789 are examples of that.
I have to say it doesn’t look good for the protestors though and not just because the regime is killing them in their multiple thousands. There’s no sign of the armed forces wavering and without that they have no chance of prevailing.
Russia 1917 was very uncertain, the Bolsheviks certainly weren't in pole position when it first started, and it needed another civil war to settle it. The aftermath of the French Revolution in 1789 was very unstable for years, including during the Directory - which never really worked.
The scary bit is that moderate (ish) people were in the driving seat for both initially.
The risks taken and blood sacrifice incurred to overthrow the previous regime gives a revolution a very radical demos, with and within which it is almost impossible to land any sort of compromise with reality or the old order and hence find a path back to stability; therefore revolutions - and often the original revolutionaries - tend to be consumed by increasingly radical positions and waves of violence until someone, internally or externally, emerges who is able to grasp the levers of power and is willing to turn that force back onto the revolution itself. Cf Cromwell, Napoleon, Lenin….or the revolution collapses and new, not necessarily better, elements of the old regime regain control - cf. Arab Spring (possibly ex Tunisia)
There’s little information coming out of the place, others are saying that authorities are confiscating satellite phones and Starlink terminals. Yesterday they were seen with RF jammers to try and prevent people in the cities from getting online, after internet and mobile networks were cut completely.
The protestors are very brave, and I don't see how they can win without an alternative power centre that has force backing it up.
That’s not how most spontaneous revolutions work. The government gets overthrown, usually by losing the support of the military, and then new power centres emerge from that. Sometimes, but not always, based on existing structures. Russia 1917 or France 1789 are examples of that.
I have to say it doesn’t look good for the protestors though and not just because the regime is killing them in their multiple thousands. There’s no sign of the armed forces wavering and without that they have no chance of prevailing.
The regime has got past the point where it had any doubts about its survival and its the belief that it will still be there in three months time that means the people on the front line will follow orders to murder thousands.
If they had lost that belief, then everyone involved would have looked to securing their personal futures independent of the regime, and the regime would have fell.
There’s little information coming out of the place, others are saying that authorities are confiscating satellite phones and Starlink terminals. Yesterday they were seen with RF jammers to try and prevent people in the cities from getting online, after internet and mobile networks were cut completely.
The protestors are very brave, and I don't see how they can win without an alternative power centre that has force backing it up.
That’s not how most spontaneous revolutions work. The government gets overthrown, usually by losing the support of the military, and then new power centres emerge from that. Sometimes, but not always, based on existing structures. Russia 1917 or France 1789 are examples of that.
I have to say it doesn’t look good for the protestors though and not just because the regime is killing them in their multiple thousands. There’s no sign of the armed forces wavering and without that they have no chance of prevailing.
Russia 1917 was very uncertain, the Bolsheviks certainly weren't in pole position when it first started, and it needed another civil war to settle it. The aftermath of the French Revolution in 1789 was very unstable for years, including during the Directory - which never really worked.
The scary bit is that moderate (ish) people were in the driving seat for both initially.
That was also true of the Iranian revolution, with a long time critic of the Shah, Shapour Bahktiar taking power as the Imperial regime crumbled. He was eventually murdered in Paris at the orders of the Islamic Republic. A great missed turning in Iranian history.
The Revolution is always betrayed.
This is because in a violent, lawless situation, the winners are those best at lawlessness and violence. So it spirals.
Pollster note that the 24% - pre Zahawi defection - is the lowest for Reform since April. All usual caveats apply - it's one poll, wait to see if it's picked up elsewhere etc, this may just be an outlier. However, it is part of a broad downwards trend in Reform support since what appears to have been their peak around October. That coincides with the Conservative ratings starting some sort of recovery from rock bottom, and the salience of immigration starting to gradually decline on most important issue. https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2010957530479129035
When do the channel crossings normally start again after the winter break?
There’s little information coming out of the place, others are saying that authorities are confiscating satellite phones and Starlink terminals. Yesterday they were seen with RF jammers to try and prevent people in the cities from getting online, after internet and mobile networks were cut completely.
The protestors are very brave, and I don't see how they can win without an alternative power centre that has force backing it up.
That’s not how most spontaneous revolutions work. The government gets overthrown, usually by losing the support of the military, and then new power centres emerge from that. Sometimes, but not always, based on existing structures. Russia 1917 or France 1789 are examples of that.
I have to say it doesn’t look good for the protestors though and not just because the regime is killing them in their multiple thousands. There’s no sign of the armed forces wavering and without that they have no chance of prevailing.
The regime has got past the point where it had any doubts about its survival and its the belief that it will still be there in three months time that means the people on the front line will follow orders to murder thousands.
If they had lost that belief, then everyone involved would have looked to securing their personal futures independent of the regime, and the regime would have fell.
Hasn't it emerged relatively recently that Tianamen was concurrent with widespread demonstrations across China, and that the threat to the regime at that point was more fundamental than it might have appeared with western media focused only on the Square?
There’s little information coming out of the place, others are saying that authorities are confiscating satellite phones and Starlink terminals. Yesterday they were seen with RF jammers to try and prevent people in the cities from getting online, after internet and mobile networks were cut completely.
The protestors are very brave, and I don't see how they can win without an alternative power centre that has force backing it up.
That’s not how most spontaneous revolutions work. The government gets overthrown, usually by losing the support of the military, and then new power centres emerge from that. Sometimes, but not always, based on existing structures. Russia 1917 or France 1789 are examples of that.
I have to say it doesn’t look good for the protestors though and not just because the regime is killing them in their multiple thousands. There’s no sign of the armed forces wavering and without that they have no chance of prevailing.
Russia 1917 was very uncertain, the Bolsheviks certainly weren't in pole position when it first started, and it needed another civil war to settle it. The aftermath of the French Revolution in 1789 was very unstable for years, including during the Directory - which never really worked.
The scary bit is that moderate (ish) people were in the driving seat for both initially.
The risks taken and blood sacrifice incurred to overthrow the previous regime gives a revolution a very radical demos, with and within which it is almost impossible to land any sort of compromise with reality or the old order and hence find a path back to stability; therefore revolutions - and often the original revolutionaries - tend to be consumed by increasingly radical positions and waves of violence until someone, internally or externally, emerges who is able to grasp the levers of power and is willing to turn that force back onto the revolution itself. Cf Cromwell, Napoleon, Lenin….or the revolution collapses and new, not necessarily better, elements of the old regime regain control - cf. Arab Spring (possibly ex Tunisia)
Yes, a good summary - which is why I'm anti revolution.
Maybe the real question is why East Germany worked in 1989. I can think of few other bloodless successes.
Unbelievably, it appears to be real not a deepfake/AI. people saying it's from the Templars/Crusaders is like saying the swastika is a Hindu sign: technically true but HOLY SHIT IT'S AN IRON CROSS
It is UKIP stretching their branding to their self-definition as a "Christian Nationalist" Party (first to do so explicitly in the UK), which has been Nick Tenconi's shtick for some time. He's also the Chief Exec of Turning Point UK (TPUK), and there will be some inspiration from Charlie Kirk (TPUSA) in there somewhere.
Tenconi has emphasised "muscular" Christianity, which in his case is taking the Victorian "manly" Christianity which gave us Rugby School type values and aimed to draw men back to church (and I suggest gave us some football clubs such as Man City), and ultimately Bash camps, but grafted on to (and poisoned by) ideas of Medieval Christian crusades and demonisation of Islam (which is a core value of our current Right through to Far Right). He's also a vicious misogynist.
UKIP now imo has a feel combining suited-and-booted BNP with violent-thug BNP ie bits of both Nick Griffin and Yaxley-Lennon.
"And you know who else came to power by getting a plurailty of voters?"
Well, here's a start for the post WW II US presidential elections:
Trump (2024 and 2016) Bush (2000) Clinton (1992 and 1996) Nixon (1968) Kennedy (1960) * Truman (1948)
In all of those elections, the winner received less than 50 percent of the popular vote.
* Kennedy may have received fewer popular votes than Nixon, though I see no way to determine that, thanks to the odd situation in Alabama, where some Democratic electors were "unpledged".
Comments
Now there is the problem those laws are now impossible to control due to the way AI works but the Government isn't willing to say that out loud as it emphasis how impotent they are.
They won’t create “adult” content at the moment if you ask them, so the government must be trying to redefine “adult” or “explicit” to mean any AI-generated image intended to be of an identifiable individual.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/31/donald-trump-women-protector-wisconsin-rally
Sam Coates Sky@SamCoatesSky·1h
YouGov / Sky / Times weekly voting intention
CON 20% (+1),
LAB 19%(+2),
LDEM 16%(nc),
RefUK 24%(-2),
GRN 14%(-2)
Pollster note that the 24% - pre Zahawi defection - is the lowest for Reform since April. All usual caveats apply - it's one poll, wait to see if it's picked up elsewhere etc, this may just be an outlier. However, it is part of a broad downwards trend in Reform support since what appears to have been their peak around October. That coincides with the Conservative ratings starting some sort of recovery from rock bottom, and the salience of immigration starting to gradually decline on most important issue.
https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/2010957530479129035
This is because in a violent, lawless situation, the winners are those best at lawlessness and violence. So it spirals.
NEW THREAD
If they had lost that belief, then everyone involved would have looked to securing their personal futures independent of the regime, and the regime would have fell.
Maybe the real question is why East Germany worked in 1989. I can think of few other bloodless successes.
Well, here's a start for the post WW II US presidential elections:
Trump (2024 and 2016)
Bush (2000)
Clinton (1992 and 1996)
Nixon (1968)
Kennedy (1960) *
Truman (1948)
In all of those elections, the winner received less than 50 percent of the popular vote.
* Kennedy may have received fewer popular votes than Nixon, though I see no way to determine that, thanks to the odd situation in Alabama, where some Democratic electors were "unpledged".