EFF letter to FTC on X consent order [pdf]

Join the discussion

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

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

  by croes
• 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.

  by Y-bar
• The letter is more about privacy, not freedom.

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

  by Jabrov
• 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.
  by solid_fuel
• Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/06/eff-and-allies-xs-ftc-...
  by ChrisArchitect
• 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).

  by Terretta
• > 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.

  by delichon
• > Grok AI generated large amounts of CSAM

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

  by chrisjj
• 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.
  by thinkcontext
• 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...
  by nailer
• 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.

  by WatchDog
• 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.

  by maxlin
• > 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

  by hn_acker