I am not a lawyer but my understanding of section 230 was that platforms are not responsible for the content their users post (with limitations like “you can’t just host CSAM”). But as far as I understand, if the platform provides tools to create a certain type of harmful content, section 230 doesn’t protect it. Like there’s a difference between someone downloading a photo off the internet and then using tools like photoshop to make lewd content before reuploading it, as compared to the platform just offering a button to do all of that without friction.
1) These images are being posted by @Grok, which is an official X account, not a user account.
2) X still has an ethical and probably legal obligation to remove these images from their platform, even if they are somehow found not to be responsible for generating them, even though they generated them.
Again I’m not a lawyer and this is my interpretation of the #3 requirement of section 230:
“The information must be "provided by another information content provider", i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue”
If grok is generating these images, I am interpreting this as Twitter could be becoming an information content provider. I couldn’t find any relevant rulings but I doubt any exist since services like Grok are relatively new.
