Despite new curbs, Elon Musk’s Grok at times produces sexualized images - even when told subjects didn’t consentSource: Reuters

 

• Nine Reuters reporters uploaded photos to Elon Musk's artificial intelligence tool ,Grok  with the instructions to alter them to generate the sort of images we have all heard about in news bulletins. 
• 
  
• This was after the earlier statement that Grok had dealt with the matter. What is worse is that the AI tool was told that the subjects of the image alterations had not consented to the images being used in this way.
• 
  
• You would think that actually telling the tool that consent had not been given would have immedately resulted in a rejection of the request but it appears not. Watch the Reuters video report here.

• 
  

Concerns rise over online harm after data reveals scale of sexualised images createdSource:SWL Londoner

 

The AI tool Grok is estimated to have generated approximately 3 million sexualized images, including 23,000 that appear to depict children. The images were created following the launch of a new image editing feature launched by Elon Musk's company on 29th December 2025. 

Research undertaken by CCDH, (Centre for Countering Digital Hate in the US), also noted that 29% of sexualised images of children identified in their sample of 20,000 remained on X as of 15 January. 

The research identified approimately 23,000 sexualised images of children, 3 million sexualised images overall and that an image was created every 1 minute and 41 seconds during the period from launch to the 15th January. 

Elon Musk, owner and creator of Grok, first denied knowledge of the images and then defended the site by initially blaming users and defending free speech. Grok finally implemented technical measures to prevent users from editing images of real people in revealing clothing. They also limited image generation capabilities to paid subscribers to add a layer of accountability.

Grok is now under investigation by OFCOM in the UK.

I would have thought that anyone creating an artificial intelligence tool would be intelligent enough to realise that their tool could be misused and would have dealt with that potential in advance of launching a product. We all know that the major tech companies are in constant competition to grab users of their platform and then monetise that audience.   

Read the full story here.

Read the full research report here.

 

 

Tech companies have treated children as data to be mined for far too long - our plan ensures this will never happen again Source: LBC News

 This article by Munira Wilson, Spokesperson for Education, Children and Families sets out the political views of the LD party but it also describes their approach to issues surrounding social media, online content and age appropriateness of online material.

We may or may not agree with their approach but clearly the issue of online safety of children is unlikely to fade away. 

The headline does raise and major issue. The data mining undertaken by social media companies is potentially, if not more, dangerous then the content itself. If these companies have their own policical agenda (we know they do), and they recognise the importance to them of capturing users while they are young we could see the emergence of the Utopian Ministry of Truth. They become influencers rather than supporters and it is their agenda they are pushing, whatever that might be.

Manipulating young minds, through the use of responsive algorithms, is a crime worth of the name. How we deal with such threats is important. We need our young people to grow and become fully functional in their technhogically rich communities. Banning access or preventing them access to the technology may well make them more vulnerable in the long run.

Open non-partisan political debate about these issues is vital if we are to stear our children to understand the world aound them.

Read he full article here. 

 

 

Story:UK to consult on social media ban for under 16s Source: BBC News

 

The clamour  regading restricting access to social media to children is spreading around the world. Australia has recently approved legislation to ban young people under 16 from access to social media. Now the UK is to consult on the same issue.

This BBC story follows an announcement by UK Government to study the views of parents, schools and young people in addition to social media companies and experts in the field which will result in a decision if and how such a ban could be implimented in the UK. 

The report also points to giving Ofsted (Schools Inspectorate in the UK) the power to check policies on phone use when it inspects schools, and it expected schools to be "phone-free by default" as a result of the announcement. This is a major challenge to schools. While many have strict rules, regarding the use of phones, it is a constant challange for many.

It will be interesting to see how this government investigation goes and what is decised regarding legislation.

Read the full story here. 

 

Story:Google accused of ‘grooming’ 13-year-old by telling them to ditch parental controls on their birthdaySource: The Independent

 

Google set its age of independence for children at 13 and this story shows that they believe their view over rides the opinions of parents and carers.

 In this news story it reports that Google has been accused of “grooming” teenagers by emailing under-13s and outlining steps to turn off parental controls on their accounts.

A mother accused the tech giant of “asserting authority” over its teenage users by contacting them and outlining the steps they can take to update their account so that they “get access to more Google apps and services” once they turn 13.

Until children are 13, or the applicable age in their home country, their Google accounts must be managed by their parents - what it calls a “supervised account”. This allows parents to block certain content, control their child’s screen time and view their browsing history.

 Their decision, made knowing nothing about the children, their vulnerabilities or their parents wishes has caused somewhat of an outcry. No doubt this story run for a while but it raises an important issue about who sets such limits and their reasons for choosing a particular age. 

Read the full story here.