[throw0101b]

> Define disproportionately propagating far-right content.

How about:

> Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence firm xAI has deleted “inappropriate” posts on X after the company’s chatbot, Grok, began praising Adolf Hitler, referring to itself as MechaHitler and making antisemitic comments in response to user queries.

[…]

> “The white man stands for innovation, grit and not bending to PC nonsense,” Grok said in a subsequent post.

* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/09/grok-ai-p...

Or:

> In a series of posts – often picking up language from users or responding to their goading – Grok repeatedly abused [Polish PM] Tusk as “a fucking traitor”, “a ginger whore” and said the former European Council president was “an opportunist who sells sovereignty for EU jobs”.

* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/08/musks-gro...

Or last month's

> Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence chatbot Grok had been repeatedly mentioning “white genocide” in South Africa in its responses to unrelated topics and telling users it was “instructed by my creators” to accept the genocide “as real and racially motivated”.

* https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/14/elon-musk...

[chrisco255]

A bot went off the rails, and was subsequently corrected. Again, what is the problem? I thought France had freedom of speech but maybe not?

[williamdclt]

> I thought France had freedom of speech but maybe not?

Freedom of speech in France (and many other countries) is not the same as the US (assuming you are from the US). Apart from the question of whether it even applies for an AI, it does not protect hate speech.

[chrisco255]

Sorry if you ban speech to the right of center then you don't have freedom of speech. "hate" is a loaded term, poorly defined. To me, it might seem you hate everyone right of center, while you think there's some clear line where speech crosses such that it can be labeled far right and a ministry of truth can slap a fine down to halt this "dangerous" speech. Meanwhile, is the "danger" equally regulated across the political spectrum and covering far-left speech as well? Of course OP didn't even bother to balance the concern about far right speech with equal concern about far left speech. You can be certain that such biases exist in any institution in which you might construct to attempt to regulate and that it would be absolutely impossible to obtain a perfect and permanent balance between the factions. Inevitably the balance of power would shift in favor of one faction or another and the more likely outcome is that the faction would use its monopoly over "truth" or "hate" to redefine even valid and factual criticism to be hate speech. Perhaps your country has already hit that tipping point and you can't even save it because you lack the liberty to do so?

[aredox]

Your country is demanding access to all social media of incoming visitors, jailing students for alleged antisemitism, putting hundreds on administrative leave for signing a letter about how cuts are making their job impossible, shaking money off the pockets of media companies and law firms under threat of retribution, and using medical records to arrest undocumented immigrants.

[williamdclt]

God how I hate these sorts of "far-right" VS "far-left" points.

First, the far-left is _nowhere near_ as far as the far-right is (in fact, I don't think there's _any_ significant far-left representation in France: neither the Communist Party nor the France Insoumise are far-left, they're just left).

Second, you make it sound like there's a bias towards the left, which is a ridiculous point that has no ground in reality: France is _heavily_ biased towards the right. The internal and international politics are deeply right-wing and getting _more_ right-wing by the year, most successful politicians are on the right, even the so-called left-wing governments have been doing centrist or right-wing politics since 1995: the left is _weak_ in France despite popular support. So "your country has already hit that tipping point and you can't even save it because you lack the liberty to do so" is laughable: the _people in power_ are regularly indulging in hate speech.

Third, you make it sound like the hate speech law is biased to protect the left, when the reality is that hate speech almost exclusively exists on the far-right so _obviously_ it's going to affect the right more. Let's talk about concrete examples:

You'll often hear from the far-right that people of colour are fundamentally inferior to white people. That someone of a particular ethnicity is a "savage", or is uncultured. That muslims are terrorists, jews are conspiring. There's so many examples. That's all horrific hate speech that's forbidden in France. Please do give concrete examples of far-left hate speech that you hear these days that is remotely comparable, because I cannot think of any. Maybe "kill all billionaires"? Which by the way _is_ illegal, it's incitation to violence.

So yeah, some speech at the far right (not "right of center") is forbidden in France. You seem to think that's a limitation of freedom, but the minorities feel _way_ more free for it (although they're still not having a great time, hate speech still happens).

[fzeroracer]

I would say after the bot has gone off the rail three+ times and conveniently pushed specific agendas (or just went full racist) that it's probably time for an investigation to figure out who's doing what and why.

[makeitdouble]

I'd see two sides at least:

- the bot can't work in a legal void. It's pushing messages on a public platform , someone has the responsibility for that.

- if correcting speech is enough we should all be free push whatever horrible things we want online, subsequently correct them and never face any consequences whatsoever.

[aredox]

We have freedom of movement but there are retricted areas.

We have freedom of religion but you can't e.g. declare "child porn" is your religion.

We have freedom of assembly but the police can disperse a crowd.

And that's the case everywhere, the US included.

etc etc etc

[zitsarethecure]

France's freedom of speech is as strong, or stronger, than the US.

[docdeek]

It’s different to the US in some important ways.

There are strict limitations on 'hate speech’, denial of the Holocaust is illegal, and there are laws still on the books (and some examples of media outlets being prosecuted for breaking those laws) around presenting drug use as a positive thing, or encouraging drug use.

You can be prosecuted as an "apologist for terrorism” should the government conclude that this is what you are doing. You can also be charged with “contempt of public officials” as people were for burning an effigy of President Macron.

In the US, as far as I know as someone who has only ever visited the country for a short time, you are allowed to hold the President in contempt, you can announce to anyone who’ll listen your ignorant, racist, Holocaust-denying opinions and not be afraid of that speech being criminalized (though there are social costs you’ll probably pay), and if you want to go on the internet and encourage people to try drugs, you can. You can support whatever side of whatever conflict around the world you like with your words and you probably won’t be breaking the law.

France’s laws around freedom of expression are strong, but they are different to those in the US and I would say offer fewer protections for citizens than the US 1st amendnment.

[Anonbrit]

I think I'm the US, those are all things you could do until recently. 1st amendment is being more and more ignored currently

[Cthulhu_]

In the US and most countries though, there's libel / defamation laws; you can say a lot of shit about people, but they can then sue you for libel / defamation if you spout nonsense.

[docdeek]

Those same laws exist here in France, too, even if they are a little more complex. The truth of a statement, for example, is not a sufficient defence if that truth is not something that is public. Making someones private life public, even if your comment is true, can be against the law.

Defamation might be illegal in both the US and France, but I can burn an American flag and show contempt for the US President without commiting a crime the US. Do the same in the France and you don’t have the same protections for your speech.

[chrisco255]

Libel and defamation open you to civil suits but only perjury is criminal.

[eurleif]

Criminal defamation is rarely prosecuted, but it's on the books in a large fraction of US states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law#C...

[motorest]

> A bot went off the rails, and was subsequently corrected.

How sure are you about that? I mean, it is more likely that the bot overshot how it was expected to push propaganda. Musk is on record expressing disagreement with how LLMs are trained to be "politicaly-correct", which is a dog whistle for pushing extremist views.

> Again, what is the problem? I thought France had freedom of speech but maybe not?

This is a puerile and simplistic view of what freedom of speech is. You are free t speak your mind, but others around you are free from experiencing abuse and discrimination. Also, media has more responsibilities than morons running their mouth, and even those are liable for hate speech.

[chrisco255]

> You are free t speak your mind, but others around you are free from experiencing abuse and discrimination.

No, you can't have freedom of speech and forbid the of hurting someone's feelings. The very speech that needs to be protected is damningly truthful speech. I'll suffer through a million fools and idiots spouting off nonsense just so that one person who, against all popular delusion and immense social pressure, when men and women in large numbers often go mad with hysteria as if a viral fad, and with the fortitude of knowing they are correct, can appeal to society at large without fear of arrest or legal consequences. These are the ones who change history for the better. The fools are like gnats, they are quite easy to ignore and swat off. The barriers you construct to make people stay within the lines are shackles on thought itself. These barriers inevitably get reinforced by the powerful until no thinking is done at all.

[Cthulhu_]

If you don't see the problem with far-right rhetoric then you are part of the problem. Europe has free speech protections, but only within reason; nazi symbolism is explicitly banned in Germany for example, and holocaust denial is also illegal.

Then there's some things you can say without getting into legal trouble, but you may get killed for it by those you offend.

[chrisco255]

No I don't see the problem. We've had Freedom of Speech for 250 years in the USA and our democracy has lasted longer than anyone's. France is on their 15th or 16th government in that amount of time. Perhaps if the copied the Bill of Rights verbatim they would still be on their 1st.

Don't even get me started on Nazis. Their most effective tool for control over citizens was restriction of speech. The Reichstag Fire decree being exhibit A.

The far left is just as awful and the USSR's glavlit, gulag, etc were extremely effective at silencing criticism. All ever in the name of order and peace, but in truth a consolidation of power.

> Then there's some things you can say without getting into legal trouble, but you may get killed for it by those you offend.

Sure, this is why Americans have a phrase called "Live free or die". If you're not willing to die for liberty then your fear of death will be used to control you. So fuck em, say what you think.

[jabjq]

Friendly reminder that

> In France, a woman spent 23 hours in custody for giving French President Emmanuel Macron the middle finger. (She was acquitted after arguing she had pointed her finger in the air and not directly at the president.)

https://archive.is/MNgc6

[aredox]

Friendly reminder too: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41892544

And far worse is happening right now against law firms and media companies.

[oersted]

These things kept happening for 2-3 years with pre-ChatGPT LLM tech demos from Microsoft, Meta and Google.

Not to be an apologist of course, just wanted to point out that it may be a sign of them being behind the curve on some technical aspects, or at least on best practice, likely on purpose. Sure they probably did some ideological meddling too.

For all the (valid) criticism on alignment/censoring, one has to acknowledge the success of the pragmatic approach from OpenAI and Anthropic. As much as we might not want to admit it, bit of censoring is kind of critical to be able to use LLMs seriously to solve real problems.