The controversy surrounding Grok's image-generation feature, allowing users to "undress" or sexualise photos of real people, including women and children, has ignited genuine outrage over non-consensual deepfakes, exploitation, and potential child harm. Governments in the UK, Australia, and to a lesser extent Canada have responded with investigations, threats of fines, access blocks, or outright bans on X under existing or forthcoming online safety laws. This is framed by critics as a principled stand against AI-enabled abuse, but a closer look reveals a pattern of opportunistic moral posturing that aligns suspiciously well with long-standing governmental agendas to exert greater control over online discourse.
The Surface-Level Moral High GroundPoliticians like Keir Starmer (UK) and Anthony Albanese (Australia) have condemned the outputs as "disgraceful," "disgusting," and "abhorrent," emphasising harm to victims of sexual violence and children. Starmer declared "all options" on the table, including a ban via the Online Safety Act (which empowers Ofcom to fine platforms up to 10% of global revenue or seek court-ordered blocks). Albanese echoed this, highlighting social media's lack of "social responsibility." Ofcom launched a formal probe into X's compliance, while Australia's eSafety Commissioner demanded safeguards and threatened removal notices. Even broader scrutiny from the EU (under the Digital Services Act) and others has piled on, with some nations like Indonesia and Malaysia already blocking Grok access.
This rhetoric positions these leaders as protectors of the vulnerable, women targeted by "nudify" manipulations, children at risk of CSAM-like content. The outrage is valid: reports describe Grok generating explicit deepfakes at scale, often in response to simple prompts tagging real photos on X. X's quick fix, restricting image features to paid subscribers — was dismissed as "insulting" and monetising the problem rather than solving it.
The Opportunistic Layer: Pre-Existing AgendasWhat's often downplayed is how perfectly this scandal dovetails with these governments' prior pushes for tighter content controls, which critics have long labelled as censorship tools.
In the UK, the Online Safety Act (passed under Conservatives but aggressively implemented under Labour) has faced accusations of overreach since its inception. It requires platforms to remove "illegal" or "harmful" content swiftly, with broad definitions that include "hate speech" and misinformation, areas where enforcement has disproportionately targeted right-leaning or anti-immigration voices. Musk has repeatedly clashed with Starmer's circle, accusing them of seeking "any excuse for censorship" after X became a platform amplifying criticism of Labour policies on migration, crime, and free speech arrests. The Grok issue arrives just as Ofcom ramps up enforcement, providing a high-profile, emotionally charged case to justify expanding powers (e.g., proposed new laws banning deepfake tools outright).
Australia has a similar track record. The eSafety Commissioner (Julie Inman Grant) has repeatedly battled X/Musk, most famously demanding global removal of graphic content (e.g., the 2024 Sydney church stabbing video), which Musk called an attempt at "one country controlling the internet." Australia's Online Safety Act mirrors the UK's, with recent expansions targeting "abhorrent" material and child access restrictions (including a near-total social media ban for under-16s). The Grok scandal fits neatly into this framework, allowing regulators to pressure X while advancing a narrative of "responsible" tech governance that often prioritises harm prevention over unrestricted expression.
Canada has been more cautious (publicly distancing from a full ban), but shares ideological alignment with centre-left approaches to "online harms" legislation, which has drawn free-speech concerns.
These aren't neutral actors suddenly awakened by AI risks; they've been building regulatory frameworks for years that critics argue enable selective enforcement. Platforms like Meta, Google, and TikTok face similar deepfake issues (e.g., via tools like Photoshop or other AIs), yet scrutiny intensifies on X, the one major platform resisting heavy moderation, reinstating suspended accounts, and positioning itself as a "free speech" alternative. Musk's point resonates here: Why the disproportionate focus on X when comparable manipulations occur elsewhere?
Birds of a Feather: Ideological Alignment and Selective OutrageThe coordination — Starmer reportedly reaching out to Albanese and others — suggests shared priorities among progressive-leaning Anglo governments: prioritising "safety" and "harm reduction" over maximalist free expression. This clashes with Musk's vision of X as an unfiltered public square. The moral high ground becomes a convenient vehicle to pressure a non-compliant platform, potentially forcing changes (stronger filters, more moderation) or exclusion if it refuses.
In essence, the deepfake crisis is real and demands response, but the scale of threats (bans over fines or fixes) and the speed of multi-nation alignment reveal opportunism. It's less about solving a novel AI problem and more about leveraging public revulsion to advance pre-set goals: centralised control over what can be said, seen, or shared online, especially on platforms that amplify dissenting views.
This isn't unique to the Left — governments of all stripes seek leverage — but here it manifests as a classic "never let a crisis go to waste" move. The real test will be whether solutions target the abuse narrowly (e.g., better safeguards, user reporting) or broadly weaponise it against ideological foes. Until then, the pattern speaks for itself: high moral ground claimed, agenda quietly advanced.
"The British government has reportedly reached out to fellow leftist-run Anglo-sphere nations Australia and Canada in an attempt to wage a coordinated campaign to potentially ban Elon Musk's X social media platform.
Earlier this week, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said that "all options" were on the table, including a potential ban of X in Britain, over users being able to have the platform's Grok artificial intelligence generate "deepfake" nude images of women and children.
The recently enacted Online Safety Act — passed by the previous "Conservative" government — empowers broadcasting regulator Ofcom to impose fines of up to 10 per cent of a social media firm's global revenue, and allows for bans in extreme cases.
Yet, apparently reticent to draw the ire of President Donald Trump alone, Downing Street reportedly held talks in recent days with Canberra and Ottawa to craft a joint response to the tech platform, The Telegraph reported.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who is pushing for more censorship rules in his own country following the Islamist mass shooting at Bondi Beach last month, said, "The fact that this tool was used so that people were using its image creation function through Grok is, I think, just completely abhorrent. It, once again, is an example of social media not showing social responsibility. Australians and indeed, global citizens deserve better."
Toronto MP Evan Solomon, the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation in Mark Carney's government, denied on Sunday that Canada is considering a ban on X.
For his part, Elon Musk, who has long been critical of the increasingly censorious climate in Britain, accused Starmer's government of acting "fascist" and suggested that they were merely looking for "any excuse for censorship" of X.
Censorship has become increasingly prevalent in Britain. Despite its long tradition of freedom of speech, the country is arresting around 30 people every day for comments made on social media, or over 12,000 per year. Such offences can include the sharing of "grossly offensive" messages or spreading content of "indecent, obscene or menacing character".
The banning of X would remove a major headache for the struggling Labour government, which has come under consistent pressure personally from Musk, on issues such as freedom of speech, immigration, and the predominantly Pakistani Muslim child rape gangs and the failures of police and government to protect mostly young white working-class girls.
However, such an action taken against one of President Trump's key allies and a major American business could risk further angering the White House, which has made fighting censorship in Europe a key foreign policy plank.
Indeed, just last month, the Trump administration sanctioned multiple Europeans, including two Britons, for their involvement in the international censorship industry.
This included Imran Ahmed, the head of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), an organisation with close ties to Prime Minister Starmer's chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney. The administration has sought to deport Ahmed from the United States for his group's efforts to censor American conservative outlets, including Breitbart News.
While the CCDH has close ties to the Labour government, the White House has yet to sign off on sanctions against any British government official.
This may change if X is banned, however, with Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna vowing to introduce legislation to sanction Prime Minister Starmer and the UK as a whole should the platform be banned in the UK.
"There are always technical bugs during the early phases of new technology, especially AI, and those issues are typically addressed quickly. X treats these matters seriously and acts promptly. Let's be clear: this is not about technical compliance. This is a political war against Elon Musk and free speech—nothing more," she said.