We are being told that X might need to be banned, throttled or “urgently assessed” because Grok AI can be used to put politicians in bikinis. Yes, bikinis. The whākn’ horror.
According to the hand-wringing out of Westminster, Ottawa, and Canberra, this is now a crisis serious enough to justify censorship, platform bans and the threat of blocking the world’s largest real-time news app. Not because of terrorism. Not because of organised crime. Not because of coordinated foreign interference. But because someone made Sir Keir Starmer look ridiculous in a bikini.
Elon Musk is right when he says critics of X are looking for “any excuse for censorship”. That line lands because it’s obviously true.
People have been photoshopping public figures into stupid, humiliating or absurd situations for decades. Adobe Photoshop has been doing this since the 1990s. Late-night TV built entire careers on it. Political cartoons have exaggerated bodies, faces and clothing since the invention of the printing press. Suddenly, when the tool isn’t owned by Silicon Valley’s preferred companies, it becomes a moral emergency.
The BBC itself reports that Musk reposted criticism of the government response, including an image of “AI-generated images of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in a bikini”, adding: “They just want to suppress free speech.”
That’s the quiet part said out loud.
Keir Starmer called the images “disgraceful” and “disgusting”. Anthony Albanese lined up on cue, saying the material was “completely abhorrent”. Ofcom is now conducting an “urgent assessment” and Liz Kendall has hinted the UK would block X entirely if it does not comply.
A platform used daily by journalists, emergency services, politicians and the public might be blocked because a politician got mocked.
Non-consensual sexual imagery involving private individuals is wrong. AI-generated sexual imagery of children is vile and should be illegal everywhere. Full stop. No argument. That line should never be blurred, and anyone pretending otherwise is acting in bad faith.
But that is not what this panic is actually about. This is about control.
It’s about the fact that X has become “the number one news app in the world”, and it is the one place where narratives can be challenged in real time. It’s where things can be said that are instantly throttled, shadow-banned or memory-holed on Facebook, Instagram or TikTok. It’s messy, loud and often offensive. That’s also what free speech looks like in practice.
The Online Safety Act confusion says it all. Even MPs admit they don’t actually know whether creating AI images is illegal. Dame Chi Onwurah says it’s “unclear” how the law applies. Caroline Dinenage fears there is a “gap in the regulation”. Translation: the law doesn’t do what they want it to do, so they’re reaching for the biggest hammer available.
And notice the language being used. Downing Street called X limiting image tools to paid users “insulting”. Blocking access to a global platform is framed as “protecting victims”. Anyone questioning a ban is cast as being soft on abuse.
That framing is deliberate.
I tested this myself. I used Grok to generate an AI image of New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, in a bikini. Then I used advanced AI tools to turn it into a short video. Anyone with two functioning eyes can see it’s fake. The voice isn’t quite right. There are facial deformities. The movements are off. And most people are perfectly capable of understanding that Christopher Luxon is not going to appear online, wearing a bikini, telling people not to drink and drive.
That’s not harm. That’s satire
Elon Musk is right when he says critics of X are looking for “any excuse for censorship”. That line lands because it’s obviously true.
People have been photoshopping public figures into stupid, humiliating or absurd situations for decades. Adobe Photoshop has been doing this since the 1990s. Late-night TV built entire careers on it. Political cartoons have exaggerated bodies, faces and clothing since the invention of the printing press. Suddenly, when the tool isn’t owned by Silicon Valley’s preferred companies, it becomes a moral emergency.
The BBC itself reports that Musk reposted criticism of the government response, including an image of “AI-generated images of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in a bikini”, adding: “They just want to suppress free speech.”
That’s the quiet part said out loud.
Keir Starmer called the images “disgraceful” and “disgusting”. Anthony Albanese lined up on cue, saying the material was “completely abhorrent”. Ofcom is now conducting an “urgent assessment” and Liz Kendall has hinted the UK would block X entirely if it does not comply.
A platform used daily by journalists, emergency services, politicians and the public might be blocked because a politician got mocked.
Non-consensual sexual imagery involving private individuals is wrong. AI-generated sexual imagery of children is vile and should be illegal everywhere. Full stop. No argument. That line should never be blurred, and anyone pretending otherwise is acting in bad faith.
But that is not what this panic is actually about. This is about control.
It’s about the fact that X has become “the number one news app in the world”, and it is the one place where narratives can be challenged in real time. It’s where things can be said that are instantly throttled, shadow-banned or memory-holed on Facebook, Instagram or TikTok. It’s messy, loud and often offensive. That’s also what free speech looks like in practice.
The Online Safety Act confusion says it all. Even MPs admit they don’t actually know whether creating AI images is illegal. Dame Chi Onwurah says it’s “unclear” how the law applies. Caroline Dinenage fears there is a “gap in the regulation”. Translation: the law doesn’t do what they want it to do, so they’re reaching for the biggest hammer available.
And notice the language being used. Downing Street called X limiting image tools to paid users “insulting”. Blocking access to a global platform is framed as “protecting victims”. Anyone questioning a ban is cast as being soft on abuse.
That framing is deliberate.
I tested this myself. I used Grok to generate an AI image of New Zealand’s Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, in a bikini. Then I used advanced AI tools to turn it into a short video. Anyone with two functioning eyes can see it’s fake. The voice isn’t quite right. There are facial deformities. The movements are off. And most people are perfectly capable of understanding that Christopher Luxon is not going to appear online, wearing a bikini, telling people not to drink and drive.
That’s not harm. That’s satire
Click to view
The idea that the public cannot distinguish obvious AI parody from reality is deeply insulting. It assumes voters are stupid, fragile and incapable of judgement. Conveniently, it also justifies governments deciding what tools you’re allowed to access.
This isn’t about bikinis. It isn’t about Grok. And it certainly isn’t about suddenly discovering that the internet can be cruel.
It’s about a platform that governments can’t control, can’t bully behind closed doors and can’t quietly “adjust” through trusted partnerships. So instead, they manufacture a crisis, wrap it in the language of safety, and float bans that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
As Nigel Farage, hardly a free speech radical, even acknowledged, banning X would be “an attack on free speech”. That should worry everyone, regardless of politics.
If a joke image of a politician in a bikini is enough to justify blocking a global communications platform, then the precedent is set. Tomorrow it won’t be bikinis. It’ll be opinions. Then reporting. Then dissent.
And once that door is opened, it never closes.
Matua Kahurangi is just a bloke sharing thoughts on New Zealand and the world beyond. No fluff, just honest takes. He blogs on https://matuakahurangi.com/ where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
If the authorities want to ban misinformation that really does threatens democracy and decency they should start by banning Stuff, TVNZ news, RNZ and all those Maori news outlets that spew racial hatred. They could then follow that up with getting rid of the BSA, Press Council, Journalists Education Association of NZ, Massey University's woke media department and Creative NZ who cancel Shakespeare but fund Tama Iti and Samoan poets who fantasize about stabbing white people.
It is about bikinis. It is about Grok. Elon is throwing a predicable tantrum because he’s used to getting his way. My toddler does the same thing although my toddler isn’t a lunatic billionaire.
Stop simping for billionaires mate, it is such a beta thing for a grown man to be doing.
Quote 'The idea that the public cannot distinguish obvious AI parody from reality is deeply insulting. It assumes voters are stupid, fragile and incapable of judgement. Conveniently, it also justifies governments deciding what tools you’re allowed to access.'
I've got a queer mate-that video you've produced may give rise to him wanting to 'rub one off'?
Help me govt, more control!!!
Some 'single source of truth' would save us from free thought?
>" It assumes voters are stupid, fragile and incapable of judgement"
Unfortunately, a significant proportion of the voting public are just that, as witness a 12% vote for the Greens.
IMO Sir Keir Starmer looks ridiculous in his skin, it is the fatuous curl of the lips.
Agree Barend, look at the 8% that fell for ACT’s disconnected neoliberal beauracrazy policies. We need to get education working in this country.
That still makes 3 Green groupies for every 2 ACT ones :-))
Musk isn’t adhering to the laws of the countries where he sells his software (and he does sell it, the cost is your data). He either abides by the law of the land or he gets out. This is my view as a conservative. I assume people who don’t see it his way are radicals and lawless individuals.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.