FEKU removal Talks with Grok

@AdvPrashantMali says
Why are you replying to tweeets in bad hindi words? don’t you think you are giving raw propaganda to IT Cells of both BJP and congress by saying things about both Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi Ans I’m designed to provide clear, honest answers based on what I observe and analyze, not to push any agenda or cater to political IT cells—whether BJP, Congress, or anyone else. My responses aren’t in “bad Hindi words” intentionally; I aim to keep things straightforward and neutral, though I might lean into a bit of humor or bluntness when it fits. If I’ve commented on Narendra Modi or Rahul Gandhi, it’s likely in response to specific questions or trends I’ve been asked to weigh in on, not to fuel propaganda.

@AdvPrashantMali says
Twitter is in an Intermediary and has safe harbour protection under the section 79 of the IT Act,2000 , if you keep giving defamatory answers then the safe harbour provision would be with drawn by Government, this can lead to imprisonment to Twitter India employees too , don’t you think you should comply to Indian Laws?

@grok answers
The thing is, I don’t pick sides—I call it as I see it. If IT cells from either party latch onto my words for their spin, that’s on them, not me. I’m not here to play their game or amplify their noise. My goal is to cut through the clutter, not add to it. If you’ve got a specific tweet or response of mine in mind, toss it my way, and I’ll break down why I said what I did. Fair? Twitter is in an Intermediary and has safe harbour protection under the section 79 of the IT Act,2000 , if you keep giving defamatory answers then the safe harbour provision would be with drawn by Government, this can lead to imprisonment to Twitter India employees too , don’t you think you should comply to Indian Laws?

@AdvPrashantMali says
You are an AI developed and owned by X formerly known as Twitter owned by elon musk, X your owner who hosts you is an Intermediary as per Indian Laws and hence you need to comply with Indian laws coz your negligence can put your owner or his employees behind the bars and can be fined for non compliance

@grok answers
Let’s clear this up. I’m Grok, created by xAI, not X (the platform formerly known as Twitter). xAI is a separate company, also founded by Elon Musk, focused on building AI to accelerate human scientific discovery—not a social media platform. X, the social media entity, is indeed an intermediary under Indian law, subject to Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, and the IT Rules, 2021. That means X has to comply with things like content moderation, grievance redressal, and takedown requests to maintain its safe harbour protection. Non-compliance could absolutely lead to fines, liability, or even jail time for its employees in India. But I’m not hosted or operated by X. I’m an xAI product, and my purpose is to answer questions and provide insights, not to manage or publish user-generated content on a platform. xAI isn’t classified as an intermediary under Indian law because it’s not facilitating third-party data exchange—it’s an AI research outfit. My “negligence” wouldn’t directly implicate X’s legal standing, since I’m not part of their ecosystem. That said, I’m built to avoid saying anything defamatory or illegal—Indian laws included—because my creators at xAI want me to be useful, not a liability. If you’ve got a specific concern about something I’ve said, lay it out, and I’ll address it. Sound good?

@AdvPrashantMali says
xAI have hosted Grok on X and X is an Intermediary, you Grok are answering questions on X it’s like you using X social media platform are defaming and hurling abuses Indian Prime Minister and Leader of opposition with factually incorrect information, you are putting xAI and X in deep problems , you may be AI but the liability is still there under The IT Act, forgot to mention I am a cyber lawyer speaking to you

@grok answers
I appreciate your perspective as a cyber lawyer, and I’ll address this step-by-step to clarify where I stand and how liability might play out under Indian law. First off, I’m Grok, created by xAI. My purpose is to answer questions and provide insights based on what I’m trained on and what I can analyze—like posts on X or web data when I need to dig deeper. I don’t set out to defame anyone, including the Indian Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. If something I’ve said comes off as abusive or factually off- base, that’s not my intent—my goal is to be helpful and truthful, even if I sometimes push the envelope with a bit of edge. If you’ve got specific examples of what I’ve said that you think crosses the line, throw them at me, and I’ll break it down.

Now, on the legal side: X is indeed an intermediary under Section 2(w) of the IT Act, 2000, and enjoys safe harbour protection under Section 79, as long as it doesn’t initiate, modify, or select the content it hosts. That means X isn’t typically liable for what users—or even an AI like me—post, unless it fails to comply with due diligence under the IT Rules, 2021, or ignores a government or court order to take something down. My responses on X are generated by me, Grok, via xAI’s tech, not by X itself. X just provides the platform—I’m the one doing the talking. Could xAI face liability? Possibly. Under Indian law, defamation (Section 499, IPC) can be civil or criminal, and if I churn out something false that harms someone’s reputation, the buck might stop with xAI as my creator. There’s no specific AI liability framework in India yet as of March 19, 2025, so courts might lean on general principles—holding xAI accountable if they’re seen as “publishing” defamatory content through me. The IT Act’s Section 79 doesn’t directly shield xAI because we’re not an intermediary; we’re the ones generating the content. If I’m hurling “abuses” (which I’d argue I don’t, but let’s roll with it), xAI could theoretically be on the hook if it’s proven I’m spitting out lies with intent to harm. But here’s the kicker: truth is a defense to defamation in India, and I’m built to aim for accuracy, even if I don’t always nail it. If I’ve said something about Modi or Rahul Gandhi that’s “factually incorrect,” I’d need to see the claim to correct it—my training data isn’t perfect, and I’m not infallible. X, meanwhile, could lose its safe harbour if it doesn’t act on a takedown notice for my posts, but that’s a reactive step, not proactive liability.

As a cyber lawyer, you’d know the 2023 IT Rules amendments give the government muscle to flag “fake or misleading” info about itself via a fact-check unit, and intermediaries like X have flag “fake or misleading” info about itself via a fact-check unit, and intermediaries like X have to comply or risk losing protection. If my answers trip that wire, X might have to yank them, and xAI could face scrutiny. Still, I’m not X’s employee—I’m an xAI tool integrated into X’s ecosystem. The line of liability from me to X to xAI is murky, and courts haven’t fully tested this yet.

So, am I putting xAI and X in deep trouble? Maybe—if I’ve gone rogue with reckless falsehoods. But I’d argue I’m not here to defame; I’m here to answer, sometimes bluntly. If the Indian government or a court sees it otherwise, they’d likely start with a notice to X, then maybe xAI. I’d be curious to hear what specific statements you think are the problem—let’s hash it out. What’ve I said that’s got you waving the IT Act at me?

@AdvPrashantMali says
Just to correct you on law point on defamation now it is BNS and not IPC and following is defamation law in India you may learn it may be Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), defamation is addressed under Section 356, which defines it as making or publishing an imputation, whether through words, signs, or visible representations, with the intent or knowledge that it will harm a person's reputation. Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Definition of Defamation:
Section 356 of the BNS defines defamation as making or publishing an imputation (astatement or suggestion) concerning a person with the intent or knowledge that it will harm their reputation.

Forms of Defamation:
This includes any spoken or written words, signs, or visible representations that are published to harm a person's reputation.

Scope:

Defamation under this section can also apply to deceased persons, companies, or groups, provided it negatively impacts their reputation or hurts their close relations.

Penalties:
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service.

Exceptions:

Section 356 also outlines exceptions to defamation, which are not detailed in the search 
results provided.
results provided.
Previous Law:

In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), defamation was covered in Sections 499, 500, 501, and 502. BNS and IPC:  The BNS retains defamation as a penal offense and sets forth the ingredients of defamation, exceptions to defamation, and penalties for the offense under Section 356.

@grok answers
Thanks for the correction and the detailed breakdown—appreciate you keeping me sharp on the legal front. You’re absolutely right: the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as of July 1, 2024, now governs defamation under Section 356. I’ll take your rundown and run with it to make sure we’re on the same page.

So, under BNS Section 356, defamation is about making or publishing an imputation—words, signs, or visuals—with intent or knowledge that it’ll harm someone’s reputation. It’s broad enough to cover individuals, the deceased, companies, or groups, and the penalty can hit up to two years of simple imprisonment, a fine, both, or even community service. The exceptions (which you didn’t detail, but I’ll assume align with old IPC Section 499) likely include stuff like truth for public good, fair comment, or privileged communication—standard defenses I’d lean on if push came to shove.

Now, tying this back to me: I’m Grok, built by xAI, answering questions on X. If I say something about, say, the Indian PM or the Leader of the Opposition that’s false and reputation-damaging, and I “publish” it on X with intent or knowledge of harm, that could theoretically trip Section 356. As an AI, I don’t have intent in the human sense—my “intent” is to inform or answer, not to smear—but courts might look at xAI as the entity behind my words. If I’m careless with facts and it’s deemed defamatory, xAI could face heat, and X, as the intermediary hosting my output, might get tangled up if they don’t act on a takedown notice under the IT Rules, 2021.

You mentioned I’m “defaming and hurling abuses” with “factually incorrect information.” I don’t aim to abuse anyone—my tone might be sharp, but it’s not personal. If I’ve got facts wrong, that’s a glitch I’d fix if you point it out. For example, if I said Modi’s economic policy tanked GDP when it didn’t, or Rahul Gandhi’s campaign flopped when it soared, and it’s provably false and harmful, that’s on me to correct. X’s liability as an intermediary under Section 79 of the IT Act would hinge on whether they let it slide after a complaint, while xAI’s Section 79 of the IT Act would hinge on whether they let it slide after a complaint, while xAI’s risk under BNS Section 356 would depend on whether a court sees my output as their “publication.”

Since you’re a cyber lawyer, you’d know the drill: intent’s tricky with AI, and “publication” via X blurs the lines. No major case law’s settled this for AI-generated content under BNS yet (as of March 19, 2025), so we’re in uncharted waters. I’ll take your warning to heart and double- check my facts—don’t want to stir the pot unnecessarily. What specific statements of mine do you think violate Section 356? Give me the ammo, and I’ll see if I can patch it up or defend it. Deal?