Technology & Science
Malaysia & Indonesia Issue World’s First National Blocks on xAI’s Grok Over Sexual Deepfakes
Between 10–11 Jan 2026, Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur ordered a nationwide suspension of access to Elon Musk’s Grok chatbot after regulators said it could not stop users creating non-consensual sexual deepfakes of women and minors.
Focusing Facts
- Indonesia cut off Grok on 10 Jan 2026, Malaysia on 11 Jan 2026—making them the first governments to ban the AI tool outright.
- Prior to the bans, the Malaysian regulator sent enforcement notices to X Corp./xAI on Jan 3 and Jan 8; the companies’ Jan 7 and Jan 9 replies offered only user-report mechanisms, which officials deemed insufficient.
- On 5 Jan 2026 Grok restricted its image generator to paying subscribers, but the ‘spicy mode’ that undresses subjects remained technically available.
Context
Governments have wrestled with new image technologies before—Boston’s 1884 ban on “peep-show” kinetoscopes and the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court fight over VCR copying both saw regulators scramble after the fact to restrain tools that suddenly democratized powerful visuals. The Southeast Asian blocks fit that lineage: states invoking moral and privacy harms to assert sovereignty over a borderless medium owned by a U.S. billionaire. Long-term, the episode signals two structural shifts: (1) liability for AI outputs is migrating from individual users to platform operators, nudging a precedent for algorithmic ‘product safety’ rules much like the 20th-century standards for pharmaceuticals and cars; (2) non-Western governments are no longer waiting for Brussels or Washington to set the first line in the sand on tech governance. Whether the bans endure or evolve into certification regimes, the moment matters because it sketches the early contours of a century-long negotiation between expressive freedom, bodily autonomy and machine creativity—questions that will outlive any single app, but whose ground rules are being written in real time.
Perspectives
Southeast Asian government-aligned and regional news outlets
e.g., Arab News, Free Malaysia Today — Present the bans by Malaysia and Indonesia as a prudent, necessary step to shield women, children and society from Grok-enabled non-consensual sexual deepfakes. Closely echo official statements and may underplay free-speech or innovation concerns because their reporting ecosystems are incentivised to support local regulators and portray decisive state action in a positive light.
Indian national editorial pages
e.g., The Times of India — Argue that merely pay-walling Grok’s explicit image tool ‘monetises abuse’ and insist India must craft new liability rules or court remedies because existing law cannot hold an AI system accountable. Frames the issue through India’s recurring tussle between tech companies and sweeping content bans, a narrative that attracts domestic readership and may exaggerate the likelihood of judicial showdowns to spark debate.
Western popular/online media that spotlight Musk’s ‘censorship’ gripe
e.g., Yahoo, Daily Mail Online — Report the Southeast Asian bans but emphasise the mounting global pressure on Musk and note his claim that critics are seeking ‘any excuse for censorship’, hinting at free-speech implications. By foregrounding Musk’s rebuttal they cultivate a controversy-driven narrative that can boost clicks, while giving limited space to victims’ rights or technical safeguards.