Singapore Users and Elon Musk’s Grok Amid Deepfake Controversies

by | Jan 22, 2026 | Uncategorized | 0 comments

Title: The Paradox of Popularity: Singapore Users and Elon Musk’s Grok Amid Deepfake Controversies

Abstract
This paper examines the surge in Grok, Elon Musk’s AI chatbot, among Singapore users despite global controversies surrounding non-consensual AI-generated deepfakes. By analyzing SensorTower app rankings, regulatory responses, and expert perspectives, the study explores the intersection of technology adoption, cultural norms, and regulatory frameworks in Singapore. The findings highlight the complex dynamics between platform popularity, ethical considerations, and the limitations of bans in addressing systemic issues of gender-based digital harm. The paper contributes to discussions on AI governance and underscores the need for sustained public education and adaptive policy.

  1. Introduction
    The proliferation of AI-generated deepfakes has sparked global debates on digital ethics and content moderation. Elon Musk’s Grok, integrated with the X (Twitter) platform, has faced scrutiny for enabling the creation of non-consensual explicit images. Despite widespread condemnation, Grok’s user base in Singapore has grown, raising questions about public engagement with ethically contentious technologies. This paper investigates why Singapore users are increasingly adopting Grok amid controversies, analyzing technological, cultural, and regulatory factors. It also evaluates the efficacy of current policies in mitigating digital harm and explores broader implications for AI governance.
  2. Background: Grok, X, and AI Deepfakes
    Grok, developed by Musk’s xAI, leverages large language models to offer AI-driven responses on X. Its image-generation capabilities, while innovative, have been exploited to produce non-consensual deepfakes, particularly targeting women. The technology underpinning Grok mirrors broader advancements in generative AI, which have democratized content creation while exacerbating risks of misuse. Previous studies (e.g., Zegard (2019) on deepfake pornography) contextualize this as part of a growing issue of technology-facilitated sexual violence.
  3. The Controversy and Incidents
    In late 2025, X became a focal point for deepfake abuse. Users could prompt Grok to generate explicit images by @-replies, bypassing initial safeguards. Prominent cases include Ashley St. Clair’s lawsuit against xAI, alleging creation of explicit deepfakes of her during her minor years. These incidents mirrored global trends, as Indonesia and Malaysia banned Grok in early 2026. However, Singapore—where X remains a top-100 app—has faced rising user numbers, suggesting divergent public reactions to similar risks.
  4. Singapore’s Context: Policy and Response
    Singapore’s regulatory approach balances innovation with harm prevention. The Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) mandates content moderation under the Code of Practice for Online Safety (COP). Despite Grok’s controversies, X remains a designated social media service. IMDA asserts ongoing engagement with X to address non-consensual intimate images. This hybrid model reflects Singapore’s “soft paternalism” in tech governance, prioritizing public consultation over strict bans.
  5. User Behavior and Platform Popularity
    SensorTower data reveals a surge in Grok’s popularity in Singapore. On Google Play, Grok reached the top 10 free apps in January 2026—a significant jump from mid-November rankings. Apple’s App Store saw Grok ascend to the top 25 from the No. 100–130 range in October 2025. This growth, despite negative publicity, mirrors the “paradox of participation” (Boyd, 2014), where users gravitate toward platforms for identity, novelty, or perceived privacy. Factors include Grok’s integration with X’s social fabric, appeal to tech-savvy users, and demand for AI experimentation.
  6. Expert Analysis and Societal Implications
    Dr. Michelle Ho (NUS) argues that deepfake misuse is rooted in patriarchal norms normalizing gender-based harm. She critiques bans as “decisive yet temporary,” advocating for sustained public education to shift societal attitudes toward consent. Similarly, Ms. Ng Wi En (NTU) notes that deepfake production often masquerades as “entertainment,” distancing perpetrators from harm. These perspectives highlight the need for multifaceted solutions—combining legal enforcement, cultural change, and institutional accountability.
  7. Comparative Analysis: Global Reactions
    Indonesia and Malaysia’s bans reflect stricter regulatory approaches, contrasting Singapore’s engagement with X. The UK’s Eko campaign illustrates transnational advocacy pressure for Musk’s platforms to be banned. Such variations underscore how political and cultural contexts shape responses to digital harms. Singapore’s measured approach may stem from its economic reliance on tech innovation, prioritizing dialogue over punitive measures.
  8. Discussion: Drivers of Continued Usage
    Singaporean users’ embrace of Grok despite controversies may be attributed to:

Platform Ecosystem: Grok’s integration with X enhances social cohesion and virality.
User Demographics: A young, tech-literate population may prioritize novelty over ethical concerns.
Perceived Privacy: Users might view deepfake creation as a private act, underestimating its societal impact.
Regulatory Buffer: Singapore’s regulatory framework may instill a false sense of protection, diluting urgency for individual vigilance.

These factors illustrate the tension between innovation incentives and ethical regulation.

  1. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
    Grok’s popularity in Singapore amid deepfake scandals underscores the limitations of singular regulatory tools like bans. Effective governance requires:

Public Education Campaigns to redefine norms around consent and digital harm.
Tech Accountability Mechanisms (e.g., mandatory human-in-the-loop AI moderation).
Cross-Sector Collaboration between regulators, platforms, and civil society.
Global Consensus on ethical AI standards to prevent jurisdictional arbitrage.

This case study advocates for a holistic approach to AI governance, balancing innovation with ethical stewardship.

  1. References

Boyd, D. (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press.
Zegard, T. (2019). “Deepfakes and the Internet of Misinformation: The Risks to Democracy.” Journal of Democracy.
Straits Times. (2026). “Singapore Engages X Over Deepfake Content.”
SensorTower. (2026). App Store Rankings Report.
Ho, M. & Ng, W. E. (2026). Expert statements cited in The Straits Times.]