Professional Baby Cuddler

stratt wanted moral support

stratt wanted grace to know how much information was on the hail mary in case he ended up there

stratt for some reason thought they might start asking her science questions and wanted somebody to point to

or worse:

The women in Frankenstein are more three-dimensional than the ones in Carmilla

I don't know if this is the same person or two separate people Big Mad that I like Carmilla and not Frankenstein (the novel) but uh

literary taste is subjective, bud or buds

I like critically panned books and generally-acknowledged masterpieces, by men and women, in any combination of those attributes. and I bet you do, too

because (with a few exceptions) liking or not liking a book, personally, is a morally neutral act that does not reflect your thoughts on its place in the broader literary canon unless you try to claim that your subjective taste is an objective definition of quality

Personally I think that’s part of the ways the book can be seen as making proto-feminist commentary! The women whose lives and labor and hearts allow Victor to have the leisure time and stability to pursue his experiments and his aristocratic lifestyle are footnotes to him. He considers them in relation to his life exclusively. One reason I thought del Toro’s film was so clever was because it takes this subtextual character flaw and draws it out in ways the audience (who have, particularly wrt the book, favored Victor immensely - he’s in many ways practically a Tumblr and Pinterest sexyman in the classic sense, particularly due to perceived homoeroticism with Henry, and this has blinded people to his shortcomings) can’t ignore. It showed that the women of the story existed outside of Victor’s mind, something the original text never directly said. Canonically, on the page, the women in Frankenstein are *really* not developed. That’s sort of the point.

I'm team "didn't like Frankenstein the Novel because the women were flat characters, Loved Frankenstein 2025, Loved Carmilla"

the comment seems to be team "I like all of these things AND I think the women in Frankenstein the Novel being flatter is a feature, not a bug"

Anon, while being Like that, is team "the women in Frankenstein the Novel are not flat, the women in Carmilla are flat, and I like Frankenstein the Novel but not Carmilla"

"I don't know, you're wearing a mask."

"How about now?"

"You're kinda mid, tbh" or "I don't have time for questions" are both valid responses

❌ Does this ship make any sense whatsoever by any reasonable metric

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

For all the reasons above AND ALSO because this particular lawsuit is a defamation case

Privacy lawsuits are hard because most privacy laws are super super weak, and there's very rarely a lot of money or enforcement backing privacy laws for...twenty million reasons, really...

But defamation suits? Those have teeth.

(In large part because, at least in some countries and including in the US, defamation laws protect public figures the least - and "public figures" legally includes most if not all politicians, and a hell of a lot of other rich ppl too)

A German court has ruled that Google can be held directly liable for false claims made by its AI Overviews, a decision that could put a serious legal dent in the whole “the AI made me do it” defense. According to The Next Web, the Regional Court of Munich issued a temporary injunction after Google’s AI Overviews wrongly tied two Munich publishers to scams, subscription traps, and dubious business practices. The court treated those AI-generated summaries as Google’s own statements, not just ordinary search results pointing to third-party pages. That distinction matters. Search engines have traditionally had more protection because they index and link to other people’s content. AI Overviews changes the machinery. Google is not just showing the web anymore. It is summarizing it, rewriting it, and sometimes apparently hallucinating a tiny legal grenade into the results page... This is still a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling, and Google can appeal. But for publishers, brands, SEOs, and anyone watching AI search swallow the results page, the message is clear: if Google wants to be the answer engine, courts may start treating it like the publisher of those answers.