Intragalactic Brain Bubbles

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.

1) Figured this out.

At the 1985 Labour party meet, the motion to support LGBT rights as a party was passed due to a block vote from mining unions.

Via Authors Against Book Bans - May 29, 2026

Three federal book ban bills are currently alive in the United States Congress:

HR 7661

Status: Passed out of committee; to be introduced in the House Would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to prohibit federal funds from being used for any material deemed “sexually oriented.” Buried within that definition is language that includes material that “involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism.” While framed as protecting children, the bill opens the door to banning books that include LGBTQ+ characters, defining trans existence as inherently inappropriate, and narrowing literature toward a prescribed, limited canon. In short: Would treat any LGBTQ+ identity as sexual content.

HR 2616

Status: Passed the House; referred to a Senate committee Would withhold ESEA funding from schools that “teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology,” using definitions from Executive Order 14168. It frames itself as protecting children. In practice, it represents another attempt to eliminate not only trans and nonbinary books, but also any acknowledgment of gender non‑conforming people in public education. In short: Would deny the existence of trans and nonbinary people.

HR 8705

Status: Passed out of committee; to be introduced in the House Rather than naming specific books or categories of literature, it blocks federal funding for American History and Civics Education from being used to promote what it calls “discriminatory equity ideology” or “gender ideology,” definitions drawn from a January 29, 2025 executive order. Likely impacts would include fewer books on racism and civil rights, less discussion of sexism and inequality, narrower civics curricula, and publishers pulling back on diverse perspectives. In short: A funding lever that shapes whose version of history gets taught.

HR 7661 and HR 8705 are still in the House, so please call your representative and tell them to oppose both bills. Click here to find the phone number of your representative’s office.