you alone cannot change the world.

L fanart is by @sybbatra on instagram

Jesus art is by @wolfythewitch

Michaela Joffe (joffeorama.bsky.social‬):

I know that fascist attacks on "obscenity" and "pornography" are a very dangerous threat to queer people and art, but the idea that all expressions of all kinks must be treated as default value neutral, or even good, as a result is absurd. porn is art, and so it is open to criticism.

you cannot have it both ways. if porn, kink and obscenity is worth protecting, and I believe they are, that means you can't whine and cry foul when it is criticized and analyzed. your desires, like everything else, exist in larger contexts, and sometimes they are homophobic, misogynist and racist.

the idea that all expressions of human desire are equivalent, and exist free from any larger historical, cultural, artistic or interpersonal contexts… that is absurd. why would desire alone be unique in that way? why would kink be different from every other human expression? ridiculous.

Whereas the reality is far more like

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.