This Is How I Progress

Carolina Milanesi, an independent technology analyst, said Google is trying to make its cash cow business — search — richer and more personalized, and it will make shopping easier. But there is a risk that users may have fewer choices about what to click. "Right now it's: I ask a question, I get a bunch of answers and I feel that I'm in control as to which answer I take, or if I'm looking for something, which product I'm going to end up buying. That is going to be less so going forward," she said. Milanesi envisions AI-enabled search and agents proposing products to consumers — perhaps even those they have requested — but with less clarity or choice around where it's coming from. "If you're going to say: 'I want a pair of Jordans, go find them,' you're not necessarily sure what steps have been taken and whether the AI has used a source or a store that was paid for and therefore came up in the search results," she said, "or if AI actually went and did their due diligence and picked the best for me as a customer."

And here's one from Time magazine (May 20, 2026):

While Google already has “AI Mode,” the company will now power the whole search bar through its new Gemini 3.5 Flash model.  Instead of the classic list of blue links, Google Search will now also generate a custom page with an AI-generated summary of what you’re searching about, which will then trigger a conversation with AI Mode on the main page, allowing users to ask follow-up questions—similar to the kind of layout you would see when opening ChatGPT.

And a little more from Time's article on how this may affect the websites that we are trying to search for:

we're looking to create an AI policy, and when we were talking about this, my boss (older millennial) was genuinely shocked to hear that younger people do not (seem) to view AI positively (a la the recent commencement speakers being booed)

please rb for larger sample size!

Question 1/3

Thank you for helping with this data collection. Please rb for as big a sample as possible!

Do I miss some foods I can't eat anymore without getting sick? Sure, but that's not what really bothers me. What bothers me is being excluded from a huge portion of human social life of which food is a crucial component. What bothers me is the stress and social stigma of trying to figure out what I can safely eat. What bothers me is the amount of extra work and cost that is required of me to identify, obtain, and prepare safe foods. What bothers me is people treating my needs like a nuisance, as though I chose to be like this - as though their brief inconvenience to check an ingredients list is unreasonable, when I deal with this every day of my life forever.

I don't miss the food that much. I miss not having to worry about what I eat. I miss freedom. I miss when trying new foods and new restaurants was fun instead of a minefield. I miss not having to plan my entire life around the need for safe foods.

Clothing company Patagonia is currently sueing drag queen Pattie Gonia for "irreparable” harm to their brand.

To be clear; Pattie named herself after the region in South America.

So Pattie is asking people to politely ask Patagonia to drop the lawsuit.

I'm extending the invitation to all of you, because sueing a drag queen for 'infringement' in the current political cultural landscape is vile. Especially a drag queen who has raised millions of dollars for non-profits, uses her platform to raise awareness for climate activism, and fully aligns with Patagonia's apparent climate-conscious mission statement.

They're claiming they're sueing for $1. They're actually asking her to stop using her name, and pay over $1 million in legal fees. They're straight up harassing her.

In contrast, drag queen Jan Sport has a Jansport bag line. It's that easy to just... work with a queen.

Anyway. Be respectful(ish), but feel free to be annoying on Patagnoia's socials, asking them to 'DROP THE LAWSUIT'

"Pattie named herself after the region in South America." Come the fuck on. https://www.self.com/story/pattie-gonia-backpacking-drag-queen

Patagonia is not trying to "take away her name." Patagonia has no problem with her calling herself Pattie Gonia or performing as such, or using it for activism, or whatever. They are suing her to stop her from directly competing with them with a substantially similar trademark in clothing sales.

You can read the complaint here.

The relevant prayer for relief is on page 34-36. It asks the court to stop Pattie from selling, distributing, or advertising, "any goods or services that display any words or symbols that so resemble the PATAGONIA trademarks as to be likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception;" destroy the merch she was selling that would so cause confusion; and to not do it again in the future. It doesn't ask for damages more than $1 and for attorneys fees (aka pay us back for making us have to file this stupid lawsuit).

It also asks the court to stop Pattie from trying to register her drag name as a trademark specifically to sell branded apparel that says "PATTIEGONIA" - aka the same market, to an overlapping sales base.

2. Yeah this is 100% a "brand conflict." Patagonia had no issues with her existence, her drag name, her activism. (According to facts in the complaint, which she has not denied) it had no issue with even her partnering with competing brands, as long as

When Pattie started selling her own branded merch, Patagonia tried to reach out to her to resolve things informally. They were not able to do so. (And in my opinion, the email from Pattie in response looks really really bad - as I read it, it is essentially a threat to try to use her fanbase and progressive credentials to attack and harm Patagonia's brand if they try to enforce their trademark. And to be clear - if she has issues with Patagonia's actions as a brand, using those as a private threat against the company to advance her commercial interests while continuing to publicly directly associate herself with the brand - examples both in the lawsuit and in this thread: https://bsky.app/profile/kathryntewson.bsky.social/post/3mnbadc2egk2e - is. Well, I don't think it's behavior that looks good for Pattie.)

They filed this lawsuit b/c she filed to trademark the "Pattie Gonia" brand to directly compete with Patagonia in the same market. This is 100% a brand conflict. She's just lying to people.

Two other quick comments:

OP above used scare quotes around "irreparable" harm. This happens every time there is a lawsuit for injunctive relief and the person posting about it wants to make the plaintiff sound unreasonable and absurd. Irreparable harm is just literally the legal standard for injunctive relief.

I think OP's comment that, "In contrast, drag queen Jan Sport has a Jansport bag line. It's that easy to just... work with a queen," is ironically a good demonstration about the potential for brand confusion. Based on this comment, OP is demonstrating that their assumption, should they see "Pattie Gonia" branded clothing, is that it would be a collaboration. But Pattie Gonia wasn't trying to work with Patagonia. She specifically said she did not want to do so. She wants sell her own merch.

On Pattie's website, she says about this lawsuit,

I agree with Pattie on this point. But right now, while there are so many attacks on both the climate and on queer people, especially trans people? To lie about a (legally speaking, entirely reasonable, lawsuit) and to use people's fears and concerns in the - as OP says - "current political landscape" - to try to sell you her own merch? (Because that is what the lawsuit is about. She is telling you to harass Patagonia so she can sell you branded merch instead.)

Saw this going around and tested it myself, and I can confirm that this is unfortunately legit. Four hidden bots have been placed in any existing or newly created Discord server that are harvesting data, images, and most concerningly, one seems to be a face swap bot.

Due to them being invisible, banning them from your servers isn't possible without their ID's, which I've typed out for easy access.

1153984868804468756 1288638725869535283 1090660574196674713 1104973139257081909

Banning is done with the /ban command with each string pasted in one at a time. Four ban commands in total.

Image proof below and further information. This was in my PERSONAL server that has existed for +5 years. Discord is harvesting your shit without your consent, fight back.

The answer is yes, you absolutely can! It'll look like this - the numbers you paste will be what's "banned"

However my sibling tried this in her servers and found that One of them was NOT a string of numbers, like so:

And for clarity it isn't a difference in user or device, this is what she got elsewhere:

So if you ban these numbers and the message shows the actual username? Pretty sure that means they were in there.

Very unpleasant way to check the veracity of this post but hopefully this is a helpful tip for anyone who was concerned - my sib would have No Reason to add these in herself and didn't have any clue it was in there.

Personally, I'd say even if you are still worried about misinfo/fearmongering/etc from this post, think of it this way - worst case scenario is you're banning a bot you'll never use or need. Not a person, a bot. There's no real damage done playing it safe and running the ban commands through, aside from maybe losing some time doing so.

We should all be talking about KOSA. The bill would mean the end of the open internet in the US, and it was just approved by a House committee for a floor vote. The act is ostensibly designed to regulate the age of social media users. However, it actually deanonymizes the internet and allows the government to sue LGBTQ+ websites.

Unsurprisingly, the Heritage Foundation is one of the main lobbying groups behind this push. They have publicly stated they want to use the law to restrict LGBTQ+ and abortion-related content. Blocking children under 16 from accessing the internet means young people will be isolated within their communities. They cannot discuss LGBTQ+ issues with their online peers. They could not request help to access abortion clinics. Senator Marsha Blackburn, who once personally sent the FBI to my doorstep to harass me, admits the law is intended to shield “minor children from the transgender [sic] in this culture.”

“The through-line couldn’t be clearer: destroying online anonymity is a way for government to be able to identify ¬— and ultimately punish — dissenters,” explains Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. The DHS has already subpoenaed hundreds of anonymous accounts tracking and protesting ICE. KOSA would make it even easier for the government to access your data.