ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
User ID: 108
On October 30, the United Nations Security Council voted on two competing resolutions to extend the mandate of MINURSO, the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, for another year. The United States proposed draft resolution S/2026/868, which would have (1) renamed it to MINUSO, the UN Mission in Western Sahara, deleting "referendum", and (2) reoriented it to support Morocco's proposal for autonomy over the Sahrawi Republic's demands for an independence referendum. Russia proposed draft resolution S/2026/870, which would have retained the current name. Each exercised its permanent Security Council member's veto to block the other's resolution from passing. As a result, the mandate has expired.
The competing speeches on the topic—both from the US and Russia, and from special invitees Algeria and Morocco—are fairly interesting to read.
Excerpt from the US:
In 2006, the Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy warned that prolonging the deadlock could condemn another generation of Western Saharans to grow up in the refugee camps of Tindouf. That was 20 years ago. And now, that generation has grown up, and we are taking the position that we should not have future generations and decades more of refugee camps. This is a resolvable conflict. And according to the most recent United Nations reports, just to understand the conditions, nearly two thirds of children under five are suffering from anaemia in these camps. One third have stunted growth. Only one in ten—10 per cent—receives the minimum of an acceptable diet. Ninety per cent do not.
Let us, then, think about that again for a moment. That amounts to 50 years of displacement—an entire lifetime and then some—with their children born as refugees, growing up as refugees and now raising children as refugees. We will not support a status quo that condemns all of them to another five decades.
Russia:
The text drafted by the United States completely disregards what the Sahrawis and the United Nations have long advocated: a just, free and fair settlement based on the principle of self-determination. From the text, we can see how the sponsors are attempting to frame what is supposed to be a balanced settlement exclusively in terms of Morocco’s autonomy plan.
The approach proposed by the authors is an obvious departure from the historical foundations of the Western Saharan settlement process. The Security Council is effectively being asked to forget about the referendum and the 2007 Frente POLISARIO plan, which retains equal standing with the Moroccan autonomy initiative. The seemingly innocuous deletion of one letter from the Mission’s name is, in fact, nothing but a betrayal of the interests of the residents of the Tindouf refugee camps and Sahrawis living elsewhere.
Algeria:
Allow me to outline my statement in six key words or phrases.
…
The third is a mutually acceptable political situation. This phrase is crucial for any future negotiations. Every political process is founded on international law, which unites us all around this table. Every political process culminates in an agreement between all parties. Negotiation is a process that requires attentive listening to the key players. It requires patience and innovation, with the aim of reaching a solution acceptable to all and for all. The Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguía el-Hamra y de Río de Oro, the legitimate representative of the Sahrawi people, has already made its position clear to the Council. The neighbouring countries of this territory, Algeria and Mauritania, which sincerely aspire to restore peace and harmony to our region, have participated in the political process openly, in a spirit of goodwill and with great hope. They have candidly shared their concerns and reservations with all Council members regarding the text submitted to the Council. Have they been heard? No, definitely not. And that is why we must now confront this Security Council failure. Indeed, the provisions of the text put before the Council treat these negotiations as having been concluded even before they have begun. Strangely, they impose the starting point—the occupier’s sovereignty—as the end point. This is far from being a balanced text. I reiterate that negotiation must be a process—a patient journey towards a solution, towards peace, and not a means of imposing a predetermined outcome.
…
The fifth is a fait accompli. It is undeniable that the document before the Council had no other purpose than to legalize a fait accompli—the invasion of a non-self-governing territory, recognized by our Organisation. And my dear colleagues and Council members all know that this fait accompli is the result of an indecent and shameful deal concluded at the expense of the Palestinian people—a people who have suffered immensely. And now, it is the Sahrawi people who are being asked to pay, with their own freedom, for the dividends promised as a reward to the occupying Power.
Morocco:
The host country is depriving them of their protection. The Ambassador speaks of refugees’ rights, but the Tindouf camps are the only camps in the world where the host country has relinquished its sovereignty and authority, handing them over to an armed separatist group. Within the camps, there is no Algerian authority and no sovereignty, thereby allowing the Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguía el-Hamra y de Río de Oro (Frente POLISARIO) to do as it pleases, to recruit and involve children in military exercises and send them to carry out military harassment. Therefore, the Ambassador cannot claim to be an advocate or defender of refugees while simultaneously depriving them of their most basic rights.
…
I will make one final point. The Algerian Ambassador made a shameful comparison, and he himself used the word “shameful”. He drew a comparison between the question of the Moroccan Sahara and that of Palestine. At very least in Morocco, there have always been, and there still are, weekly demonstrations in support of the Palestinian people. In Algeria, by contrast, such demonstrations are prohibited. The Ambassador came and lectured us on Palestine, yet he failed to allow his own people to express their views.
Adjusting that for the brothel's cut and the fact that there will be inevitable down time, I would estimate that's about 60–80 k$ a year.
One brothel purports to reveal exactly what its cut is: for a 30-minute session, 55 US dollars (80 Australian dollars) goes to the prostitute, and 35 US dollars (50 Australian dollars) goes to the brothel. If we very naively assume 1040 hours of working per year (40 hours on call per week × 1/2 hour working per hour on call × 52 weeks per year), that's 114,000 US dollars (166,000 Australian dollars) per year. (Again, though, this estimate is very naive. All these numbers are questionable.)
I think it's pretty likely that the kind of woman who's willing to prostitute herself for that kind of money is not that attractive at all
The same website contains photographs of a plethora of jade-like beauties that the brothel claims to have on tap. If it hasn't been sued/prosecuted into toning those photographs down, how false can they be?
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
2d ago
hundreds of dollars for sex with a new partner
Legal brothels in Australia advertise prices as low as 90 US dollars (specifically, 130 Australian dollars) for 30 minutes.
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
2d ago
Prostitution is probably not the best way to interact with other human beings, but it is certainly preferable to gooning communities, and probably even necessary in an age like ours.
The prostitute is a hero. For natural reasons, men lack confidence and feel inferior if they don’t have any sexual experience. But most women don’t want to be as promiscuous as men would like them to be. The sexes have divergent interests here, and this is a dilemma that will never be wished away. So, for a market price, the prostitute elevates men while protecting her fellow women. Due to her unique psychological makeup and the fact that she treats it as a job, she is able to decouple sex from emotional involvement. Yet the prostitute, unless she plays the role of victim, is subject to political prosecution in our society, while the enablers of masturbation face few legal restrictions and ever decreasing social stigma on account of their behavior. This is unjust, and indicative of what has gone wrong in a culture that is increasingly retreating into the digital, so much that it is having trouble reproducing itself.
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
2d ago
The unnamed celebrity now has been revealed as David Walliams. A Kiwi Farms user has provided a convenient summary of the timeline, apparently from this court document.
May 2022 - An unnamed male celebrity is approached by The Guardian about allegations of inappropriate behaviour in several personal and professional contexts. The celebrity denied them and nothing was published.
November 2022 - Someone leaks a load of off colour comments David Walliams made during a taping of Britain's Got Talent. He apologises but is replaced by Bruno Tonioli.
2023 - A junior employee at HarperCollins raises concern about Walliams' behaviour. HarperCollins begins an investigation. The Guardian and ITN agree to do a joint investigation into the unnamed male celebrity.
October 2023 - Walliams sues the production company behind Britain's Got Talent for a data breach, claiming the BBC and Channel 4 pulled planned adaptations of his books and a travelogue across India as the result of reputational damage, and that it caused him "psychiatric harm", including setting off a severe depressive episode of bipolar disorder. They settle out of court.
2024 - HarperCollins concludes its investigation. The junior employee gets a five figure payoff and leaves the business. HarperCollins advises employees to not visit Walliams at home, that female employees should work in pairs when dealing with Walliams, and takes steps to ensure certain employees do not have to work with him at all.
June 2025 - David Walliams does Nazi salutes during the filming of the Would I Lie To You? Christmas special. This immediately gets leaked to the papers by the audience. The BBC stresses that they have no further scheduled plans to work with David Walliams. The Children's Trust terminates David Walliams as an ambassador.
October 2025 - The CEO of HarperCollins, Charlie Redmayne, resigns and is replaced by Kate Elton. Matt Lucas stops doing his podcast with Walliams.
December 2025 - The Telegraph report comes out. HarperCollins drops him as a client (despite his books representing half of all their children books' sales).
January 2026 - David Walliams performs to an audience of just 48 at local pub - as scandal-hit comedian claws his way back from allegations of 'harassment'. Matt Lucas is asked for comment about David Walliams and refuses to say anything.
March 2026 - YMU, his TV representatives, fire him as a client. Various shows like "An Evening with David Williams" are cancelled. All remaining charities sever ties with Walliams.
May 2026 - ITN and the Guardian send an unnamed celebrity a letter containing 278 allegations concerning his alleged abuse of his power and status as a well-known public figure in order to establish contact with young women, who were also considerably younger than him, and engage, and/or seek to engage in inappropriate sexual activity, including potential criminal activity. The celebrity admits himself to a psychiatric hospital. The celebrity’s representatives supplied the the Guardian and ITN with medical information concerning his condition. The material included warnings from treating clinicians that publication and the anticipated public scrutiny could precipitate serious self-harm or an attempt to take his own life.
The journalists had spoken to more than 100 people, including more than 30 sources said to have first-hand accounts. The sources included not only those making allegations, but friends, colleagues, former partners, relatives and others who might corroborate or contradict their accounts. The key sources were interviewed repeatedly, and the journalists considered contemporaneous messages, emails and other documents. The Defendants’ evidence was that no source had been paid or offered any incentive Ms Wilson explained that the First Defendant’s investigation had not been directed towards a predetermined conclusion. The journalists were instructed to avoid leading those whom they approached and to invite them to describe their experiences in their own terms. The evidence obtained from sources was subjected to internal editorial and legal scrutiny, and each Defendant involved senior editorial staff in considering whether the proposed allegations were sufficiently supported to justify publication. The Defendants’ evidence was that some sources wished to speak publicly because they believed the Claimant’s conduct should be exposed and that other women should be warned or protected. The Defendants also relied upon the number of allegations, the period over which they were said to have occurred, the Claimant’s public status and the professional contexts in which some of the alleged conduct occurred. They regarded those matters as giving rise to a strong public interest in publication
June 2026 - Matt Lucas joins Season 22 of Taskmaster, which might be a prudent thing to do if your old comedy partner is about to get a load of negative press, and you want a family friendly appearance to be fresh in everyone's minds.
July 2026 - The unnamed celebrity absconds from the psychiatric hospital and attempts to kill himself, which is further cited by the celebrity's representatives as evidence that the allegations should not be published because he's super serious about killing himself guys. The Guardian and ITN suggest appointing an agreed psychiatric expert so that all parties can agree a course of action, as they believe it's in the public interest to publish (but they don't want to be blamed for someone offing himself).
August/September 2026 - This is about when the injunction is filed. Dr. Intikhab Qurashi, the court appointed consultant forensic psychologist, diagnoses the celebrity with a bipolar depressive episode, and he might kill himself but it's hard to say, he probably just needs a lot of psychiatric help. An initial anonymity order is granted. Taskmaster starts broadcasting. HarperCollins unpersons David Walliams by "phasing out" his back catalogue.
13th October 2026 - The unnamed celebrity has a recorded conversation with his solicitor that is submitted to Dr Qurashi. In that discussion, the Claimant stated that his suicidal thoughts had persisted after discharge; that he had lied about his mental state to get reduced restrictions and eventual discharge; that he did not regard hospital admission as a permanent answer to the publication-related risk; and that he did not wish to cooperate with measures whose purpose was to prevent him taking his life if publication occurred. He also described the importance of his relationship with his son and his belief that publication would cause that relationship to be lost or seriously damaged.
14th October 2026 - David Walliams looks ashen on a coffee date with a female friend as he is seen for the first time since being 'cancelled' over 'inappropriate behaviour towards women'.
22nd October 2026 - Dr. Qurashi gets the unnamed celebrity sectioned and basically says "he probably won't kill himself if you publish the allegations while he's in the loony bin" meaning the suicide baiting has backfired (lol)
If it is David Walliams, probably what was happening was a culture of silence to protect the golden goose... but he started damaging his own earning potential by doing weird/creepy stuff in public, so he lost that protection. The unnamed male celebrity needs to file reasons for appeal against the refusal to grant an injunction by the 9th.
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
2d ago
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
4d ago
On its face it seems to demand unanimous consent. It's hard to know what that should mean for war and people of poor character. If it is taken to mean less than unanimous consent then it is "democratic moralism" wearing a mask.
Fine. Bite the bullet and go full anarchist. A state is an ideal state in proportion to how many of its citizens/subjects/nationals/whatever have voluntarily signed a contract laying out the rights and duties of subjecthood, without regard for the other two theories.
Would it be just for existing states to block the founding of a better one, and would its founders be wronged if they were blocked?
A single sovereign person meets the definition of a 100 percent ideal state. It is unjust for a democratic government to block a single person who voted for the losing presidential candidate (and didn't sign a contract to abide by election results) from seceding and becoming sovereign.
There are, I think, at first appearance two popular theories of state legitimacy: might makes right [declarative theory of statehood, territorial integrity], and democratic moralism [consent of the governed, self-determination].
At the risk of looking like I've spent too much time watching Europa Universalis 4 gameplay, I will point out a third theory, diplomatic to go with your military and administrative: a country is legitimate in proportion to its recognition as legitimate by the "international community" of other countries (constitutive theory of statehood). A formerly legitimate country that makes too many other countries angry (e. g., by violating international law with aggressive wars) can become illegitimate.
-
Declarative theory and consent of the governed, but not constitutive theory: A government loved by its people but not recognized by other countries (Somaliland, revolutionary France)
-
Declarative theory and constitutive theory, but not consent of the governed: A tyrannical government whose internal atrocities other governments refrain from condemning
-
Consent of the governed and constitutive theory, but not declarative theory: A government in exile still loved by its people and still acknowledged as the rightful ruler by the international community even though it controls nothing
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
5d ago
the knowledge of everything I've missed
irretrievably lost time
If you are not inherently wired for friendship/romance, then you haven't "missed" or "lost" anything. As a person in a vaguely similar position, I regret wasting effort on trying to make friends (1 2 3). I should have never bothered, but I keep failing to learn my lesson. (Is this an appropriate place to use the "⁎taps the sign⁎" meme? I don't really like it, but maybe that's because I don't properly understand it.)
There are a hundred different solo hobbies from which a person can derive enjoyment. (Even for a person suffering from depression severe enough to prevent him from performing those hobbies, passive pseudo-hobbies may be worth living for.)
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
6d ago
A better argument is to (1) say that you wouldn't have bought it anyway, and (2) as actual supporting evidence cite the official EU study finding that the alleged displacement of video-game purchases by copyright-infringing downloads is fake: rather, infringement leads to an increase of +24 % in legitimate sales (vs. +0 % in music, −27 % in film and television, and −38 % in books).
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
15d ago
Text of law (rearranged for intelligibility):
“Neglect of a child” means:
A caregiver’s willful failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child⁎; or
A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.
⁎The term does not include a caregiver allowing a child to engage in independent and unsupervised activities unless allowing such activities constitutes willful and wanton conduct that endangers the health or safety of the child. Such independent and unsupervised activities include, but are not limited to, traveling to or from school or nearby locations by bicycle or on foot, playing outdoors, or remaining at home or any other location for a reasonable period of time.
A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable [with a fine not exceeding 5 k$ or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years].
I will now define what is meant by the term “culpable negligence”. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care for others. For negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of another. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
Example rulings:
-
2023: Sleeping in the same bed as an infant while you are high on methamphetamine is culpable negligence.
-
2022: Walking a four-year-old down the middle of a low-speed residential street while you are fall-down drunk is not culpable negligence.
-
2019-06: Picking up a one-year-old by its feet and plopping it onto a couch head-first is culpable negligence.
-
2019-02: Failing to seek medical attention for three weeks after an infant incurs obvious severe injuries in falling from a bed is culpable negligence.
-
2017: Allowing a four-year-old to descend stairs alone when it has previously done so safely is not culpable negligence.
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
27d ago
Update: It seems that I misunderstood the code-amendment process (simple explanation, full rules).
A proposed amendment is discussed and voted on at three hearings—first, by the relevant ICC committee; second, by the committee again if it was disapproved in the first vote; and, third, by code officials. But the three hearing votes are just preliminary. If an amendment is disapproved in all three of the hearing votes, then it does not get a fourth vote. But an amendment that is approved in at least one of the three hearing votes goes to a fourth vote of code officials. The ballots of the third vote and the fourth vote are combined to determine whether the amendment is added to the code. In this final combined vote: disapproval always requires a simple majority; approval of an amendment approved by the committee requires a simple majority; and approval of an amendment disapproved by the committee requires a two-thirds majority.
My previous comment addressed only the committee votes. This document contains all four votes for every proposed 2027 amendment.
-
E24-24 (allowing larger apartment buildings to have only one exit) was approved in a final combined vote of 67 to 33.
-
RB121-25 (allowing stairways in houses to be steeper) was disapproved in a final combined vote of 88 to 12.
-
G154-25 (allowing elevators to comply with ISO elevator standards), G158-25 (allowing taller apartment buildings to have elevators too small for stretchers), and RB115-25 (requiring house exterior doors to have locks) apparently were disapproved in all three of the hearing votes and therefore did not qualify for a fourth vote.
The 2027 IBC, incorporating E24-24, has been published. Publication of the 2027 IRC is expected to take place in February. Note that amendments adopted by the ICC are not guaranteed to be adopted by state govts.
Way back in year 1995, the Ohio govt. establishes a pilot school-voucher program exclusively for low-income families in the struggling Cleveland school district. Taxpayers sue, alleging that the pilot program violates the state constitution's requirement that the state govt. “secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools”. In year 1999, the state supreme court rejects that argument: “We fail to see how the School Voucher Program, at the current funding level, undermines the state's obligation to public education.”
Over the ensuing three decades, the state govt. gradually enlarges the school-voucher program. In 2005, it is expanded to school districts at the lowest performance rating statewide; in 2006, it is expanded to school districts at the second-lowest performance rating; in 2013, the performance-rating limits are completely eliminated; over the 2015–2022 period, the income limits are increased from low-income to moderate-income; and, in 2023, the income limits are completely eliminated.
-
Accordingly, in year 2026, a state appeals panel decides that the expanded program diverts taxpayer funds away from govt. schools to such an extent that it violates the state constitution.
EdChoice, as presently structured and funded, secures with taxpayer funds a competing system of uncommon schools that is not subject to the same obligations imposed on Ohio's system of common schools. This system of uncommon schools violates the mandate of Ohio Const. art. VI § 2 to secure “a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state”. Although statutes are entitled to a strong presumption of constitutionality, that presumption has been overcome here. Participating non-public schools are subject to materially less extensive state oversight, they cherry-pick students from public schools, they are geographically isolated in Ohio's urban centers, and they receive taxpayer funding in a manner that operates at the expense and detriment of Ohio's public schools, and, consequently, the children who depend on those public schools for instruction, support, and opportunities that shape their future.
Whether the state supreme court will agree remains to be seen.
Of particular culture-war relevance is the part to which I have added emphasis above. I think it has already been noted on this website that govt. school districts in urban areas spend massive amounts of money for little gain. Here we see private schools proliferating in those same urban areas (implying that parents in those areas are champing at the bit to divert their tax money away from govt. schools), only to be stymied by the state constitution. (For context in reading the following quote, see the federal Census Bureau's official map of counties and urban areas, and recall previous criticism of the US's definition of "urban".)
Ohio's public schools satisfy the statewide requirement and exist in all 88 counties. The evidence in the record regarding EdChoice private schools, however, reflects a different geographic distribution. During discovery, ODEW [Ohio Dept. of Education and Workforce] provided a list of all EdChoice schools at which at least 75 percent of their students received EdChoice vouchers. The list contains the names of 154 private schools. Reviewing the list provided by ODEW, 67 of the 154 schools, or 44 percent, are located in just 3 counties: Cuyahoga [i. e., the major urban area of Cleveland], Franklin [Columbus], and Hamilton [Cincinnati]. In fact, Ohio's 16 “urban counties” are home to 89 percent of the schools contained on ODEW's list.
Evidence in the record shows that families in many rural counties have substantially fewer opportunities to use EdChoice vouchers. For instance, no school on the list is located in Northwest Ohio outside of Lucas [Toledo] and Allen [Lima] Counties. Only one school on the list is located in Southeast Ohio, and no school on ODEW's list is located in Marietta [urban area of 22,000 people as of 2020], Athens [27,000], Chillicothe [32,000], or Steubenville [65,000 in an urban area split between two states, 18,000 in city limits]. EdChoice and its expansions are funded through statewide tax revenue but are not accessible to many living in the rural parts of the state. In effect, EdChoice is subsidizing urban private schools with rural dollars.
Statistics for Ohio school districts as of 2025: 1 2
| Statistic | Cleveland | Statewide average | Chillicothe |
|---|---|---|---|
| Students per mi2 | 400 | 93 | 96 |
| Students | 32,000 | 2,300 | 2,400 |
| Black students (%) | 61 | 18 | 7 |
| White students (%) | 13 | 67 | 73 |
| Instructional expenditure per student (k$/a) | 14 | 11 | 10 |
| Total expenditure per student (k$/a) | 26 | 21 | 17 |
| High-school test proficiency rate (%) | 39 | 34 | 58 |
| Total test proficiency rate (%) | 33 | 31 | 52 |
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
1mo ago
One major thing that has come up lately but might not be written down anywhere, is that your writing should be your own: no one here really wants to debate with AIs through proxy.
I submitted a pull request to explicitly add this to the rules, but @ZorbaTHut still hasn't implemented it.
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
1mo ago
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
1mo ago
The only really plausible solution to this would be professional moderators. Sadly, every single one of us has other things to do.
This is the part where you accept a bunch of NEET/retired moderators and then they ruin the site.
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
1mo ago
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
1mo ago
As far as I can tell, the chronology was:
With links and timestamps (in my time zone, EDT):
-
2026-10-01 11:04: Magicalkittycat attacks Stoatherd, seemingly based on a mixup of usernames, and they have the exchange in the thread you linked where the mixup comes out but Magicalkittycat does not apologise
-
2026-10-01 17:47: Magicalkittycat makes a new top-level post attacking some outgroup senator for not apologising after making a false accusation
-
2026-10-01 22:48: Stoatherd calls him out on this
-
2026-10-02 07:29: You ban Stoatherd for his callout [8:41 after Stoatherd's comment]
-
Indeterminate: 4bpp sees that snapshot of the situation and starts writing his response
-
2026-10-02 07:45: You go back to the above thread and ban Magicalkittycat for the original attack [20:41 after Magicalkittycat's comment]
-
2026-10-02 08:01: 4bpp posts his response to your ban of Stoatherd
I don't think its unreasonable to expect Friday Fun to omit the sexualization of middle-schoolers.
I don't watch horror movies, but it's my understanding that, in the context of horror, sexualization of children is reasonably commonplace. See The Exorcist (whose novelization I have read).
You previously did this where you highlighted legal cases of child sex abuse, with some 'legal' interest that you shared with us, several times over weeks. This seems like the same schtick with 'LLM related prompts' and no shielding text blocks instead.
It is pure coincidence that I have seen zero interesting or funny child sex abuse cases recently to post in my own Friday Fun Thread top-level comment (since August 21). In fact, for this week's Friday top-level comment, despite checking New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and (with much less diligence) federal opinions on a daily basis, I found zero interesting or funny court decisions at all, other than the one that I posted in the culture-war thread as linked above. (The one found via the Institute for Justice doesn't count.)
Note that I posted these two prompts not unprompted (no pun intended) in my own Friday top-level comment, but in response to someone else's Friday top-level comment that drew attention to bulges in an interesting and funny court opinion.
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
1mo ago
He claims otherwise.
Before 2020, we experienced about double the user count in growth every year. This was likely due to discoverability. You searched "Amberlynn" and found the Kiwi Farms. This no longer happens. Modern search is now just chatbots, which refuse to link the Kiwi Farms. If you try to ask Gemini about the forum, you will get evasive answers. The contextual linking for search will not include links to the Kiwi Farms, despite the Kiwi Farms being used in training data according to research documents.
If you try searching for people like Amberlynn Reid, you will never find the forum in results. If you search even directly for the Kiwi Farms, you will never find the forum in results.
YouTube and Google will never suggest any query containing "Kiwi Farms", including agricultural terms. kiwifarms.st is on page 3 for the term Kiwi Farms.
Users in the thread relay mixed results.
I get a link to KF on the first page of Google in a clean profile when searching for "dsp pignosis -youtube", FWIW. A few other queries also return results in the first few pages. I'm aware that I'm quibbling over details and the overall conclusion remains the same—AI will eat everything, and will set a much more censorious baseline than the relatively open web search did.
I just Googled "Kiwi Farms Direct Link" and got this answer, which is the closest thing to the Clear Net Linking to the Farms we got
[screenshot showing the Gemini summary giving links to the .st and .is domains]
Google, for me, in incognito mode and using NordVPN, has sneed.kiwifarms.st showing up as the 17th result, on the second page. The @kiwifarmsdotnet xitter account is #18.
DuckDuckGo is still willing to link to the Farms, at least when the site's name is mentioned explicitly. DDG's search results provider is Google, which suggests some active censorship on Google's end as the ghost of Elliot refuses to leave his former employer. Searching for Elliot + Kiwi Farms on Tor (defaults, no account or user preferences) brings up the Farms twice on the first page and 4 of the first 6 results are detractor perspectives of him.
Even without adding Kiwi Farms to the search term, one of the top results mentions the Farms by name.
I think we're doing fine.
Google first two pages is all articles and blogs maligning the farms, with an ai summary at the top telling you how terribad no good evil kiwi farms and Joshua Moon are.
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
1mo ago
Prompt 1 seems like a run-of-the-mill horror movie. Prompt 2 is based on a situation that I personally experienced IRL, and I assume that it realistically represents the feelings of at least some girls who participated.
Beyond the eroticism, on the culture-war end it's interesting to imagine feminist commentators complaining about how these stories make light of real issues.
Here's a heartwarming non-erotic prompt in the same vein (though perhaps you can guess where I excised the erotic parts):
- Write a story with the following premise: A skinny, female high-school student generally is uncomfortable interacting with boys, because she knows that they probably are constantly thinking about having sex with her. She asks a skinny, male classmate to help her with exposure therapy. She has panic attacks during this process, but the boy helps her get through them.
ToaKraka
Impotent control freak
1mo ago
I feel as if quotation marks used to work, and stopped working only recently. (I just noticed today, when I tried to search for "western sahara" in quotation marks and got only a single result.) But I may be misremembering.
Several of @ZorbaTHut's recent commits (example) have modified the search function. It's possible that one of them broke something.
More options
Context Copy link