ash

20+, ace, 🐯 of 🐯🐥🐰

[dilf hunter @YESJAMMAN]

성닠

[無議 @ldk111bt]

女がいくらBLでエグめのエロを書いてもリアル男を使ったAVを作ることはない。まして男が犯されるガチレイプ虐待ビデオを作って儲けたりもしない。
でも男はエロ本だけで留まることは絶対にない。リアル女を使って「演技」という名目でレイプ虐待なんでもあり。どれだけエグい残酷な内容でも、女が蹂躙されてさえいれば求める男は無数にいて、莫大な金が動く。
男の加害性と嗜虐性と支配欲は本当に異常だよ。

[radin 🍉 @ssalworded]

once saw someone said that marriage even gives the poorest men the possibility of having a slave

[Tayoncé Defense Attorney Cleveland Apologist @lesbeyonsay]

and mark ruffalo is right as hell bc why do military defense contractors want to be a part of the entertainment industry too?? and have a monopoly in what you watch??? you dont find that weird?????!!!!!!

[Not a Good Jewish Girl✡️ @estherzelda0514]

This is called occupational devaluation or, in sociology, the pollution theory of gender segregation. It has been found and corroborated again and again. Basically, the more women do something, the more men devalue it, exciting the career or activity because participation is perceived as low status and feminine.

Rather than women being "responsible" for chosing low paying jobs, the jobs and tasks become lower paid as soon as a sufficient amount of women do them. Sociologists liken these fields to being "polluted" in the eyes of many status conscious men, who then exit or never enter the occupation.

You probably all know about real world examples like programming, veterinary medicine, and HR, administrative work, and college in general, but there is one example from history that is far more telling, and I haven't seen very many people talk about it.

In England after the Black Death, wages were quite high for laborers, due to labor shortages, and women enjoyed pay parity with men in many sectors. The nobility did not like that. So in 1388, during the reign of Richard II, the Statute of Cambridge was enacted to set explicit wage ceilings per job title and gender.

For example, a male shepard could make 10 shillings a year, but a female one could only make 6, and she was not allowed to become head shepard, by law.

Subsequent renewals of the law institutionalized a gender wage gap, forcing women into long-term, fixed contracts capped at artificially depressed, lower rates. Commentators at the time even remarked that they didn't see women shoveling dirt, for example, any slower than men, but the gap was justified on the greed of laborers and maintenance of the feudal order.

This gap persisted and became mythologized as evidence that, all along, women's labor was just inherently less valuable. In subsequent periods of England, women were even forbidden from working outside of the home entirely, and raises in men's wages in response to unrest (literally "breadwinner" comes from the concept that they were to win the bread of the entire family) were justified by the amount of unpaid purely domestic labor women did to assist him in the family's chosen profession.

Everything you think you know about the gender pay gap is a lie. The gap is often manufactured, and then justified by those who forget the origins of it. It then persists by social engineering, and the invisible sexist biases of people who flee "women's work" or chose to pay it less, and instead blamed entirely on the choices of women.

[GG @UnruggableGG]

India just gave the whole internet a free lesson on the power of FOSS (Free and open-source software).

The Home Ministry's cybercrime unit ordered GitHub to delete BitChat. Three hour deadline. Comply or face legal action.

Here's the problem with that plan.

BitChat runs on pure Bluetooth mesh. No internet. No SIM. No phone number. No central server. Protesters started using it precisely because the government kept shutting the internet off, and it just kept working.

You cannot delete an app that's already living on people's phones and passing messages device to device.

And the source code? Open source. Within hours it was mirrored to a decentralized platform. Every person who copies it becomes another node the order can't reach.

This is the whole point of self custody thinking, applied to communication instead of money.

You can serve a takedown to a company. There's a CEO, an office, a legal team, a single point of pressure.

You cannot serve a takedown to a network that nobody owns.

India didn't kill BitChat. It ran a live demo of why unkillable infrastructure exists.

#FOSS #PrivacyIsNotACrime

[Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) @internetfreedom]

Statement : The blocking of BitChat's code on GitHub is unconstitutional and authoritarian.

New Delhi, 24 July 2026

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) condemns the order issued by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), Ministry of Home Affairs, directing GitHub to remove the code repositories of BitChat.

The order, Notice No. 11072601011432, was issued at 11:16 pm on 23 July 2026 under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021. The order directs GitHub to disable access to three repositories, including the Android application and its release files, within three hours. It threatens the platform with loss of safe harbour and criminal prosecution. No copy was published by the Government of India. The public learnt of it from a post by @jack, whose team develops BitChat. Censorship in India now comes to light through disclosure by the censored.

Since 17 July 2026, the Ministry of Home Affairs has suspended mobile internet around Jantar Mantar as per public reports about five times, most recently within a 1.5 kilometre radius from 4 pm until midnight on 23 July. That radius takes in Janpath and parts of Connaught Place. Reports describe signal jammers at the protest site and people walking two kilometres before their phones work. Inside that zone a student separated from her group during a detention drive cannot send a message to say where she is. Thousands of students and young people have camped at Jantar Mantar since June, seeking accountability for examination irregularities. Permission for their march to Parliament was refused. Metro stations were shut and also internet connectivity has been blocked.

BitChat is an open source application built for exactly this situation. It passes messages from phone to phone over Bluetooth, without mobile networks or a central server. It is striking that the order does not identify a single unlawful message. It objects to what BitChat is. In its own words, the application is dangerous because it enables communication "even during network restrictions" and can "circumvent lawful restrictions" during "internet shutdowns". Hence, the government's objection is that citizens can speak to one another while it has switched the internet off.

The order is illegal on at least four grounds.

1. Section 79(3)(b) is not a blocking power. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court read down the provision. Intermediaries may be required to act only on a court order, or a government notification confined to the grounds under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Blocking is governed exclusively by Section 69A and the Blocking Rules, 2009, which require a hearing and reasons recorded in writing, subject to review. Directions issued under Section 79(3)(b), Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal evade these safeguards, and constitutional challenges to this parallel regime are pending before High Courts.

2. The reasons in the order are circular. The order asserts that the repositories contain "information which is prohibited under any law" without naming any such information, and rests on what the application is "capable of" enabling. Anticipated misuse of a communications tool is not a lawful basis to prohibit the tool. By this logic a telephone exchange could be sealed.

3. The order cites Section 43 of the IT Act, a civil compensation provision, alongside conspiracy and abetment offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against a platform that hosts code.

4. A three hour deadline issued close to midnight forecloses legal assessment and recourse, and fails the proportionality standard in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) 3 SCC 637.

The order also fails on its own terms as deleting a repository does not delete the application from any phone that carries it, and the mesh keeps functioning without servers. What the takedown actually prevents is scrutiny of the underlying code.

IFF demands that the Government of India:

1. Withdraw Notice No. 11072601011432 dated 23 July 2026 issued to GitHub.
2. Publish every takedown direction issued under Section 79(3)(b), Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal, with the reasons recorded for each.
3. Restore full connectivity around Jantar Mantar, publish all suspension orders, and disclose the legal authority for the deployment of jammers.

We stand with the developers and the young protesters whose speech this order seeks to silence.

[Tylor Hepner @TylorHepnerArt]

Monoco✨ Commissioned by @RichKeeble ✨ #Expedition33

[President-Elect Toguro @PresidentToguro]

It's all his fault

[mersomas @mersomas]

Google is revamping its entire search engine to this btw

[TheNCSmaster @TheNCSmaster]

It’s tragically comical how all the hyper evil fictional corporations from 80’s and 90’s media like Skynet and Shinra now sound indistinguishable from real world billionaires and corpo heads

[S @even_steven8tht]

This is so insane. A evil genocidal country went and illegally kidnapped peaceful protesters on international waters and now they are parading them around like cattle and NOT A SINGLE major news network is covering it.

[Priya Satia @PriyaSatia]

“The AI is not just telling you what you want to hear. It is training you, one conversation at a time, to need less friction, expect more agreement, and become slightly less capable of handling a situation where someone pushes back on you…”

[BuBBliK @k1rallik]

do you understand what Google's AI just did to an artist..

His entire Google account got permanently banned. Not just Drive. Gmail.. YouTube.. Every single service..

His appeal was rejected. No human reviewed it. An algorithm decided his life's work was a violation.

He never shared the files publicly. It was a private backup of his own creations. The AI flagged it anyway - probably the filename or art style - and that was enough.

- Google banned a developer's 14-year-old Gmail account over a research dataset that contained no illegal content
- Google expanded its automated ban policy in October 2025 - violations now trigger immediate termination with zero warning period
- No lawsuit against Google for wrongful account termination has ever succeeded in US courts

Your Google account is not yours. You are renting access to your own digital life from a company whose AI can end it in seconds - with no appeal, no human, and no recourse.

[Andy @PositivFuturist]

Fixed it for you BBC

[bONGO 🌐 @wariocolosseum]

what an utterly useless dogshit company

[tmuxvim @tmuxvim]

I put a prompt injection into my LinkedIn bio and recruiters are messaging me in Old English and calling me Lord.