$TARSTRK

🍃 𖥔.˖ Fan Account ˖.𖥔 🍃
˖.𖥔 ݁ ˖ ⊹ ࣪ ˖ Slayyyter x Lady Gaga ˖ ࣪ ⊹ ˖ ݁ 𖥔.˖
𖥔.˖ He/Him ˖.𖥔

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@WaterIsSmackin @mysteryfog67 @slut4yourfather @tiramisuubear @FBI Not my dialogue man just was curious lol

[MomVT 🐻 @MomVT_]

Bringing this one back for International Cosplay Day! Managed to pull this together 3 days before I gave birth to my youngest.

[KⱯTIEKAT @ThatsSoKatie44]

we should all just ꓘ*II ourselves atp

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@walsh_packard @nimbostrategic @DRodbone @JohnFrost157937 Grok ai literally had a huge ai cp issue earlier this year (and still ongoing)

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@mokacc1no @Astaralith No u don’t understand we can’t divert resources from the Juno/Mercy/kiri skin funding

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@WaterIsSmackin @mysteryfog67 @slut4yourfather @tiramisuubear @FBI Was that response ai generated too I’m curious

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@renewedro @ausss3n Literally just scroll through the comments dummy

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@WantSomeOnika_ She’s literally maga idk what y’all were thinking was gonna happen

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@t_e_n_e_b_r_i_s Me being a ball player, not even doing the particularly well and the team next fight walks out as hog Cass mei mitzuki ana

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@User204717 @DBDjipx @SpooknJukes Funny bc that’s isn’t true, bc DS against trapper is 100x stronger than blight who can just immediately catch up to you

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

Truly believe the hate train on Billie eilish is from her pissing off the right winged ppl saying billionaires should do more, reminds me of chappel roan earlier this year….

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@maxvampiii All she ever said was billionaires should do more btw

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@ThePopFlop @billieeilish Billie: “I think billionaires should do more to give back to the community” and then donates 20% of her net worth
But apparently she’s a hypocrite for just saying that

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@slayyyter @yyycord Ok but can u pretty pretty please

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@UnravCurio101 @gardenofgag Slayyyter isn’t rlly mainstream quite yet but Billie for sure

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@skoolipad Me being high asf with cottonmouth…….

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@ChadyJ12 @lmaojank He was never a business man he was a CON MAN and was always really good at scamming stupid people!! He famously said he’d run as a republican bc Americans are stupid!! How can anyone be shocked by anything he does

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

@erenfromtargets Idc if someone uses AI from now on I’m just gonna assume they’re okay with this

[$TARSTRK @STARSTRKXX]

If you use AI from here on out, you are just as bad as these men I don’t care

[Pop Base @PopBase]

A federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to privately possess images or videos of child sexual abuse created using AI — if the material does not depict a real person and remains in the home.

The court relied on Supreme Court precedents Stanley v. Georgia (1969), which established protections for the private possession of obscene material in the home, and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), which ruled that certain virtual depictions involving no real children are protected by the First Amendment.

The defendant in the case, Steven Anderegg, was charged with producing and distributing obscene AI-generated images and sending them to a minor over Instagram. The possession charge was dismissed under the Supreme Court precedents.

The judge panel in the case has asked the Supreme Court to “reconsider legal precedents that predate advances in AI.”

(https://t.co/dB9uM8NG4c)

[Pop Base @PopBase]

A federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to privately possess images or videos of child sexual abuse created using AI — if the material does not depict a real person and remains in the home.

The court relied on Supreme Court precedents Stanley v. Georgia (1969), which established protections for the private possession of obscene material in the home, and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), which ruled that certain virtual depictions involving no real children are protected by the First Amendment.

The defendant in the case, Steven Anderegg, was charged with producing and distributing obscene AI-generated images and sending them to a minor over Instagram. The possession charge was dismissed under the Supreme Court precedents.

The judge panel in the case has asked the Supreme Court to “reconsider legal precedents that predate advances in AI.”

(https://t.co/dB9uM8NG4c)