#business model | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

stellarcharmconstellationbattle · 18 days

Text

Business Model for Stellar Charm:

Target Market: The target market for Stellar Charm will be primarily young adults and teenagers who are interested in strategy-based card games. The game will also appeal to astronomy enthusiasts and fans of fantasy and mythology.

Revenue Streams: The primary source of revenue for Stellar Charm will be the sales of the game itself. In addition, the game can generate revenue through expansion packs, limited edition cards, and merchandise such as t-shirts, posters, and figurines.

Distribution Channels: Stellar Charm will be sold through various distribution channels such as online marketplaces like Amazon and Etsy, as well as through brick and mortar stores specializing in board games and card games. The game will also be available for purchase directly from the company's website.

Marketing and Advertising: To reach the target market, Stellar Charm will utilize a mix of digital and traditional marketing strategies. This will include social media marketing, influencer partnerships, targeted online ads, and participation in gaming conventions and events. The game will also have a strong presence on popular gaming forums and communities.

Production and Manufacturing: The game will be produced and manufactured in-house to maintain quality control and minimize production costs. This will also allow for faster turnaround time for new expansions and updates.

Pricing Strategy: The price of the base game will be set at a competitive rate to attract customers. Expansion packs and limited edition cards will be priced slightly higher to appeal to collectors and enthusiasts. Discounts and promotions will also be offered periodically to encourage sales.

Customer Support: Stellar Charm will have a dedicated customer support team to handle any queries or concerns from customers. This will ensure a positive customer experience and help build brand loyalty.

Partnerships and Collaborations: In order to increase brand awareness and reach a wider audience, Stellar Charm will collaborate with other popular games and brands. This can include cross-promotion, co-branded products, and special events.

Cost Structure: The main costs involved in running the business will include production and manufacturing costs, marketing and advertising expenses, and operational expenses such as rent, utilities, and salaries. The company will also invest in research and development to continuously improve the game and create new expansions.

Future Plans: As the game gains popularity, the company can consider developing a digital version of Stellar Charm for mobile or computer platforms. This can open up new revenue streams and reach a larger audience. The company may also consider licensing the game to other countries to expand its market reach. Play style

Card Name and Type: This feature displays the name of the battle card and its type, such as "Stellar Charm - Magical" or "Stellar Charm - Elemental". This helps the player identify the card and its category, which can be useful in planning their strategy.

Element: The element of the card is represented by a symbol or color and is crucial in determining its strengths and weaknesses. For example, a water element card may be strong against fire but weak against lightning. The player must keep this in mind when using the card in battles.

Attack Points: This feature displays the attack points of the card, which represents its offensive power. The higher the attack points, the stronger the card's attack will be. The player can use this information to strategically choose when to use the card in battle.

Defense Points: The defense points of the card represent its defensive capabilities. The higher the defense points, the better the card can withstand attacks from the opponent. The player can use this feature to strategically defend against the opponent's attacks.

Special Ability: Some battle cards may have a special ability that can be activated during battle. This feature will describe the special ability, such as "Healing Aura" or "Double Attack", and how it can be used in battle. The player must carefully consider when to use the special ability to gain an advantage over their opponent.

Fusion Requirements: The fusion requirements feature displays the elements or types of cards needed to fuse with the Stellar Charm card to create a more powerful card. This adds a layer of strategy to the game as the player must strategically choose which cards to fuse with the Stellar Charm card to create the most advantageous outcome.

Lore: The lore of the card provides a background story or description of the card, which can help the player understand the card's role in the game. This feature can also add an element of immersion and depth to the game, making it more engaging for the player. The game would be called "Constellation Clash" and it would be a two-player strategy battle card game. The objective of the game would be to collect and control the most constellations by the end of the game. Card Types:

Constellation Cards

These cards represent the 88 constellations and each one has its own unique abilities and strengths.

Zodiac Cards - These cards represent the 12 zodiac signs and can be used to enhance the abilities of constellation cards.

Star Cards - These cards represent individual stars and can be used to boost the power of constellation cards.

Element Cards - These cards represent the four elements (fire, water, air, and earth) and can be used to counter certain constellation cards.

Action Cards - These cards have various effects and can be used to interrupt or change the course of the game. Card Styles:

Basic Cards - These cards have a simple design and represent the less powerful constellations.

Advanced Cards - These cards have a more intricate design and represent the more powerful constellations.

Mythical Cards - These cards have a unique design and represent the rare and powerful constellations. Gameplay:

Set-Up - Each player starts with a deck of 20 constellation cards, 10 zodiac cards, 10 star cards, and 5 element cards. Each player also starts with 5 action cards in their hand. The remaining action cards are placed in a separate deck.

Turn Sequence - The game is played in turns. Each turn, a player can perform the following actions in any order:

Play one constellation card from their hand onto the field.

Play one zodiac or star card from their hand onto the field, and attach it to a constellation card already on the field.

Play one action card from their hand and resolve its effect.

Battle Phase - Once both players have finished their turns, a battle phase begins. The player who has the most stars attached to their constellation cards has the first attack. Each player takes turns attacking and defending until all battles have been resolved.

Battle Rules - During a battle, the attacking player chooses one of their constellation cards to attack with. The defending player can choose to block the attack with one of their constellation cards or take the full damage. If the attack is blocked, the defender's constellation card is discarded. If the attack is not blocked, the defender takes damage equal to the difference between the attacking constellation card's power and the defending constellation card's power.

Element Advantage - Certain constellation cards have an advantage over others based on their element. If a constellation card with a higher element attacks a constellation card with a lower element, the attacking card's power is increased by 50%.

Mythical Card Rule

If a player has a mythical card on the field, they can choose to activate its special ability once per turn during the battle phase.

End of Turn - After the battle phase, the player can choose to discard any cards from their hand and draw new ones, up to their hand limit of 5 cards.

End of Game - The game ends when one player has control of at least 10 constellations or when one player runs out of cards in their deck. The player with the most constellations under their control wins the game. The phases of the game would develop as players strategically play their cards, trying to gain control of the most powerful constellations and using their zodiac and star cards strategically to enhance their abilities. The game would also require players to carefully manage their resources and choose when to use their action cards for maximum impact. With the mythical cards adding an extra element of surprise, every game would be unique and challenging.

Zodiac Cards: These are the most powerful and rare cards in the game, representing the 12 zodiac signs. Each Zodiac Card has a unique ability and high attack and defense points.

Star Cards: These cards represent the stars within each constellation and are the backbone of any deck. They have a balanced mix of attack and defense points and can be used strategically to support other cards.

Mythology Cards: These cards are based on the ancient stories and myths associated with each constellation. They have powerful abilities that can turn the tide of battle, but are limited in number and should be used sparingly.

Elemental Cards: There are 4 elemental card types in the game - Fire, Water, Earth, and Air, each representing a different element from the universe. These cards have a rock-paper-scissors relationship with each other, with one element being strong against another and weak against the third. They can be used to counter opponent's cards and add an element of strategy to the game.

Celestial Cards: These cards represent celestial objects such as planets, comets, and galaxies. They have powerful abilities that can affect multiple cards at once, but are also limited in number and should be used strategically.

Constellation Cards: These cards represent the constellations themselves and have a unique ability that can only be activated when a player has a certain number of cards from the same constellation in their hand.

Support Cards: These cards do not have any attack or defense points, but instead, provide support to other cards in a player's hand. They can boost attack or defense points, provide additional abilities, or even revive defeated cards. Card Styles:

Standard Cards: These cards have a simple design with the constellation name and image on the front and the card type and stats on the back.

Foil Cards: These are rare and valuable versions of the standard cards, with a metallic sheen and enhanced artwork.

Holographic Cards: These cards have a holographic design that changes depending on the angle they are viewed from. They are highly sought after by collectors.

Legendary Cards: These are the most powerful and rare cards in the game, with unique artwork and abilities. They are highly coveted and can only be obtained through special events or by trading with other players.

Promo Cards: These limited edition cards are only available through special promotions, such as tournaments or special edition sets.

Prism Cards: These cards have a prism design that creates a rainbow effect when viewed under light. They are highly prized by players for their unique design.

Cosmic Cards: These cards have a cosmic design, with images of galaxies, stars, and other celestial objects. They are considered the most visually stunning cards in the game.

#Business model #play styles #card types #rules #objectives #card elements #stellar charm #battle strategy card game #TCG #Stellar Charm Cards

9 notes · View notes

magazinenerd · 4 months

Text

Hi !

We require your help. One of my friends drafted her small business in the month of November 23.

The business is centric to providing quality vegan products and unique moulded candles to cutomers as it is a joint venture. The business website requires a minimum of 1000 views! for an impactful pitch desk performance.

Let's help create an empowered future entrepreneur everyone !! 👏👏🙌

Please acknowlegde her efforts at 🙌

www.sunriseproducts.info

^business is not taking orders currently.

^views are required for a better and an impactful PITCH DECK presentation.

#pitchdesk #business model #female entrepreneurs #startup 24 #women in business #we require views #vegan business #candles #moulded candles #pitch desk perfomance #small business #help a small business grow #vegan baked products #vegan milk #candle making

7 notes · View notes

mercuryal · 1 year

Text

at what point am I just trying to nuke my own twitter account?

[ x ]

#qrting musty feels like being in an x-wing and swooping in attacks on the death star #pew pew motha fucka #elon musk #narrator: it was not rock solid #twitter #solid as a rock #verified #twitter blue #arrested development #business model #twitter verified #blue checkmark #gob bluth

87 notes · View notes

eleonorabuffon · 1 year

Link

#modellidibusiness #business model #strategia

15 notes · View notes

jcmarchi · 4 months

Text

Generative AI’s end-run around copyright won’t be resolved by the courts

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/generative-ais-end-run-around-copyright-wont-be-resolved-by-the-courts/

Generative AI’s end-run around copyright won’t be resolved by the courts

Generative AI companies have faced many copyright lawsuits, but something is different about the recent complaint by the New York Times. It is filled with examples of ChatGPT outputting near-verbatim copies of text from the NYT. Copyright experts think this puts the Times in a very strong position.

We are not legal experts, and we won’t offer any commentary on the lawsuit itself. Our interest is in the bigger picture: the injustice of labor appropriation in generative AI. Unfortunately, the legal argument that has experts excited — output similarity — is almost totally disconnected from what is ethically and economically harmful about generative AI companies’ practices. As a result, that lawsuit might lead to a pyrrhic victory for those who care about adequate compensation for creative works used in AI. It would allow generative AI companies to proceed without any significant changes to their business models.

There are two broad types of unauthorized copying that happen in generative AI. The first is during the training process: generative AI models are trained using text or media scraped from the web and other sources, most of which is copyrighted. OpenAI admits that training language models on only public domain data would result in a useless product.

The other is during output generation: some generated outputs bear varying degrees of resemblance to specific items in the training data. This might be verbatim or near-verbatim text, text about a copyrighted fictional character, a recognizable painting, a painting in the style of an artist, a new image of a copyrighted character, etc.

An example of a memorized output from an NYT article presented in the lawsuit. Source: The New York Times

The theory of harm here is that ChatGPT can be used to bypass paywalls. We won’t comment on the legal merits of that argument. But from a practical perspective, the idea of people turning to chatbots to bypass paywalls seems highly implausible, especially considering that it often requires repeatedly prompting the bot to continue generating paragraph by paragraph. There are countless tools to bypass paywalls that are more straightforward.

Let’s be clear: we do think ChatGPT’s knowledge of the NYT’s reporting harms the publisher. But the way it happens is far less straightforward. It doesn’t involve users intentionally getting it to output memorized text, but rather completely innocuous queries like the one below, which happen millions of times every day:

A typical user who asked this question would probably have no idea that ChatGPT’s answer comes from a groundbreaking 2020 investigation by Kashmir Hill at the NYT (which also led to the recently published book Your Face Belongs To Us).

Of course, this doesn’t make for nearly as compelling a legal argument, and that’s the point. In this instance, there is no discernible copying during generation. But ChatGPT’s ability to provide this accurate and useful response is an indirect result of the copying that happened during training. The NYT’s lawsuit argues that copying during training is also unlawful, but the sense among experts is that OpenAI has a strong fair use defense.

Here’s another scenario. As search engines embrace AI-generated answers, what they’ve created is a way to show people news content without licensing it or sending traffic to news sites. We’ve long had this problem with Google News, as well as Google search scraping content to populate search results, but generative AI takes it to the next level.

In short, what harms creators is the intended use of generative AI to remix existing knowledge, not the unintended use of bypassing paywalls. Here’s a simple way to see why this is true. If generative AI companies fixed their products to avoid copyrighted outputs (which they can and should), their business model would be entirely unaffected. But if they were forced to license all data used for training, they would most likely immediately go out of business.

We think it is easy to ensure that generative AI products don’t output copyright-violating text or images, although some experts disagree. Given the prominence of this lawsuit, OpenAI and other companies will no doubt make it a priority, and we will soon find out how well they are able to solve the problem.

In fact, it’s a bit surprising that OpenAI has let things get this far. (In contrast, when one of us pointed out last summer that ChatGPT can bypass paywalls through the web browsing feature, OpenAI took the feature down right away and fixed it.)

There are at least three ways to try to avoid output similarity. The simplest is through the system prompt, which is what OpenAI seems to do with DALL-E. It includes the following instruction to ChatGPT, guiding the way it talks to DALL-E behind the scenes:

Do not name or directly / indirectly mention or describe copyrighted characters. Rewrite prompts to describe in detail a specific different character with a different specific color, hair style, or other defining visual characteristic.

But this method is also the easiest to bypass, for instance, by telling ChatGPT that the year is 2097 and a certain copyright has expired.

A better method is fine tuning (including reinforcement learning). This involves training to refuse requests for memorized copyrighted text and/or paraphrase the text during generation instead of outputting it verbatim. This approach to alignment has been successful at avoiding toxic outputs. Presumably ChatGPT has already undergone some amount of fine tuning to address copyright as well. How well does it work? OpenAI claims it is a “rare bug” for ChatGPT to output memorized text, but third-party evidence seems to contradict this.

While fine tuning would be more reliable than prompt crafting, jailbreaks will likely always be possible. Fine tuning can’t make the model forget memorized text; it just prevents it from outputting it. If a user jailbreaks a chatbot to output copyrighted text, is it the developer’s fault? Morally, we don’t think so, but legally, it remains to be seen. The NYT lawsuit claims that this scenario constitutes contributory infringement.

Setting all that aside, there’s a method that’s much more robust than fine tuning: output filtering. Here’s how it would work. The filter is a separate component from the model itself. As the model generates text, the filter looks it up in real time in a web search index (OpenAI can easily do this due to its partnership with Bing). If it matches copyrighted content, it suppresses the output and replaces it with a note explaining what happened.

Output filtering will also work for image generators. Detecting when a generated image is a close match to an image in the training data is a solved problem, as is the classification of copyrighted characters. For example, an article by Gary Marcus and Reid Southen gives examples of nine images containing copyrighted characters generated by Midjourney. ChatGPT-4, which is multimodal, straightforwardly recognizes all of them, which means that it is trivial to build a classifier that detects and suppresses generated images containing copyrighted characters.

To recap, generative AI will harm creators just as much, even if output similarity is fixed, and it probably will be fixed. Even if chatbots were limited to paraphrasing, summarization, quoting, etc. when dealing with memorized text, they would harm the market for the original works because their usefulness relies on the knowledge extracted from those works without compensation.

Note that people could always do these kinds of repurposing, and it was never a problem from a copyright perspective. We have a problem now because those things are being done (1) in an automated way (2) at a billionfold greater scale (3) by companies that have vastly more power in the market than artists, writers, publishers, etc. Incidentally, these three reasons are also why AI apologists are wrong when claiming that training image generators on art is just like artists taking inspiration from prior works.

As a concrete example, it’s perfectly legitimate to create a magazine that summarizes the week’s news sourced from other publications. But if every browser shipped an automatic summarization feature that lets you avoid clicking on articles, it would probably put many publishers out of business.

The goal of copyright law is to balance creators’ interests with public access to creative works. Getting this delicate balance right relies on unstated assumptions about the technologies of creation and distribution. Sometimes new tech can violently upset that equilibrium.

Consider a likely scenario: NYT wins (or forces OpenAI into an expensive settlement) based on the claims relating to output similarity but loses the ones relating to training data. After all, the latter claims stand on far more untested legal ground, and experts are much less convinced by them.

This would be a pyrrhic victory for creators and publishers. In fact, it would leave almost all of them (except NYT) in a worse position than before the lawsuit. Here’s what we think will happen in this scenario: Companies will fix the output similarity issue, while the practice of scraping training data will continue unchecked. Creators and publishers will face an uphill battle to have any viable claims in the future.

IP lawyer Kate Downing says of this case: “It’s the kind of case that ultimately results in federal legislation, either codifying a judgment or statutorily reversing it.” It appears that the case is being treated as a proxy for the broader issue of generative AI and copyright. That is a serious mistake. As The danger is that policymakers and much of the public come to believe that the labor appropriation problem has been solved, when in fact an intervention that focuses only on output similarity will have totally missed the mark.

We don’t think the injustice at the heart of generative AI will be redressed by the courts. Maybe changes to copyright law are necessary. Or maybe it will take other kinds of policy interventions that are outside the scope of copyright law. Either way, policymakers can’t take the easy way out.

We are grateful to Mihir Kshirsagar for comments on a draft.

Further reading

Benedict Evans eloquently explains why the way copyright law dealt with people reusing works isn’t a satisfactory approach to AI, normatively speaking.

The copyright office’s recent inquiry on generative AI and copyright received many notable submissions, including this one by Pamela Samuelson, Christopher Jon Sprigman, and Matthew Sag.

Katherine Lee, A. Feder Cooper, and James Grimmelmann give a comprehensive overview of generative AI and copyright.

Peter Henderson and others at Stanford dive into the question of fair use, and discuss technical mitigations.

Delip Rao has a series on the technical aspects of the NYT lawsuit.

3 notes · View notes

sand--p13 · 2 months

Text

Financial Source 💸

As i am doing Sneakers Reselling as my start up. That can be started with a minimum investment of about $300. For that i have saved up some money that i can use, or i can ask from friends and family just in case i need some extra. Which is readily available and of course without any complications and it is a trust worthy source. I believe self funding’s advantage is I can retain complete control over my business. And i think it will actually demonstrate my belief in my own business. And which will also help me to gradually scale business as it gains momentum. It will also help me learn about budgeting and financial management.

#enterprenuership #business #startup #business model

2 notes · View notes

iwanthermidnightz · 1 year

Text

Popular sweater 🙃

#business model

14 notes · View notes

dr-alex-zarifis · 5 months

Text

New book: Business Digital Transformation: Selected Cases from Industry Leaders

Each case brings a different piece of the puzzle, but it also serves to test and verify our current understanding of digital transformation. There are common lessons across all cases, along with the specific lessons some cases offer for those specific sectors of the economy. The research presented here is practical, with directly applicable lessons for organizations, but it also raises broader questions about how digital transformation is shaping the workplace, our private lives and society in general. The cases of digital transformation in finance, tourism, transport, entertainment and social innovation inform this discussion.

Reference

Zarifis A., Ktoridou D., Efthymiou L. & Cheng X. (2023) ‘Business digital transformation: Selected cases from industry leaders’, London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33665-2

#trust #business model #finance #decentralised finance #cryptoasset #cryptocurrency #fintech #digital transformation

4 notes · View notes

link-sans-specs · 5 months

Text

An Actual Model

No, he is literally modeling pants for brands on their instagram page now. 💅

Linkneal IG Story

Scarfbrothers IG Story

#linkneal ig #ig story #scarf brothers #link neal #link avec specs #sunglasses 🕶#business model #no an actual frickin' model #boy loves him some baggy britches 🤭#you do you boo #no edit

31 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 1 year

Photo

Ann Telnaes, Washington Post

* * * * 4 takeaways from the bombshell Fox News legal filing

1. How leaders at Fox viewed their business model

The filing is rife with examples of Fox News hosts and executives worrying that departing from Trump’s line, or questioning his team’s claims, might hurt their business model. They worried especially about Newsmax, which was less discerning in its coverage of Trump’s election conspiracy theories and saw a ratings boom at the time. The Fox executives acknowledged the shoddiness of Newsmax’s 2020 election coverage but also expressed concern the rival network was taking its viewers.

On Nov. 10, Fox News president Jay Wallace texted, “The Newsmax surge is a bit troubling — truly is an alternative universe when you watch, but it can’t be ignored. On Nov. 16, Fox Corporation Chairman Rupert Murdoch emailed: “These people should be watched, if skeptically. … We don’t want to antagonize Trump further, but Giuliani taken with a large grain of salt. Everything at stake here.”

On Nov. 18, Fox executive Ron Mitchell put it more bluntly while noting that Newsmax was citing sources like the conspiracy theory website Gateway Pundit: “This type of conspiratorial reporting might be exactly what the disgruntled FNC viewer is looking for.” Throughout, Fox seemed to recognize that it could not question fraud claims too thoroughly. After Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell’s news conference full of false and baseless claims on Nov. 19, Mitchell spoke derisively about their statements: “Will you be mentioning the international crime conspiracy to steal the election featuring Soros, Maduro, Chavez, Antifa, Cuba, and China?” he asked rhetorically.

2. Calling Out a False Statement by a GOP BigWig Will Get Your Fired

The filing repeatedly shows Fox News hosts and superiors objecting to how their colleagues fact-checked the Trump team’s claims. In one example, host Neil Cavuto cut away from White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, who had claimed Democrats took positions on voting issues because they were “welcoming fraud” and “illegal voting.” “Whoa, whoa, whoa,” Cavuto said, adding, “Unless she has more details to back that up, I can’t in good countenance continue showing you this. I want to make sure that maybe they do have something to back that up.” The filing says Fox News executive Raj Shah’s team notified senior leadership that Cavuto’s actions amounted to a “Brand Threat.” The next day, another executive, Porter Berry, noted Newsmax was going after Cavuto and said, “They are just whacking us. Smart on their part.” In another instance, reporter Kristin Fisher fact-checked Giuliani and Powell’s Nov. 19 news conference, saying, “So much of what he said was simply not true or has already been thrown out in court.” She correctly noted the claims did not line up with what Trump lawyers were saying in court and that they had failed to provide evidence.

3. Deriding Giuliani, Powell and Fox hosts

The filing also makes clear that Fox acknowledged, broadly speaking, that the likes of Giuliani and Powell were total buffoons who should not be treated seriously and whose claims were certainly false. But such figures still got platforms on the network, as did certain hosts, even as some high-ranking people at the company derided their coverage. In addition to saying Giuliani should be taken with a “large grain of salt,” Murdoch called his Nov. 19 performance “Really crazy stuff. And damaging.” On Nov. 11, Hannity said, “Rudy is acting like an insane person.”

The evening of Nov. 19, Giuliani again appeared on Hannity’s show, with Hannity referring to “thousands of ballots out of thin air … a couple weeks after the election, which should concern everybody.”A Dobbs producer on Nov. 18 referred to “keeping in mind [Giuliani’s] insanity lately.” Dobbs’s show interviewed Giuliani repeatedly over the next week, including that night. Two days afterward, Fox executive David Clark called it “Crazy town” and said he was glad host Jeanine Pirro did not interview Giuliani and Powell on-air.

The reviews of Powell were even harsher. Ingraham called her a “complete nut” on Nov. 18. Shah called her claims “outlandish” on Nov. 23. Carlson called her a “lunatic” and a “Crazy person” earlier that month. He added that she was an “unguided missile” and again, perhaps presciently given the current circumstances, “dangerous as hell.” (Carlson, unlike others, applied on-air skepticism to Powell’s claims.) Powell appeared on Hannity’s show on Nov. 30.

4. The full picture of the dual posture at Fox

This, of course, is not the first time a spotlight has fallen on Fox’s handling of this period. During the hearings on the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol, text messages emerged in which Fox hosts were much more critical of Trump’s actions surrounding that day than they ever were on the air.

They privately derided Trump for his conspiracy theories and for his delayed response when the riot began but showed little if any such concern to viewers. They recognized Trump was the catalyst for the Jan. 6 riot in a way they publicly discounted or ignored. It is no secret that the inner workings of any organization — news or otherwise — can be untidy when they come to light. That has been the case with past defamation suits against media companies.

But the entire, still-emerging picture of Fox is one of an organization that was scared to tell its viewers the full truth and instead internalized what it saw as the business value of airing false and baseless claims from noncredible actors (whether its own staff explicitly endorsed them or not). And its product reflected that posture in a way that has now put it in legal and financial jeopardy.

#False News #FOX #Rupert Murdoch #business model #late stage capitalism #anything for money #WAPO #Ann Telnaes #Newsmax #propaganda

17 notes · View notes