#immoral use of ai

[maniacalshen]

This is 90% of Facebook now. Your relatives are getting absolutely brain-cooked by it.

We've all been taken in by a convincing AI image with a quick glance, and we all know it's getting harder to spot the fakes, but people who like and happily comment on stuff like the above really worry me.

#immoral use of ai #Facebook #have any of these people seen a real strawberry #that granny have me a jump scare BEFORE i saw her neck merge with her sweater #purse hardware #even a deformed baby wouldn't have sleeves that clip through themselves

[freakoutgirl]

Art is not an inherently moral thing, and so something being art does not absolve it of its harm. It's a vehicle of expression, that's all.

#and thats why the argument about whether ai images count as art is pointless #(ai isnt inherently immoral either. its just a tool. but people have used this to plagiarize at extreme levels) #[<- this is the post i was talking about]

[evanatsuhi]

(looks around) i think no one on this site should be allowed to talk about ai or ai art anymore until they stop getting all their information from reactionary buzzword posts

#people talking about 'memes are funny because of the effort that went into them!!' is ai killing the meme industry...? #'plagiarism isnt good just because its for a meme' sure but pretending that using ai to generate a meme image is any more immoral from you #using someones yuri fanart and editing 'me and who' onto it is completely silly lol #.txt #im sorry to say this but someone using 'ai' to generate a picture of pregnant gollum is not costing anyone a job

[hypaalicious]

One thing I will say about the A.I. art ish is that it glaringly shows how the general public doesn’t have an eye trained for art.

This is important to note because the general public is who A.I. is catered to and will give it legitimacy through ignorance.

I’ve seen regular people fawn over how good A.I. art looks. Or share random images because it “looks cool”. Some may not even know that it’s A.I.

It’s not because A.I. is actually that good; in fact, most A.I. art is downright nightmare fuel. But it’s because the average person only glances at something shiny for a maximum of 5 seconds before hitting share or like. They don’t look at details or sit in quiet appreciation of the masterpiece in front of them. If they did, they’d notice the uneven eyes, extra limbs, disconnected lines, soulless composition and sloppy rendering.

But this is how these A.I. tech enthusiasts are gonna continue to slip under the radar. They’re taking advantage of people’s blind spots and low attention span and combining that with the instant gratification of “with a few keywords and button push, you too can make beautiful art”!

I believe that’s going to be a harder hurdle to get over moreso than the other valid points folks are making about security risks from uploading pics to random software that can use them however they like (cause in the age of social media and smartphone apps especially, people don’t care what company has their face when it’s already out there), or the ethical ramifications that harm real artists (cause a lot of people simply never respected artists in the first place outside of what they output).

And it won’t stop with art. Voice actors are having their voices digitized for future use to cut costs of hiring actual VAs for projects. People are experimenting “writing” books with A.I. All of these efforts suck in quality but do you think the general public will notice or care? The same public whose attention span is collectively bout the size of a goldfish? The same public with at most a 5th grade reading level? The same public who is trained to consume media spoonfed to them algorithmically at the speed of light?

#I’m just sayin it’s not looking too good for us creatives outchea #it may take years for it to really have any sort of major impact outside of outrage #but whew I get why artists are upset asf over this #and i don’t like how some folks downplay those angry at it #like what do you want? a big fat ‘we’ve been trying to tell you and you didn’t listen’ when AI gets out of control? #but art and media literacy I think is the biggest roadblock creatives will face here in the future #and ofc capitalism even making it possible for tech like this to be used immorally

[oimatchstickman]

Overall I just think that @staff know for a fact that the selling of user data and ability to scrape the site for AI garbage should have been opt-in rather than opt-out but the higher-up people who made that decision are cowards and know that they would've never gotten enough people to opt-in to make it worth it so they're banking on most of the userbase to not even know about this and/or that all the abandoned blogs will provide enough "content" for the AIs to spit out utter garbage with 🙃

#ai should not be used to write or create art get ABSOLUTLEY WRECKED WHOEVER DECIDED THIS #ESPECIALLY about having to specifically opt out EVERY SINGLE BLOG #NOT JUST YOUR ACCOUNT. EVERY. SINGLE. SIDE. BLOG. #super duper immoral tbh!!!!!

[lwoorl]

AI art isn't bad by itself, "It doesn't have the heart real art has!" and "It looks ugly!" are absolutely meaningless criticism, and "Maybe if we all work together and don't feed them these AIs won't success!" is wishful thinking. (Although it's still good practice not to feed corporations your information)

At the end of the day AIs are just a tool that won't go away by itself, and it does have its potential for good uses you know, there's no need to demonize technological advancement. The problem is that the industry isn't ready for its widespread use without causing great levels of unemployment, and that we don't have a good infrastructure to protect people's art from being used without consent.

At the end of the day what we need to push for is regulations and labor laws, framing it as an issue of robots vs humans is regressive, and demonizing the technology itself won't create laws around it. Stop fear mongering, stop getting mad at people who are excited about the technological advancement, AI art is here and it will stay and the technology itself is a neutral thing, now let's adapt to it and push for regulations.

#I've see so many post just crying their heart outs about how AI destroys and mangles other people's images #And like. I get it? No one wants to have their stuff being used without their consent #But these posts always take a certain robots bad humans good tone to them. A 'This technology is monstrous! it shouldn't exist!' tone #idk I think we can be excited about technological advancements #AND be aware we need regulations or they'll become and issue #AND agree the companies using the lack of laws to profit using them in immoral ways are fucked up #AND accept the tool itself is a neutral thing

[tootiredforaname]

If your argument against AI art is only about how its lazy then I just am not taking that seriously I'm sorry

#it being lazy wouldnt make it bad?? it doesnt make it immoral?? #like if your only objection is kneejerk dismission then like. what are we here for #AI art wont steal jobs. companies will see that AI is cheaper than paying human beings and replace them #our protest has to focus on the actual people making these decisions and not the tools theyre using

[ukrfeminism]

The creation of sexually explicit "deepfake" images is to be made a criminal offence in England and Wales under a new law, the government says.

Under the legislation, anyone making explicit images of an adult without their consent will face a criminal record and unlimited fine.

It will apply regardless of whether the creator of an image intended to share it, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said.

And if the image is then shared more widely, they could face jail.

A deepfake is an image or video that has been digitally altered with the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace the face of one person with the face of another.

Recent years have seen the growing use of the technology to add the faces of celebrities or public figures - most often women - into pornographic films.

Channel 4 News presenter Cathy Newman, who discovered her own image used as part of a deepfake video, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was "incredibly invasive".

Ms Newman found she was a victim as part of a Channel 4 investigation into deepfakes.

"It was violating... it was kind of me and not me," she said, explaining the video displayed her face but not her hair.

Ms Newman said finding perpetrators is hard, adding: "This is a worldwide problem, so we can legislate in this jurisdiction, it might have no impact on whoever created my video or the millions of other videos that are out there."

She said the person who created the video is yet to be found.

Under the Online Safety Act, which was passed last year, the sharing of deepfakes was made illegal.

The new law will make it an offence for someone to create a sexually explicit deepfake - even if they have no intention to share it but "purely want to cause alarm, humiliation, or distress to the victim", the MoJ said.

Clare McGlynn, a law professor at Durham University who specialises in legal regulation of pornography and online abuse, told the Today programme the legislation has some limitations.

She said it "will only criminalise where you can prove a person created the image with the intention to cause distress", and this could create loopholes in the law.

It will apply to images of adults, because the law already covers this behaviour where the image is of a child, the MoJ said.

It will be introduced as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament.

Minister for Victims and Safeguarding Laura Farris said the new law would send a "crystal clear message that making this material is immoral, often misogynistic, and a crime".

"The creation of deepfake sexual images is despicable and completely unacceptable irrespective of whether the image is shared," she said.

"It is another example of ways in which certain people seek to degrade and dehumanise others - especially women.

"And it has the capacity to cause catastrophic consequences if the material is shared more widely. This Government will not tolerate it."

Cally Jane Beech, a former Love Island contestant who earlier this year was the victim of deepfake images, said the law was a "huge step in further strengthening of the laws around deepfakes to better protect women".

"What I endured went beyond embarrassment or inconvenience," she said.

"Too many women continue to have their privacy, dignity, and identity compromised by malicious individuals in this way and it has to stop. People who do this need to be held accountable."

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper described the creation of the images as a "gross violation" of a person's autonomy and privacy and said it "must not be tolerated".

"Technology is increasingly being manipulated to manufacture misogynistic content and is emboldening perpetrators of Violence Against Women and Girls," she said.

"That's why it is vital for the government to get ahead of these fast-changing threats and not to be outpaced by them.

"It's essential that the police and prosecutors are equipped with the training and tools required to rigorously enforce these laws in order to stop perpetrators from acting with impunity."

#articles #mvawg #law

[sumikatt]

(Has alt text.)

AI has human error because it is trained on “human error and inspiration”. There are models trained on specifically curated collections with images the trainer thought “looks good”, like Furry or Anime or Concept Art or Photorealistic style models. There’s that “human touch”, I suppose. These models do not make themselves, they are made by human programmers and hobbyists.

The issue is the consent of the human artists that programmers make models of. The issue—as this person did correctly identify—is capitalism, and companies profiting off of other people’s work. Not the technology itself.

I said in an earlier post that it’s like Adobe and Photoshop. I hate Adobe’s greedy practices and I think they’re evil scumbags, but there’s nothing inherently wrong or immoral with using Photoshop as a tool.

There are AI models trained solely off of Creative Commons and public domain images. There are AI models artists train themselves, of their own work (I'm currently trying to do this myself). Are those models more “pure” than general AI models that used internet scrapers and the Internet Archive to copy copyrighted works?

I showed the process of Stable Diffusion de-noising in my comic but I didn’t make it totally clear, because I covered most of it with text lol. Here’s what that looks like: the follow image is generated in 30 steps, with the progress being shown every 5 steps. Model used is Counterfeit V3.0.

Parts aren’t copy pasted wholesale like photobashing or kitbashing (which is how most people probably think is how generative AI works), they are predicted. Yes, a general model can copy a particular artist’s style. It can make errors in copying, though, and you end up with crossed eyes and strange proportions. Sometimes you can barely tell it was made by a machine, if the prompter is diligent enough and bothers to overpaint or redo the weird areas.

I was terrified and conflicted when I had first used Stable Diffusion "seriously" on my own laptop, and I spent hours prompting, generating, and studying its outputs. I went to school for art and have a degree, and I felt threatened.

I was also mentored by a concept artist, who has been in the entertainment/games industry for years, who seemed relatively unbothered by AI, compared to very vocal artists on Twitter and Tumblr. It's just another tool: he said it's "just like Pinterest". He seemed confident that he wouldn't be replaced by AI image generation at all.

His words, plus actually learning about how image generation works, plus the attacks and lawsuits against the Internet Archive, made me think of "AI art" differently: that it isn't the end of the world at all, and that lobbying for stricter copyright laws because of how people think AI image gen works would just hurt smaller artists and fanartists.

My art has probably already been used for training some model, somewhere--especially since I used to post on DeviantArt and ArtStation. Or maybe some kid out there has traced my work, or copied my fursona or whatever. Both of those scenarios don't really affect me in any direct way. I suppose I can say I'm "losing profits", like a corporation, but I don't... really care about that part. But I definitely care about art and allowing people the ability to express themselves, even if it isn't "original".

#i think its because i went on a open-source-only and self-hosting bender a few years ago that i think like this #the internet is built off of 'share-alike' software #so. i guess. i don't mind 'sharing' #like some sort of... art communist #ai art #long post #inflicts you with my thought beams #my art #responding to tags #ahha the ethics of labeling this ‘my art’ . lets just say #the tag is for so it’s next to the comic when you look in my art tag

[foone]

So here's the thing about AI art, and why it seems to be connected to a bunch of unethical scumbags despite being an ethically neutral technology on its own. After the readmore, cause long. Tl;dr: capitalism

The problem is competition. More generally, the problem is capitalism.

So the kind of AI art we're seeing these days is based on something called "deep learning", a type of machine learning based on neural networks. How they work exactly isn't important, but one aspect in general is: they have to be trained.

The way it works is that if you want your AI to be able to generate X, you have to be able to train it on a lot of X. The more, the better. It gets better and better at generating something the more it has seen it. Too small a training dataset and it will do a bad job of generating it.

So you need to feed your hungry AI as much as you can. Now, say you've got two AI projects starting up:

Project A wants to do this ethically. They generate their own content to train the AI on, and they seek out datasets that allow them to be used in AI training systems. They avoid misusing any public data that doesn't explicitly give consent for the data to be used for AI training.

Meanwhile, Project B has no interest in the ethics of what they're doing, so long as it makes them money. So they don't shy away from scraping entire websites of user-submitted content and stuffing it into their AI. DeviantArt, Flickr, Tumblr? It's all the same to them. Shove it in!

Now let's fast forward a couple months of these two projects doing this. They both go to demo their project to potential investors and the public art large.

Which one do you think has a better-trained AI? the one with the smaller, ethically-obtained dataset? Or the one with the much larger dataset that they "found" somewhere after it fell off a truck?

It's gonna be the second one, every time. So they get the money, they get the attention, they get to keep growing as more and more data gets stuffed into it.

And this has a follow-on effect: we've just pre-selected AI projects for being run by amoral bastards, remember. So when someone is like "hey can we use this AI to make NFTs?" or "Hey can your AI help us detect illegal immigrants by scanning Facebook selfies?", of course they're gonna say "yeah, if you pay us enough".

So while the technology is not, in itself, immoral or unethical, the situations around how it gets used in capitalism definitely are. That external influence heavily affects how it gets used, and who "wins" in this field. And it won't be the good guys.

An important follow-up: this is focusing on the production side of AI, but obviously even if you had an AI art generator trained on entirely ethically sourced data, it could still be used unethically: it could put artists out of work, by replacing their labor with cheaper machine labor. Again, this is not a problem of the technology itself: it's a problem of capitalism. If artists weren't competing to survive, the existence of cheap AI art would not be a threat.

I just feel it's important to point this out, because I sometimes see people defending the existence of AI Art from a sort of abstract perspective. Yes, if you separate it completely from the society we live in, it's a neutral or even good technology. Unfortunately, we still live in a world ruled by capitalism, and it only makes sense to analyze AI Art from a perspective of having to continue to live in capitalism alongside it.

If you want ideologically pure AI Art, feel free to rise up, lose your chains, overthrow the bourgeoisie, and all that. But it's naive to defend it as just a neutral technology like any other when it's being wielded in capitalism; ie overwhelmingly negatively in impact.

#Capitalism #The ethics of AI art

[evilscientist3]

nice job supporting ai stealing artwork dickweed 👍

First, let me start with a disclaimer:

I don't like AI art personally. Subjectively speaking, it just doesn't feel like proper art to me.

I just think that the rhetoric behind why, from an objective standpoint, AI art in particular is bad (i.e. immoral) deserves more thought.

Some questions which you might find worth answering:

Is there a means of explaining how AI art steals from artists that doesn't imply collage and/or inspiration are also forms of art theft?

For an artist, is anything intrinsically lost when their art is used as a sample in an AI's data model?

When it comes to AI generated photographs, is art theft still occurring?

Consider the post you're getting mad at me about. whompthatsucker1981's copy of the AI generated photo likely wouldn't have existed without an AI generated photo to copy. Is there no value to be found in the AI enabling the creation of the art?

Suppose I were to train a data set on, say, Rembrandt's paintings to try and generate my own "new artwork" of his - just to hang in my living room. He's famous and dead, so this action doesn't affect him at all - is anything wrong with me doing this?

Similarly, suppose a commercial entity or institution were to do the same, and sell or display it with the pretext that it was generated - would this novelty not at the least be somewhat intriguing?

How about if a team of experts assessed the product, and personally corrected and altered details to keep it consistent with his other works if necessary?

Many years ago, I met an artist called Doug Fishbone while he was doing an exhibition called "Made In China" at the Dulwich Picture Gallery. There was no clear piece on display as part of the exhibition; there was, however, an impostor. One of the paintings in the gallery had been replaced with a replica commissioned from the Meisheng Oil Painting Manufacture Co., who only ever saw the painting they copied as a high resolution photo - thousands of visitors were invited to guess which.

This both questions the value of originality in art (is the copy really less valuable than the original if you can't tell the two apart? How about if it's utilised as part of a philosophical point or artistic message?) and reveals, via the copycat painting's minor discrepancies, that even in careful replication, the preferences of the artist often shine through (perhaps this is a motivation in the encouragement of copyists by many old masters).

I would certainly agree that it isn't particularly desirable to study the "eye" of an AI all too closely - its own quirks will simply be the mean of other artists' idiosyncracies. But suppose that the image is then copied, modified, or used as inspiration - is its place in allowing for another artist to develop a concept not valuable at all?

To be clear, these questions aren't rhetorical; I'd like to hear your views. If you reply, I hope you do so in good faith.

#ask #hope people see the big red line and avoid crucifying me #i simply think we should think about what we think

[cmkinkbingo2024]

It’s time to get kinky! Welcome to Criminal Minds Kink Bingo 2024.

The goal of a bingo challenge is to get a bingo on your card, either by crossing out one line, two lines, or a blackout (full card) by creating fanworks for the prompts randomly provided on the card.

This could be a written piece of a minimum 500 words, a piece of finished art, or another kind of fanwork of your choosing.

Please note that this challenge and blog is for people 18+ only.

Timelines/Deadlines

Until sign ups open, we are accepting kink nominations to be included as options via our ask box. We have a list already, but we will add to it if something is missing.

Sign ups start on May 1st 2024 and will be open until May 15th.

Individual cards will be issued by May 22nd, and the event officially starts on May 26th (you can start creating as soon as you receive your bingo card).

As soon as the event starts on May 26th, you can post fanworks whenever they’re created, in whatever place you prefer. You can tag your fills, bingo updates or WIPs with #cmkinkbingo2024 on tumblr. We also have a collection on AO3 for your works here.

You have until July 31st 2024 to complete your bingos!

How Bingo Works

Lines can be made by crossing out squares in any direction - horizontal, vertical, or diagonal. To cross out a square, use the prompt on it to create and post a fanwork.

You will choose from a large list of potential prompts, marking the ones you would be happy to have generated on a 5x5 square bingo card. This will also allow you to exclude prompts you would not be happy to have to create for. 

While that does mean you could create the perfect bingo card, we encourage you to select upwards of 25 prompts, to allow for some randomness in the challenge.

Every card will have a free space in the middle, where you have the option to choose a prompt yourself. 

You can request additional bingo cards if you complete a line, 2 lines or a full house and want to try for a second win!

Rules/Guidelines

No plagiarism, art theft or AI generated content will be tolerated in works for this challenge. Participants/works will be excluded at our discretion in these circumstances.

You can post your fanworks wherever you prefer.

Just like kinks are not always sexual, works do not have to be explicit to be entered. As long as it relates to the prompt, SFW content is entirely allowed. 

Some of the kinks utilized in this challenge will fall under “real world” kinks, and others under things considered a kink in the context of fanwork creation.

You are responsible for how much you stick to the spirit of the challenge - ultimately this is meant to be fun, and to spur people to be creative, and create content for a fandom we love!

Safety/Your Kink Is Not My Kink

Some of the kinks listed may indicate extreme, upsetting, triggering content, or content you personally find immoral, or that “squicks” you. You are ultimately responsible for the content you consume - if something is not for you, scroll past and/or use the necessary blocking/muting features to exclude this content from your feed.

Please make sure to tag and rate all works appropriately for their content, such as using Archive of Our Own’s warning, rating and tag system, or tumblr’s ‘read more’ function.

You can add any fills posted on Archive of Our Own to the collection here.

Please check out the Frequently Asked Questions, or send us an ask if you have another question!

#criminal minds #fanfic #fanart #writing #kink bingo #spencer reid #aaron hotchner #derek morgan #emily prentiss #jennifer jarau #david rossi #penelope garcia #elle greenaway #alex blake #ashley seaver #luke alvez #tara lewis #jason gideon #matt simmons #stephen walker #kate callahan #cmkinkbingo2024

[valtionrautatiet-official]

Pääteasema

Tämä blogi oli tässä. Mä olen miettinyt suhtautumistani tietoon siitä, että Tumppu aikoo myydä (tai on jo myynyt) käyttäjien tekemää sisältöä AI:n koulutukseen ja... mun moraali ei hyväksy sitä. Tämä ei ole eka kerta kun olen miettinyt voinko jatkaa Tumpussa koska sen omistajat tekee typeriä päätöksiä, mutta sisällön myyminen AI:lle on sen tason pahuutta että mä en voi olla sellaisella sivustolla mukana.

Se, että esitin VR:ää Tumpussa oli yksi hauskimpia juttuja mitä mä olen yli kymmenen vuoden aikana tällä sivustolla tehnyt ja on sääli että se jää kesken; mulla oli mietittynä ja queueattuna sisältöä jonka oisin mielellään näyttänyt teille. Tumpun käyttäjät – te kaikki jotka tän sivuston oikeasti teette – on ihan mahtavia tyyppejä. Mulla tulee teitä ikävä.

Mä jätän tän blogin toistaiseksi olemaan, siinä toivossa että joku Automatticilla tulee järkiinsä ja ne ilmoittaa ettei sittenkään myy Tumpun sisältöä yhtään minnekään. En kyllä oikeasti usko että niin käy.

---

This is the end of this blog. I've thought about the information that Tumblr is planning on selling (or has already sold) content made by its users for AI training and... I think it's immoral. This is not the first time Tumblr has done something that has made me ponder if I want to continue using this site, but this is an act of evil of such magnitude that I cannot remain active on this website.

Pretending to be the Finnish state-owned rail operator was some of the most fun I've had during my over a decade on Tumblr, and I am sad to abandon this. I had plenty of (hopefully) fun content planned and queued for you all. Tumblr users – all you people who actually make this site – are fantastic people. I will miss you.

I will leave this blog as it is for now, in the hopes that the people at Automattic come to their senses and make an announcement they won't be selling anything for AI training after all. I'm not holding my fingers.

#tumblr meta

[morlock-holmes]

Man, YouTube just recommended the most obnoxiously complacent and poorly thought-out anti-AI-art video. Good job algorithm, I did hatewatch as much as I could stand because that's the cyberpunk future and also I guess the past because EM Forster predicted all of this.

In particular, there is this incredibly poorly thought out attempt to distinguish between the tedious parts of artistic work, which are okay to automate, and the non-tedious parts, which are immoral to automate.

There's also a distinction drawn, equally thoughtlessly, between the kinds of automation that destroy jobs and the kinds of automation that don't.

For example, the idea of an AI cutting a trailer together is bad, because it puts an editor out of a job. The cgi crowds in The Lord of The Rings are good, because they allow one animator to do jobs that once would have had to have been done by hundreds of extras or at the very least, way more animators.

I'm really sick of this bizarre half-luddism. I'm also DEEPLY annoyed by this muddled economic idea that people with tedious, unpleasant jobs like it when automation takes over for them, because I can assure you that they fucking don't.

Like, the whole thing stems from this quixotic attempt to be a pro-automation luddite, but luddism is a reaction to economic conditions.

If you sell skilled labor, you can get more money for it because the supply of laborers capable of producing what you produce is low. If there is a sudden flood of supply that stands to quite possibly lower the cost at which you can sell your labor.

This is an economic process, not a moral one. The guy fucking up his bladder working in the Amazon warehouse without using the bathroom all day is not going to be elated when Amazon announces he's being replaced by a robot, because it means the demand for his labor is getting lower relative to supply, which means the price at which he can sell it gets lower, which means it just got a lot fucking harder for him to pay his rent.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Amazon warehouse work is spiritually fulfilling or not.

#ai art #it's the economy stupid

[ellzilla]

I like the silly Pokemon Parody Ark Ripoff game so here's my two cents if you're interested. Under the cut bc this post is long as fuck lol Also congrats Palworld for the 1.5 Milly player peak on steam, go you crazy ass indie game

After trying to find cute Palworld content on tumblr and seeing nothing but whining, it's surprising how many people hate this random ass indie game that was made on a budget of 10k? Like yeah the designs can be boring parodies with a handful of great original ones but the amount of people who are outright hateful's kinda.. odd? Like lads you can critique a game, it's designs and CEO without sending death threats to the developers right? Tumblr likes to steal from the rich so why is it bad when someone actually does? Anyway it's insane how there's people trying to prove the game stole assets from Nintendo and then compare models which. Are not the same poly and vertices wise? And even if it was, it's hard to take seriously when the poster is someone who admits they hate the game for... Animal abuse? Also insane how many people hate Palworld for the fact it has -human- slavery, Pals can do jobs for you 'so it's cruel' and has a certain Pal number 69 who's description is suggestive so the game's immoral and over all "trying too hard to be edgy" it's like. Since when do we police such topics in games of all things? Have you played games that aren't Baby's First Christian Game before? Scratch that because even shitty bad Christian games have harsher shit than what's in Palworld. Catching and selling ppl [who tried to kill you in the first place] in the game's exactly like catching 'mons and it's nowhere near as fucked up as Rimworld where you have to go out of your way to make prisons for people and, if you wanna be extra evil, you can extract their organs and sell them on the market n' nobody tried to cancel that game. In-game, Palworld discourages you from overworking your lil guys and asks you to make spas and beds and keep them well fed and to make sure they're medically sound and happy! Oh no! How cruel! I am asking my little teapot elephant to water my garden!!! Pokemon's also confirmed that people used to marry Pokemon in-lore and we have games like bg3 and DOS2 where. Um. Halsin is a bear in more ways than one yknow what I'm saying? also spider. Both pretty nasty and def not my cuppa but having a fit over a description in a game's kinda weird? Also for a game promoted on "Pokemon with guns" it is INCREDIBLY tame. Slavery is p-much "oh lol I can catch this guy. Anyway back to petting my fire fox :)" and put him in a box like any other creature bc who cares, videogame + the guy literally tried to Kill You. There's also no blood or gore or anything actually shocking tbh? Yeah there's guns but they're late game and you can literally chose not to deal with guns

Since when did we decide to yell at a game like the satanic panic of the original pokemon where ppl said it promoted cockfighting? Although it is fictional cockfighting gamewise, nobody cares because it's way more than that lol Also why does nobody complain that the game is literally ARK btw? Is it because ARK players don't give a shit or is it because some people will view a game and crit it for purely surface level assumptions with no nuance or understanding? Criticize it for lifting game elements from more than just pokemon, criticize it's CEO for being a regular ol' shitty CEO, criticize it's terrible official servers and buggy 'mon AI, but by all means do NOT spread false information and slander-ish claims against it jfc

#lizard fucking RANTs bro #palworld

[ghcstofutopia]

for anyone that's not a nsfw artist or doesn't consume that kinda thing, if you're not really aware of what's up as of late, i do have a lot of feelings about how dire it kinda gets. and it can easily get worse!

so far, the best sites (that i know of) that allow nsfw art is... twitter. bluesky. newgrounds. maybe some more, but they either have weird rules or are too flooded with AI for artists to wanna touch it (cough cough deviantart)

and yet, with twitter, nsfw creators are routinely restricted, shadowbanned and essentially erased from timelines. you need to keep people's notifs on just to see their posts. bluesky is showing some promise as a replacement, but only just recently allowed registration, and is still massively barebones both in features and members.

so many sites are routinely booting sex workers and nsfw creators, even the ones that were made for those people. the moment they can make an okay profit without you, you get the boot. good luck finding another avenue, you're quickly getting restricted to shady sites and places where you can't advertise to an audience.

ko-fi does not allow nsfw. paypal will lifetime ban you and keep your money if they find out you do nsfw, or if someone in the little message box suggests you might be doing so. tumblr "says" they kinda allow it, but no they fuckin don't. gumroad's booting you out with a 24 hour notice because the payment processors think all nsfw should be banned.

i know it's easy to shrug it off if you never did nsfw, never looked at it, never cared, it's the porn addicts getting booted oh noooo (/s), but like. it sucks that people's livelihoods are on such a thin line. sucks that one decision means an artist or a sex worker now has no income, and has to scramble to find somewhere else or just... give up. and when they finally get rid of all of us?

well, guess who's next on the chopping block. hint: if rightwingers say your very existence or the content involving people like you is immoral and pornographic, you're not safe either :')

#nsft #grumbles. this shit blows #fine to reblog if you want; i'm just very annoyed #gumroad