"I'm too smart to have my brain pickled by the X algorithm" is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to getting your brain pickled by the X algorithm

If men and boys read books purely because they were written by men they liked then you’d think the MrBeast James Patterson book (boosted by a $1 million reader prize) would have been a huge hit. But it was actually a “historic bomb.” Just saying

I realize it often feels like nothing matters anymore, but a comedian going on SNL and calling women whores— calling the ordinary women he sees at the gym *whores* — because of their clothes matters to me. It’s really gross, and I’m glad Levy said something.

Basically I think they’re actually going to take action around this versus the things the tech industry has long purported to care about but not taken action on

I don’t mean what they put in writing in their TOS, I mean their actual moderation efforts and what their technology is actually used to do

it’s worth bookmarking this piece because kat methodically demolishes the false narratives and lies being spread about this case

Anthropic banning “abusive or cruel behavior” toward Claude in its new usage policies is proof to me that tech companies are going to moderate violence against AI before they ever moderate violence against women and minorities

"Cornell’s student paper and the lawsuit had identified the seven fraternity brothers...And once men start to face consequences for sexual violence, no matter how small, that’s typically when the second kind of reaction kicks in: victim-blaming and rape denial. "

Kat hits on something that i think needs to be stressed, which is that we tell men and boys that "no means no" but we really should stress that CONSENT CAN BE REMOVED AT ANY TIME. even an enthusiastic, sober yes can end in a no. CONSENT IS FLUID, NOT FIXED.

Nicole is a leading expert on the issue of campus sexual violence. I am floored that USA Today would do this to her. I find this kind of journalistic behavior unethical and morally reprehensible, twisting an interview with a renowned advocate for survivors into a hit piece against a survivor.

Earlier this week, I agreed to interviews with two USA Today journalists. They wrote fantastic articles about the Cornell case that I'm proud to have been a part of. What I did not know is that their employer considers interviews to proprietary and opens up recordings to be used by any journalist.

All of this. I also want to add that, in my research, I found that a lot of “inconsistencies” in a victim’s story actually came from gender bias affecting investigators’ record keeping and interview methods.

We live in a society that punishes people who are assaulted. We question them, we shame them, we disbelieve them. Many survivors instinctively do that societal work for us. Survivors question themselves, they shame themselves, they don't believe their own version of events. We've trained them!

I’m so sorry K.C. I hope you’re doing okay 🫂

The way the Cornell victim is being publicly disbelieved by a lot of journalists, officials, and online posters is also a warning shot to every other victim not to dare to actually pursue a case against your rapist lest you suffer the same fate. It’s a means of protecting the status quo

In the legal system and in these mainstream commentary spaces, victims’ post-assault behavior is positioned as evidence of them lying, so that any feminist response to the crisis of sexual assault brought on by these high-profile cases can be deemed hysterical and unnecessary.

Socially and in the legal system, our understanding of responses to sexual violence is purposefully uninformed and therefore limited to only “perfect” victims (who don’t really exist), so that we don’t have to actually combat sexual violence or believe victims or hold perpetrators accountable.