Skip to content

Oh My God, TAKE IT DOWN Kills Parody

Technology
24 16 355
  • The most recent South Park episode, featuring a naked Donald Trump, may have violated the law.

  • The most recent South Park episode, featuring a naked Donald Trump, may have violated the law.

    While this article is technically correct on some things, it's somewhat missing the entire point of what Matt and Trey did very intentionally. They want Trump to try and sue them.

    Trump has inappropriately promoted and used various AI depictions of some seriously fucked up shit, and therefore would immediately lose in court if trying to sure based on the existing laws. In fact, they never showed Trump's dick. They just alluded to it being his dick...with AI.

    I would FUCKING LOVE for Trump to try and sue them, because Matt and Trey will make it the circus it deserves to be, get some amazing stuff in discovery, and they can fucking afford not only defending themselves and their content from frivolous lawsuits, but then countersue and fuck Trump and all of his cronies up when it comes out who has been pulling the strings with the absolutely batshit insane stuff that gets posted on his accounts, and government accounts being misused in an official capacity to push dogshit.

    I look forward to this with a shwaybone.

  • The most recent South Park episode, featuring a naked Donald Trump, may have violated the law.

    According to the article im a Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate fan. I've only seen Rogan a few times from Fear Factor and no idea who Andrew Tate is, so I guess they fucked up there.

  • While this article is technically correct on some things, it's somewhat missing the entire point of what Matt and Trey did very intentionally. They want Trump to try and sue them.

    Trump has inappropriately promoted and used various AI depictions of some seriously fucked up shit, and therefore would immediately lose in court if trying to sure based on the existing laws. In fact, they never showed Trump's dick. They just alluded to it being his dick...with AI.

    I would FUCKING LOVE for Trump to try and sue them, because Matt and Trey will make it the circus it deserves to be, get some amazing stuff in discovery, and they can fucking afford not only defending themselves and their content from frivolous lawsuits, but then countersue and fuck Trump and all of his cronies up when it comes out who has been pulling the strings with the absolutely batshit insane stuff that gets posted on his accounts, and government accounts being misused in an official capacity to push dogshit.

    I look forward to this with a shwaybone.

    Matt and Trey really don't give a fuck. They tried to show Muhammed in multiple cartoons, and when the network vociferously shouted them down about it (because it might get them killed or their offices attacked), they snuck him in anyway in multiple places and just didn't tell anyone. When one of the foundational members of their cast didn't want them to trash Scientology, they trashed it ten times harder and told him not to let the door hit him on the ass on the way out. They made out with each other for a long time in "Baseketball."

    However valuable or not you feel like their message / their humor is, they are among the very few voices in mainstream media who are simply unafraid and doing their own thing, completely without reservation.

  • The most recent South Park episode, featuring a naked Donald Trump, may have violated the law.

    "Matt and tray so loved America they were willing to burn $1.5 billion to save it."

  • According to the article im a Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate fan. I've only seen Rogan a few times from Fear Factor and no idea who Andrew Tate is, so I guess they fucked up there.

    What do you mean? The article just points out that the show’s demographic may somewhat overlap with, for example, Rogan’s demographic:

    The show’s core demographic—predominantly men aged 18 to 49—overlaps meaningfully with the audiences of figures like Joe Rogan and, to a lesser extent, Andrew Tate.

    They are not saying that Rogan listeners also watch South Park, or that South Park is republican. The article is just pointing out that this demographic of men aged between 18 and 49 overlaps with “Joe Rogan[’s] and, to a lesser extent, Andrew Tate[’s demographic].”

    They even frame this as a potential advantage, saying that

    South Park holds a rare cultural position in that it can potentially speak directly to groups adjacent to the MAGA movement without preaching, pandering, or being immediately dismissed [emphasis added].

    I don’t know about you, but it didn’t feel like it was calling South Park fans like us Joe Rogan listeners. It felt more like the article was pointing out that some, maybe even a majority, of fans could also be Rogan fans, which would make the audiences that South Park reaches with this anti-Trump episode especially influential.

    Idk; I certainly didn’t feel offended or anything like that, but I might be misunderstanding you here.

  • The most recent South Park episode, featuring a naked Donald Trump, may have violated the law.

    To qualify, the depiction must appear, in the eyes of a reasonable person, indistinguishable from a real image.

    So if the act is used to criminalize this depiction, in doing so it acknowledges that tiny pecker is indistinguishable from Trump's penis?

  • Matt and Trey really don't give a fuck. They tried to show Muhammed in multiple cartoons, and when the network vociferously shouted them down about it (because it might get them killed or their offices attacked), they snuck him in anyway in multiple places and just didn't tell anyone. When one of the foundational members of their cast didn't want them to trash Scientology, they trashed it ten times harder and told him not to let the door hit him on the ass on the way out. They made out with each other for a long time in "Baseketball."

    However valuable or not you feel like their message / their humor is, they are among the very few voices in mainstream media who are simply unafraid and doing their own thing, completely without reservation.

    Agreed, except Isaac Hayes never wanted to quit. The fucking Scientologists did it “for him” while he was incapacitated in the hospital. Reportedly, Hayes loved doing the show and wouldn’t have quit on his own.

    Trey and Matt have simply said that they miss their friend.

  • Agreed, except Isaac Hayes never wanted to quit. The fucking Scientologists did it “for him” while he was incapacitated in the hospital. Reportedly, Hayes loved doing the show and wouldn’t have quit on his own.

    Trey and Matt have simply said that they miss their friend.

    Jesus Christ, I didn't know that. That's worse.

    I highly recommend watching the Joe Rogan interview with David Miscavige's dad, it's just wild and weird.

    Also, where's Shelly? Where did she go?

  • "Matt and tray so loved America they were willing to burn $1.5 billion to save it."

    I have a feeling they're going to be fine moneywise whatever happens. Their personal safety is probably fine. Maybe not, but probably they don't have to worry too much.

    It's still courage that they're doing it.

  • The most recent South Park episode, featuring a naked Donald Trump, may have violated the law.

    The fucker put out an AI generated video of Obama being arrested in the Oval Office. There’s no standing.

  • While this article is technically correct on some things, it's somewhat missing the entire point of what Matt and Trey did very intentionally. They want Trump to try and sue them.

    Trump has inappropriately promoted and used various AI depictions of some seriously fucked up shit, and therefore would immediately lose in court if trying to sure based on the existing laws. In fact, they never showed Trump's dick. They just alluded to it being his dick...with AI.

    I would FUCKING LOVE for Trump to try and sue them, because Matt and Trey will make it the circus it deserves to be, get some amazing stuff in discovery, and they can fucking afford not only defending themselves and their content from frivolous lawsuits, but then countersue and fuck Trump and all of his cronies up when it comes out who has been pulling the strings with the absolutely batshit insane stuff that gets posted on his accounts, and government accounts being misused in an official capacity to push dogshit.

    I look forward to this with a shwaybone.

    Trump has inappropriately promoted and used various AI depictions of some seriously fucked up shit, and therefore would immediately lose in court if trying to sure based on the existing laws.

    Yeah, that makes zero sense.

    1. The Supreme Court has ruled that the President can't be charged from crimes committed while in office. That's why he's walking free today instead of rotting in a fucking jail cell where he belongs.

    2. The commission of a crime does not suddenly excuse everyone else from committing said crime.

  • Trump has inappropriately promoted and used various AI depictions of some seriously fucked up shit, and therefore would immediately lose in court if trying to sure based on the existing laws.

    Yeah, that makes zero sense.

    1. The Supreme Court has ruled that the President can't be charged from crimes committed while in office. That's why he's walking free today instead of rotting in a fucking jail cell where he belongs.

    2. The commission of a crime does not suddenly excuse everyone else from committing said crime.

    Are you out of the loop?

    Trump had posted to his own Truth account a week ago an AI generated video of Obama being arrested in the White House.

    Are you a fucking bot, or just ignorant?

    The way this works in a legal sense is that Trump would be fucking foolish to try and sue a CABLE show (not under FCC purview) that did what he did. Present an obviously fake depiction of something as fact.

    Not only will he lose in court because Trump set the precedent for doing so, he will be open to countersuit just because of that fact.

  • Are you out of the loop?

    Trump had posted to his own Truth account a week ago an AI generated video of Obama being arrested in the White House.

    Are you a fucking bot, or just ignorant?

    The way this works in a legal sense is that Trump would be fucking foolish to try and sue a CABLE show (not under FCC purview) that did what he did. Present an obviously fake depiction of something as fact.

    Not only will he lose in court because Trump set the precedent for doing so, he will be open to countersuit just because of that fact.

    I am not out of the loop. #2 was referring to that incident. Your personal insults are unwarranted.

  • I am not out of the loop. #2 was referring to that incident. Your personal insults are unwarranted.

    Your post does not cover CIVIL SUITS, which is where this all would lie in the courts.

    Trump will lose, open himself up to discovery, and allow an entire binge by legal process into every little part of what is going on right now, which his lawyers will not allow.

    I think you're commenting on something you don't understand, no offense.

  • To qualify, the depiction must appear, in the eyes of a reasonable person, indistinguishable from a real image.

    So if the act is used to criminalize this depiction, in doing so it acknowledges that tiny pecker is indistinguishable from Trump's penis?

    Frankly, while the general depiction is realistic, the actual penis doesn't look like any real penis, regardless of size. It shouldn't fall in the scope of the law.

  • Your post does not cover CIVIL SUITS, which is where this all would lie in the courts.

    Trump will lose, open himself up to discovery, and allow an entire binge by legal process into every little part of what is going on right now, which his lawyers will not allow.

    I think you're commenting on something you don't understand, no offense.

    Your post does not cover CIVIL SUITS

    You're the one who's referring to criminal law:

    would immediately lose in court if trying to sure based on the existing laws

    The defense of "nuh-uh, he did it first" will simply not hold water in a court of law.

    Discovery does not work the way you think it does.

    I think you're commenting on something you don't understand, no offense.

  • Your post does not cover CIVIL SUITS

    You're the one who's referring to criminal law:

    would immediately lose in court if trying to sure based on the existing laws

    The defense of "nuh-uh, he did it first" will simply not hold water in a court of law.

    Discovery does not work the way you think it does.

    I think you're commenting on something you don't understand, no offense.

    Laws still exist for civil suits.

    Next.

  • Laws still exist for civil suits.

    Next.

    Of course they do. That was my point. You're the one acting like the law doesn't apply to civil suits.

    Next.

  • What do you mean? The article just points out that the show’s demographic may somewhat overlap with, for example, Rogan’s demographic:

    The show’s core demographic—predominantly men aged 18 to 49—overlaps meaningfully with the audiences of figures like Joe Rogan and, to a lesser extent, Andrew Tate.

    They are not saying that Rogan listeners also watch South Park, or that South Park is republican. The article is just pointing out that this demographic of men aged between 18 and 49 overlaps with “Joe Rogan[’s] and, to a lesser extent, Andrew Tate[’s demographic].”

    They even frame this as a potential advantage, saying that

    South Park holds a rare cultural position in that it can potentially speak directly to groups adjacent to the MAGA movement without preaching, pandering, or being immediately dismissed [emphasis added].

    I don’t know about you, but it didn’t feel like it was calling South Park fans like us Joe Rogan listeners. It felt more like the article was pointing out that some, maybe even a majority, of fans could also be Rogan fans, which would make the audiences that South Park reaches with this anti-Trump episode especially influential.

    Idk; I certainly didn’t feel offended or anything like that, but I might be misunderstanding you here.

    pay him no mind he just wanted to type out Andyou Taint multiple times

  • China cut itself off from the global internet on Wednesday

    Technology technology
    64
    1
    313 Stimmen
    64 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    R
    >The freedom also includes bad stuff Well duh
  • 134 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    akasazh@feddit.nlA
    I mean... Yes, that is what deepfakes are. I am sorry it happened to poor old Amy, and I whish her vulgar, algorythmic doppelganger wouldn't have said awul things but... If this is news to you you might have not be paying attention for a while.
  • AI tech breathes life into virtual companion animals

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    3 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    P
    No it doesn't
  • Nearly 90% of videogame developers use AI agents, Google study shows

    Technology technology
    4
    27 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    artvandelay@lemmy.worldA
    "Google study shows"
  • 232 Stimmen
    71 Beiträge
    365 Aufrufe
    S
    So while Utah punches above its weight in tech, St. Paul area absolutely dwarfs it in population. Surely they have a robust cybersecurity industry there... https://lecbyo.files.cmp.optimizely.com/download/fa9be256b74111efa0ca8e42e80f1a8f?sfvrsn=a8aa5246_2 Utah, #1 projected tech sector growth in the next decade, of all 50 states. Utah, #8 for tech sector % of entire state economy, of all 50 states. Minnesota? Doesn't crack top 10 for any metrics. Utah may not be the biggest or techiest state, but it is way more so than Minnesota. The National Guard just seems like a desperate move. Again, this is my argument, but you are only seeing desperation as due to incompetence, not due to... actual severity. When they're deployed, they take orders from the the federal military, Not actually true unless the Nat Guard has been given a direct command by the Pentagon. and at peace, monitoring foreign threats seems like a federal thing. ... which is why the FBI were called in, in addition to the Nat Guard being able to report up the military CoC. You call in the National Guard to put down a riot or something where you just need bodies, not for anything niche. I mean, you yourself have explained that the Nat Guard does have a CyberSec ability, and I've explained they also have the ability to potentially summon even greater CyberSec ability. I guess you would be surprised how involved the military is / can be in defending against national security threatening, critical infrastructure comprimising kinds of domestic threats. Remember Stuxnet? Yeah other people can do that to us now, we kinda uncorked the genie bottle on that one. Otherwise, just call a local cybersecurity firm to trace the attack and assess damage. It is not everyone's instinct or best practice to immediately hire a contracted firm to do things that government agencies can, and have a responsibility to do. If this was like, Amazon being comprimised, yeah I can see that being a more likely avenue, though if it was serious, they'd probably call in some or multiple forms of 'the Feds' as well. But this was a breach/compromise of a municipal network... thats a government thing. Not a private sector thing. EDIT: Also, you are acting like either you are unaware of the following, or ... don't think its real? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center Kind of a really big deal in terms of Utah and the tech sector and the Federal government and... things that were totally illegal before the PATRIOT Act. Exabytes of storage. Exabytes. Utah literally is where the NSA is doing their damndest to make a hardcopy of literally all internet traffic and content. Given how classified this facility is, I wouldn't be surprised if their employees don't exactly show up in standard Utah employment figures.
  • In Militarizing Push, Russian School Children To Build Drones

    Technology technology
    37
    1
    263 Stimmen
    37 Beiträge
    529 Aufrufe
    Z
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
  • 518 Stimmen
    54 Beiträge
    822 Aufrufe
    I
    Or, how about they fuck off and leave me alone with my private data? I don't want to have to pay for something that should be an irrevocable right. Even if you completely degoogle and whatnot, these cunts will still get hold of your data one way or the other. Its sickening.
  • Nextcloud cries foul over Google Play Store app rejection

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    6 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet