“I guess it’s no surprise that Superhuman believed it could, in my opinion, break the law. We live in a world where A.I. companies are grabbing every bit of writing, art and music without consent. Where our president is launching wars without the consent of Congress that our Constitution requires. Where Jeffrey Epstein spent years coercing girls too young to provide consent into sexual relations”
—NYT “investigative journalist” Julia Angwin, dragging a flase and ignorant attack on President Trump into her op-ed about a lawsuit having nothing whatsoever to do with him.
Once again, I challenge the oblivious defenders of the New York Times and those who insist that the Axis news media isn’t a full-time Democratic propaganda operation to defend a passage that should never have made it into print.
The essay was headlined, “Why I’m Suing Grammarly,” and the writer had a valid and interesting story to tell on a hot topic: the failings of artificial intelligence. The A.I. editing service Grammarly apparently attaches the names of prominent writers to some of its re-write suggestions. Not only have the writers “quoted” not agreed to the use of their names and authority, the suggestions attributed to them might make them sound like unpublished hacks. Angwin writes,
“Like all writers, I live by my wits. My ability to earn a living rests on my ability to craft a phrase, to synthesize an idea, to make readers care about people and places they can only access through words on a page. Grammarly hadn’t checked with me before using my name. I only learned that an A.I. company was selling a deepfake of my mind from an article online. And it wasn’t just me. Superhuman — the parent company of Grammarly — made fake editor versions of a range of people…In my home state of New York, the century-old right of publicity law prohibits a person’s name or image from being used for commercial purposes without her consent. At least 25 states have similar publicity statutes. And now, I’m using this law to fight back. I am the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against Superhuman in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that it violated New York and California publicity laws by not seeking consent before using our names in a paid service…”
Fascinating and informative…and absolutely irrelevant to President Trump, the Iran War and the Constitution. But Julia couldn’t help herself. She couldn’t help herself because she is surrounded all day by Trump Deranged hysterics and bubble-dwelling boobs who spend every waking hour hating everything the President of the United States says or does, so she couldn’t resist inserting an attack on POTUS in her column, even though it was as wrong as it is was gratuitous.
Ethics Alarms 
It should be pointed out that the assertion about Epstein also has holes in it. There has been no suggestion the girls were captives or threatens with violence if they did not submit to Epstein or the client demands. You can argue that the girls may not have been able to legally consent to that being asked of them by virtue of some social construct creating an arbitrary minimum age but those laws fly in the face of the fact that we routinely give birth control out in middle schools and some are fighting for those same children to undergo sex change surgeries without parental consent.
Why should we believe that these girls did not go voluntarily to live a life of celebrity.
Because we have to set a standard and because we generally oppose birth control in middle school and certainly oppose gender reassignment surgeries on the basis that the kids are not old enough to grasp the long-term consequences of their decisions. This is why it is the responsibility of adults to wisely guide youth until they reach an age at which some wisdom has been obtained. Adults who take advantage of the naivete of youth should be penalized.
This is a paraphrase here but there’s a line from “The Office” by Pam in which she points out that you don’t blame a five-year old kid who tries to drive a car. You blame the 30-year old who gives him the keys and says,” Go for it”.
AM
Perhaps I was not clear. Progressives are claiming that gender is a social construct that allows little girls and boys to choose their sex. These same people are arguing that minor children should have agency over their bodies when it comes to gender reassignment surgery and puberty blockers as well as providing condoms in middle schools because “they are having sex at that age anyway”. Now they are claiming that these young women were manipulated by adults to provide sexual gratification for powerful men. The arguments are contradictory and are used to buttress two political goals.
Whatever we establish as the age of consent it must apply to all aspects of human sexuality and law.
My question at the end about why should we question the veracity of the victims is both to point out the obvious contradiction but also to question whether or not these “victims” were competent to consent given social mores of the 21st century.
Yet at the same time we won’t let them buy spray paint because we don’t trust them to use it properly. We have very odd standards.
This person’s compulsive insertion of something Trump into her article is similar to what a terminally Trump deranged friend was doing with every email he’d send me. I finally had to ask him to stop it, which he did. We get along fine now and correspond regularly.