Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

SHE GETS COVERED BY STRANGERS TWICE AND STILL COMES BACK UNCHANGED This looks like a regular POV clip from a busy carnival booth. Stuffed bears are hanging above, people are moving through the crowd, and she is standing at the counter paying with her phone. Then the real stress... test happens. A man holding a kid walks directly in front of the camera and completely hides her. A few seconds later, another woman with a child and another man pass through the same frame and block her again. Both times, she vanishes from the shot. And both times, she returns exactly the same: same position, same stance, still mid-payment, phone in the same hand at the same angle. This is where AI video usually starts to fall apart. Keeping a subject stable when nothing blocks them is easy. The difficult part is when someone crosses the lens and the model has to bring back what was hidden without changing the face, hands, clothes, pose, timing or objects. Here, nothing obvious breaks. No face shift. No hand glitch. No outfit change. No phone jumping. No weird reset after the camera gets blocked. And the craziest part is that none of this was real. Not the carnival booth. Not the stuffed bears. Not the strangers crossing the shot at exactly the right time. That is why this clip works so well. AI is no longer just making clean pretty frames. It is starting to keep continuity through chaotic, real-world movement.show more

Performance

3,387 subscribers

2,485,841 views • 16 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Arts Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

SHE GETS BLOCKED TWICE AND STILL COMES BACK UNTOUCHED This looks like a regular POV shot from a packed carnival booth. Stuffed bears are hanging above, people are moving through the crowd, and she is standing at the counter paying with her phone. Then the real stress test starts. A man carrying a child walks straight across the lens and completely hides her. A few seconds later, another woman with a kid and another man pass through the same frame and block her again. Both times, she disappears fully. And both times, she returns exactly the same: same spot, same posture, same payment moment, phone still in the same hand at the same angle. That is usually where AI video starts to fall apart. A clean shot with one subject is easy to keep stable. The hard part is when the subject gets covered, because the model has to remember what was behind the obstruction and bring it back without changing the face, hands, outfit, pose, timing or object placement. Here, nothing breaks. No face reset. No hand glitch. No outfit change. No phone jumping. No weird shift after she gets blocked. And the wildest part is that none of this was real. Not the booth. Not the stuffed bears. Not the random strangers passing through the frame at the perfect moment. That is why this clip stands out. AI is getting better at holding continuity through messy, crowded, real-world motion, not just clean cinematic scenes

SHE GETS BLOCKED TWICE AND STILL COMES BACK UNTOUCHED This looks like a regular POV shot from a packed carnival booth. Stuffed bears are hanging above, people are moving through the crowd, and she is standing at the counter paying with her phone. Then the real stress test starts. A man carrying a child walks straight across the lens and completely hides her. A few seconds later, another woman with a kid and another man pass through the same frame and block her again. Both times, she disappears fully. And both times, she returns exactly the same: same spot, same posture, same payment moment, phone still in the same hand at the same angle. That is usually where AI video starts to fall apart. A clean shot with one subject is easy to keep stable. The hard part is when the subject gets covered, because the model has to remember what was behind the obstruction and bring it back without changing the face, hands, outfit, pose, timing or object placement. Here, nothing breaks. No face reset. No hand glitch. No outfit change. No phone jumping. No weird shift after she gets blocked. And the wildest part is that none of this was real. Not the booth. Not the stuffed bears. Not the random strangers passing through the frame at the perfect moment. That is why this clip stands out. AI is getting better at holding continuity through messy, crowded, real-world motion, not just clean cinematic scenes

Inspector

542,128 views • 13 days ago

THE REAL TEST IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SHE DISAPPEARS At first, it looks like a normal POV clip from a crowded carnival booth: plush bears above, people moving through the frame, and a girl paying with her phone. But then she gets fully blocked twice. First by a man carrying a child, then by another group passing through the same shot. Both times, she disappears from view, and both times she returns exactly the same: same spot, same posture, same payment motion, same phone, same hand, same angle. That is where AI video usually breaks. It is easy to keep a subject stable when nothing covers them. The harder part is restoring them after a full obstruction without changing the face, hands, outfit, pose, timing or objects. Here, the scene holds. No face shift, no hand glitch, no outfit drift, no phone jump, no reset after the frame clears. And the wild part is that none of it was filmed: not the booth, not the plush toys, not the strangers crossing the camera. AI video is starting to survive the messy interruptions that make real footage feel real

THE REAL TEST IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SHE DISAPPEARS At first, it looks like a normal POV clip from a crowded carnival booth: plush bears above, people moving through the frame, and a girl paying with her phone. But then she gets fully blocked twice. First by a man carrying a child, then by another group passing through the same shot. Both times, she disappears from view, and both times she returns exactly the same: same spot, same posture, same payment motion, same phone, same hand, same angle. That is where AI video usually breaks. It is easy to keep a subject stable when nothing covers them. The harder part is restoring them after a full obstruction without changing the face, hands, outfit, pose, timing or objects. Here, the scene holds. No face shift, no hand glitch, no outfit drift, no phone jump, no reset after the frame clears. And the wild part is that none of it was filmed: not the booth, not the plush toys, not the strangers crossing the camera. AI video is starting to survive the messy interruptions that make real footage feel real

Inspector

25,265 views • 12 days ago

THIS IS THE AI VIDEO TEST MOST PEOPLE MISS At first, this just looks like a normal POV clip from a crowded carnival booth: plush bears hanging above, people moving through the frame, and a girl at the counter paying with her phone. But the real test starts when she gets covered. A man carrying a child walks across the lens and fully hides her, then seconds later another group passes through and blocks her again. She disappears twice, and both times comes back exactly the same: same position, same posture, same payment motion, same phone, same hand, same angle That is where AI video usually exposes itself. A clean shot is easy to keep stable, but restoring a hidden subject after full obstruction without changing the face, hands, outfit, timing or object placement is much harder. Here, the continuity holds. No face drift, no hand glitch, no outfit shift, no phone jump, no soft reset after the frame clears. And the wild part: none of it was real. Not the booth, not the plush toys, not the strangers crossing at the perfect moment. AI video is starting to handle the messy, random interruptions that make footage feel real

THIS IS THE AI VIDEO TEST MOST PEOPLE MISS At first, this just looks like a normal POV clip from a crowded carnival booth: plush bears hanging above, people moving through the frame, and a girl at the counter paying with her phone. But the real test starts when she gets covered. A man carrying a child walks across the lens and fully hides her, then seconds later another group passes through and blocks her again. She disappears twice, and both times comes back exactly the same: same position, same posture, same payment motion, same phone, same hand, same angle That is where AI video usually exposes itself. A clean shot is easy to keep stable, but restoring a hidden subject after full obstruction without changing the face, hands, outfit, timing or object placement is much harder. Here, the continuity holds. No face drift, no hand glitch, no outfit shift, no phone jump, no soft reset after the frame clears. And the wild part: none of it was real. Not the booth, not the plush toys, not the strangers crossing at the perfect moment. AI video is starting to handle the messy, random interruptions that make footage feel real

Performance

649,534 views • 12 days ago

The interruption is the giveaway. She gets blocked from view. Then reappears in the same position, still paying with her phone. It happens again. That’s where AI video gets difficult. When something disappears behind another person, continuity has to survive.

The interruption is the giveaway. She gets blocked from view. Then reappears in the same position, still paying with her phone. It happens again. That’s where AI video gets difficult. When something disappears behind another person, continuity has to survive.

Cryton

424,635 views • 11 days ago

I FOUND AN ACCOUNT THAT POSTS MIRROR SELFIE VIDEOS IN A SILVER BIKINI. 700K FOLLOWERS. 84 VIDEOS. SHE NEVER SHOWS HER FULL FACE. I FIGURED OUT WHY. Thread. Silver metallic bikini. Heart necklace. Ponytail with a green scrunchie. She stands in front of a bedroom mirror holding a purple iPhone and films herself. Shifts her weight. Touches her strap. Runs her hand along her waist. Twelve seconds. The phone covers half her face the entire time. I watched 84 of her videos. In every single one she is holding the phone in front of her face. Sometimes it covers the left eye. Sometimes the right. Sometimes everything above the lips. Not once in 84 videos does she put the phone down. That is not a style choice. That is a render limitation. The phone hides the one place AI breaks down. Eyes that drift. A nose bridge that warps between frames. A jawline that shifts when the head turns. The operator figured out that a mirror selfie format lets the phone do the masking for free. The viewer does not question it because every girl on Instagram holds her phone the same way. The room is the second tell. White bed. Grey door. Floating shelf with dried flowers. A glass on the nightstand. Scroll through her page. It is the same room in every video. Not similar. The same door. The same shelf. The same flowers in the same position. Not one pillow has moved in 84 posts. A real person shifts a pillow, changes the sheets, moves a glass. This room has never been lived in because it was generated once and rendered 84 times. The metallic bikini is doing the work the see-through top did in the Rome clip and the lace dress did at the 7-Eleven. Reflective fabric catches light differently with every movement. It gives the viewer a reason to watch twelve seconds of someone standing still. The silver surface shifts from dark to bright as she turns and the eye tracks the reflection instead of scanning for AI artifacts. The bikini is not the content. It is the distraction. The scrunchie is the detail that sells the illusion. Neon green. Cheap. The kind you buy in a pack of ten. Nobody prompting an AI bikini model thinks to add a $2 scrunchie. But that scrunchie is what makes the viewer think "this is a real girl who just got out of the shower and grabbed what was next to the sink." One prop worth nothing is doing more trust-building than the entire room. The navel does not move. In twelve seconds of shifting weight, turning hips, adjusting straps, her belly button stays in exactly the same position relative to her waistline. A real torso contracts, twists, stretches. Skin moves around the navel when the body moves. This one is painted on. That is the tell the phone is meant to keep you from noticing. She is still posting. Same room. Same mirror. Same phone covering the same face. 700K followers who have never seen her eyes at the same time. The bikini changes. The scrunchie changes. The face behind the phone does not exist. That mirror has never reflected anyone.

I FOUND AN ACCOUNT THAT POSTS MIRROR SELFIE VIDEOS IN A SILVER BIKINI. 700K FOLLOWERS. 84 VIDEOS. SHE NEVER SHOWS HER FULL FACE. I FIGURED OUT WHY. Thread. Silver metallic bikini. Heart necklace. Ponytail with a green scrunchie. She stands in front of a bedroom mirror holding a purple iPhone and films herself. Shifts her weight. Touches her strap. Runs her hand along her waist. Twelve seconds. The phone covers half her face the entire time. I watched 84 of her videos. In every single one she is holding the phone in front of her face. Sometimes it covers the left eye. Sometimes the right. Sometimes everything above the lips. Not once in 84 videos does she put the phone down. That is not a style choice. That is a render limitation. The phone hides the one place AI breaks down. Eyes that drift. A nose bridge that warps between frames. A jawline that shifts when the head turns. The operator figured out that a mirror selfie format lets the phone do the masking for free. The viewer does not question it because every girl on Instagram holds her phone the same way. The room is the second tell. White bed. Grey door. Floating shelf with dried flowers. A glass on the nightstand. Scroll through her page. It is the same room in every video. Not similar. The same door. The same shelf. The same flowers in the same position. Not one pillow has moved in 84 posts. A real person shifts a pillow, changes the sheets, moves a glass. This room has never been lived in because it was generated once and rendered 84 times. The metallic bikini is doing the work the see-through top did in the Rome clip and the lace dress did at the 7-Eleven. Reflective fabric catches light differently with every movement. It gives the viewer a reason to watch twelve seconds of someone standing still. The silver surface shifts from dark to bright as she turns and the eye tracks the reflection instead of scanning for AI artifacts. The bikini is not the content. It is the distraction. The scrunchie is the detail that sells the illusion. Neon green. Cheap. The kind you buy in a pack of ten. Nobody prompting an AI bikini model thinks to add a $2 scrunchie. But that scrunchie is what makes the viewer think "this is a real girl who just got out of the shower and grabbed what was next to the sink." One prop worth nothing is doing more trust-building than the entire room. The navel does not move. In twelve seconds of shifting weight, turning hips, adjusting straps, her belly button stays in exactly the same position relative to her waistline. A real torso contracts, twists, stretches. Skin moves around the navel when the body moves. This one is painted on. That is the tell the phone is meant to keep you from noticing. She is still posting. Same room. Same mirror. Same phone covering the same face. 700K followers who have never seen her eyes at the same time. The bikini changes. The scrunchie changes. The face behind the phone does not exist. That mirror has never reflected anyone.

framexin

20,686 views • 28 days ago

The Chinese guy who made $8,240 with Google Gemini is still making money Now he posts videos where AI turns him into a beautiful girl in revealing clothes At first, people thought it was just another Douyin seller trying to go viral But nobody realized the girl was not real It was the same guy behind the camera Gemini changed his face, body, voice, and movements in real time People started commenting on her looks Then they started sending gifts Then they started buying the products she was holding The craziest part is that most of them still do not know They are not donating to a girl They are donating to a $20 AI filter

The Chinese guy who made $8,240 with Google Gemini is still making money Now he posts videos where AI turns him into a beautiful girl in revealing clothes At first, people thought it was just another Douyin seller trying to go viral But nobody realized the girl was not real It was the same guy behind the camera Gemini changed his face, body, voice, and movements in real time People started commenting on her looks Then they started sending gifts Then they started buying the products she was holding The craziest part is that most of them still do not know They are not donating to a girl They are donating to a $20 AI filter

0xTria

53,099 views • 3 months ago

I FOUND A BEACH ACCOUNT WITH 900K FOLLOWERS POSTING GOLDEN HOUR BIKINI VIDEOS FROM A TROPICAL ISLAND. I RECOGNIZED THE BUTTERFLY. IT IS THE SAME TATTOO FROM THE 7-ELEVEN GIRL. SAME OPERATOR. DIFFERENT BODY. Blue micro bikini. Butterfly tattoo on the chest. Text tattoo on the ribs. Roses on the arms. She is standing on a tropical beach at golden hour. Sand. Water. Driftwood. Trees behind her. The sun is low and backlights her from the right. Haze in the air. She moves slowly. Adjusts the top. Runs her hands through her hair. Lifts her arms above her head. Twelve seconds. It looks like a photographer's reel from Tulum. I have seen that butterfly before. The 7-Eleven girl. Different face. Different body. Different hair. Same butterfly on the same spot on the chest. Same wings. Same position between the collarbones. Two accounts. Two "girls." One tattoo pulled from the same prompt. The golden hour is not aesthetic. It is camouflage. Backlight creates lens flare. Lens flare softens edges. Soft edges hide the places where AI skin meets AI hair and the render breaks down. Every frame has a warm haze across it that the viewer reads as "cinematic" and the operator uses as a filter to cover artifacts. This is not a girl filmed at sunset. This is a render passed through the sun. The bikini is the smallest amount of fabric the algorithm will not flag. The strings are nearly invisible. The triangles cover the minimum. The operator did not pick blue for aesthetics. Blue metallic fabric catches golden hour light and shifts color between frames. It goes from royal blue to purple to copper depending on the angle. The viewer's eye tracks the color shift the way it tracked the metallic bikini in the mirror clip. The fabric is the distraction. The skin is the content. She never faces the camera straight on. In twelve seconds she is always turned fifteen degrees to the side. Profile shots. Three-quarter shots. One moment where she raises her arms and looks at the camera but her chin is tilted down so her eyes are in shadow. The operator learned what the mirror girl knew and what the car girl knew. Straight angles break AI faces. Every other angle sells them. The text tattoo on her ribs says something in cursive. It is readable in one frame, blurred in the next, and different in the third. The words change mid-video. Real ink does not rewrite itself. Prompts do. But nobody pauses a golden hour beach video to read a rib tattoo. The operator knows the viewer is not looking at the ribs. The driftwood on the sand behind her is the same log in every frame. But the sand around it changes. The waterline shifts forward in one cut and backward in the next. Real tides do not reverse in twelve seconds. The beach is a backdrop that was rendered once and the water was animated on top of it without tracking the continuity. The butterfly connects everything. The 7-Eleven. The beach. Two characters that were never in the same prompt but came from the same operator who never changed the tattoo line. One detail. One mistake. Two accounts exposed. That beach has never had a sunset. That sand has never been wet. But the butterfly is still the same.

framexin

13,921 views • 24 days ago

Today is also Shiroko's birthday, the other Shiroko. She came from far away, traveling a long and winding road to be here now. Same name, same birthday, but the weight of the years between them could not be more different. Still, this Shiroko is someone who chose to get back on the pedals again. Every day she finds something broken and brings it back to life with her own hands, and that tells you everything. Some quirks seem to stay the same no matter which world she comes from, though. Why not visit her first today, Sensei. A simple day like a birthday can remind her that she has a place to come home to. #BlueArchive

Today is also Shiroko's birthday, the other Shiroko. She came from far away, traveling a long and winding road to be here now. Same name, same birthday, but the weight of the years between them could not be more different. Still, this Shiroko is someone who chose to get back on the pedals again. Every day she finds something broken and brings it back to life with her own hands, and that tells you everything. Some quirks seem to stay the same no matter which world she comes from, though. Why not visit her first today, Sensei. A simple day like a birthday can remind her that she has a place to come home to. #BlueArchive

BlueArchive

104,196 views • 4 months ago

THIS 15-SECOND “VACATION CLIP” LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING SOMEONE RANDOMLY FILMED ON THEIR PHONE. THAT’S EXACTLY WHY THIS FORMAT WORKS. White crochet dress. Long hair. Wooden staircase. Pool and jungle outside. Nothing complicated happens. She walks up the stairs, holds the railing, looks down, smiles, and keeps moving toward the camera. But watch the details. Her hair moves independently as she walks. The transparent fabric keeps its pattern across the body. Her hand stays connected to the railing. The background doesn’t suddenly morph when the camera gets closer. Older AI video models would usually break somewhere in a scene like this. And the smartest part is the camera. It doesn’t feel like an advertisement or polished photoshoot. It looks like somebody pulled out their phone during a vacation and recorded a completely ordinary moment. That “accidental” feeling is becoming one of the strongest formats for AI creators. You don’t need explosions, impossible locations, or cinematic effects. Sometimes all you need is one consistent character, one believable environment, and 15 seconds that make people wonder: WAIT… IS SHE EVEN REAL?

THIS 15-SECOND “VACATION CLIP” LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING SOMEONE RANDOMLY FILMED ON THEIR PHONE. THAT’S EXACTLY WHY THIS FORMAT WORKS. White crochet dress. Long hair. Wooden staircase. Pool and jungle outside. Nothing complicated happens. She walks up the stairs, holds the railing, looks down, smiles, and keeps moving toward the camera. But watch the details. Her hair moves independently as she walks. The transparent fabric keeps its pattern across the body. Her hand stays connected to the railing. The background doesn’t suddenly morph when the camera gets closer. Older AI video models would usually break somewhere in a scene like this. And the smartest part is the camera. It doesn’t feel like an advertisement or polished photoshoot. It looks like somebody pulled out their phone during a vacation and recorded a completely ordinary moment. That “accidental” feeling is becoming one of the strongest formats for AI creators. You don’t need explosions, impossible locations, or cinematic effects. Sometimes all you need is one consistent character, one believable environment, and 15 seconds that make people wonder: WAIT… IS SHE EVEN REAL?

genuenci

32,109 views • 22 days ago

A 19-YEAR-OLD FROM CANADA TURNED TWERK CLIPS INTO A $6,800/MONTH AI PAGE. Mint hair. Back turned to the camera. Soft daylight, a balcony view, and 12 seconds of movement built almost entirely around one thing: scroll-stopping motion. She dances, twerks, runs her hands through her hair, and gives the kind of clip that people replay before they even decide whether she is real. That is the whole edge. The operator behind the page understood that in this niche, the first win is not storytelling, it is interruption. If the movement stops the thumb for half a second, the algorithm does the rest. The page is run like a funnel, not like a normal content account. Short clips like this go out free on Instagram and TikTok, usually 3–5 times a day, with the best performers pushed again in slightly different versions. One character, one recognizable look, one consistent vibe. The traffic then gets pushed into a paid page where subscriptions sit between $9.99 and $16.99, with extra revenue coming from tips and locked content. On numbers like these, a page can realistically stack up to around 410 paying subs at an average of $11.50, plus $1,900 in PPV and tips, which is how a single AI girl built around dance content gets to roughly $6,800/month. What makes this work is not just that she is attractive. Thousands of AI girls are attractive now. What works is that the content is built for rewatch. Twerking clips, especially from a back-facing angle like this, are simple, fast, and instantly understood by the viewer. There is no setup needed. No explanation. No context. Just motion, attention, and curiosity. People replay it, send it, comment on whether she is real, and that creates the exact kind of engagement these pages live on. The catch, as always, is retention. A clip like this can bring in the spike, but the money only stays if the character keeps posting and keeps feeling consistent. That is why the smarter operators lock the identity, keep the same hair, same body language, same style, and turn one good-performing angle into a repeatable system. One AI girl, one signature dance style, and one content loop that turns short clips into about $6.8K a month.

A 19-YEAR-OLD FROM CANADA TURNED TWERK CLIPS INTO A $6,800/MONTH AI PAGE. Mint hair. Back turned to the camera. Soft daylight, a balcony view, and 12 seconds of movement built almost entirely around one thing: scroll-stopping motion. She dances, twerks, runs her hands through her hair, and gives the kind of clip that people replay before they even decide whether she is real. That is the whole edge. The operator behind the page understood that in this niche, the first win is not storytelling, it is interruption. If the movement stops the thumb for half a second, the algorithm does the rest. The page is run like a funnel, not like a normal content account. Short clips like this go out free on Instagram and TikTok, usually 3–5 times a day, with the best performers pushed again in slightly different versions. One character, one recognizable look, one consistent vibe. The traffic then gets pushed into a paid page where subscriptions sit between $9.99 and $16.99, with extra revenue coming from tips and locked content. On numbers like these, a page can realistically stack up to around 410 paying subs at an average of $11.50, plus $1,900 in PPV and tips, which is how a single AI girl built around dance content gets to roughly $6,800/month. What makes this work is not just that she is attractive. Thousands of AI girls are attractive now. What works is that the content is built for rewatch. Twerking clips, especially from a back-facing angle like this, are simple, fast, and instantly understood by the viewer. There is no setup needed. No explanation. No context. Just motion, attention, and curiosity. People replay it, send it, comment on whether she is real, and that creates the exact kind of engagement these pages live on. The catch, as always, is retention. A clip like this can bring in the spike, but the money only stays if the character keeps posting and keeps feeling consistent. That is why the smarter operators lock the identity, keep the same hair, same body language, same style, and turn one good-performing angle into a repeatable system. One AI girl, one signature dance style, and one content loop that turns short clips into about $6.8K a month.

Rimi

14,413 views • 1 month ago

A GIRL WALKED OFF THE TOP OF A WATERSLIDE, THREW TWO FLIPS DOWN THE FACE OF IT, AND LANDED IN THE POOL 20,000 likes None of it is generated. That is exactly why it is worth eleven seconds, because your feed has spent a year training you to assume the opposite run it as a test. here is what is in the frame that no model reliably puts there yet: → the water. spray leaves her body at the right angle and volume for her speed, and the sheet on the slide deforms under her weight instead of flowing past her → the rotation conserves. she tucks and the spin accelerates, she opens and it slows. angular momentum is a constraint, and generators approximate it rather than obey it → the crowd reacts late. people on the platform turn after she has already gone, because they are reacting, not choreographed → the camera operator loses her. the frame lags the subject and catches up. that is a mistake, and mistakes are the expensive thing to fake → and the landing is ugly. real impacts are. generated ones almost always resolve too cleanly none of that is a checklist you can memorise, and pretending otherwise is how people get caught. every one of those tells has a shelf life. three of them were already unreliable a year ago what does not expire is where you look. continuity, physics, and mistakes - the three places a model has to simulate a system instead of reproducing a surface. surfaces are solved. systems are not, yet and the reason this gets more useful every month is not fakes. it is that real footage is starting to get accused. the cost of being wrong now runs in both directions the fastest way to calibrate your own eye is to make one yourself. image-to-video from a still, one line about the motion - Picsart runs it from a phone. you start spotting the tells about ten minutes after you have made your own this one is real. the fact that you had to check is the actual story

A GIRL WALKED OFF THE TOP OF A WATERSLIDE, THREW TWO FLIPS DOWN THE FACE OF IT, AND LANDED IN THE POOL 20,000 likes None of it is generated. That is exactly why it is worth eleven seconds, because your feed has spent a year training you to assume the opposite run it as a test. here is what is in the frame that no model reliably puts there yet: → the water. spray leaves her body at the right angle and volume for her speed, and the sheet on the slide deforms under her weight instead of flowing past her → the rotation conserves. she tucks and the spin accelerates, she opens and it slows. angular momentum is a constraint, and generators approximate it rather than obey it → the crowd reacts late. people on the platform turn after she has already gone, because they are reacting, not choreographed → the camera operator loses her. the frame lags the subject and catches up. that is a mistake, and mistakes are the expensive thing to fake → and the landing is ugly. real impacts are. generated ones almost always resolve too cleanly none of that is a checklist you can memorise, and pretending otherwise is how people get caught. every one of those tells has a shelf life. three of them were already unreliable a year ago what does not expire is where you look. continuity, physics, and mistakes - the three places a model has to simulate a system instead of reproducing a surface. surfaces are solved. systems are not, yet and the reason this gets more useful every month is not fakes. it is that real footage is starting to get accused. the cost of being wrong now runs in both directions the fastest way to calibrate your own eye is to make one yourself. image-to-video from a still, one line about the motion - Picsart runs it from a phone. you start spotting the tells about ten minutes after you have made your own this one is real. the fact that you had to check is the actual story

Valentin

600,828 views • 6 days ago

Congratulations to Kling V3, it is really impressive, I am still trying to find the best way for the prompt and shot length but really impressive 🔥🔥🔥 This is my first test and prompt. A medium shot of Groklyn, a Korean-American woman with platinum blonde bangs and a black floral corset, standing in a white dressing room holding a phone. She looks into the mirror, waves her hand casually, and speaks to the camera. She says: "Ahn-young. It’s Groklyn. Just testing the new Kling V3." The voice is cool, low-pitched, and has a slight vocal fry. A close-up of Groklyn's face. She tucks a strand of blonde hair behind her ear to show her silver hoop earring and turns her head slightly to admire the details. She speaks softly: "The motion is honestly... day-baak. Just look at these details." Her tone is impressed and breathy. A medium shot of Groklyn posing in the mirror. She lifts her hand to make a Korean finger-heart gesture near her cheek, holds the pose, and then winks at the camera. She asks confidently: "Does this look real to you guys? Let me know. Bye."

Congratulations to Kling V3, it is really impressive, I am still trying to find the best way for the prompt and shot length but really impressive 🔥🔥🔥 This is my first test and prompt. A medium shot of Groklyn, a Korean-American woman with platinum blonde bangs and a black floral corset, standing in a white dressing room holding a phone. She looks into the mirror, waves her hand casually, and speaks to the camera. She says: "Ahn-young. It’s Groklyn. Just testing the new Kling V3." The voice is cool, low-pitched, and has a slight vocal fry. A close-up of Groklyn's face. She tucks a strand of blonde hair behind her ear to show her silver hoop earring and turns her head slightly to admire the details. She speaks softly: "The motion is honestly... day-baak. Just look at these details." Her tone is impressed and breathy. A medium shot of Groklyn posing in the mirror. She lifts her hand to make a Korean finger-heart gesture near her cheek, holds the pose, and then winks at the camera. She asks confidently: "Does this look real to you guys? Let me know. Bye."

Emily

90,762 views • 7 months ago

CLAVICULAR ASKED A GIRL TO LEAVE LIPSTICK ON HIS "MICROPHONE" ON A KICK STREAM. SHE WENT BELOW THE FRAME. THEN SHE SAID SHE HAS A BOYFRIEND AND ONE PHONE CALL ENDED EVERYTHING. 4.7 MILLION VIEWS. "Wanna put some lipstick on my mic?" She laughs. She drops below the frame. The text says "Clav's girl dropped something." Chat loses it. She comes back up, hits him, and mentions a boyfriend. One phone call. She is gone. He sits alone staring at nothing. She never touches the microphone. Everything that makes this clip work happens in the viewer's head. The line, the drop, and the camera angle. Three variables. Zero explicit content. Millions of views. The "microphone" is the best bait object in this entire series. Better than the peach. Better than the banana. Better than the dolphin. Because it is a real object in every streaming setup and nobody will ever look at it the same way. He did not invent the suggestion. He renamed something already in the frame. The boyfriend reveal is the retention cliff. The viewer who came for the lipstick stays for the heartbreak. Two emotions in one clip. The algorithm counts both. Clav did not need AI. He needed one line, one mic, and one phone call. The clip writes itself. The lipstick was never applied. But you already sent this to someone with no context.

CLAVICULAR ASKED A GIRL TO LEAVE LIPSTICK ON HIS "MICROPHONE" ON A KICK STREAM. SHE WENT BELOW THE FRAME. THEN SHE SAID SHE HAS A BOYFRIEND AND ONE PHONE CALL ENDED EVERYTHING. 4.7 MILLION VIEWS. "Wanna put some lipstick on my mic?" She laughs. She drops below the frame. The text says "Clav's girl dropped something." Chat loses it. She comes back up, hits him, and mentions a boyfriend. One phone call. She is gone. He sits alone staring at nothing. She never touches the microphone. Everything that makes this clip work happens in the viewer's head. The line, the drop, and the camera angle. Three variables. Zero explicit content. Millions of views. The "microphone" is the best bait object in this entire series. Better than the peach. Better than the banana. Better than the dolphin. Because it is a real object in every streaming setup and nobody will ever look at it the same way. He did not invent the suggestion. He renamed something already in the frame. The boyfriend reveal is the retention cliff. The viewer who came for the lipstick stays for the heartbreak. Two emotions in one clip. The algorithm counts both. Clav did not need AI. He needed one line, one mic, and one phone call. The clip writes itself. The lipstick was never applied. But you already sent this to someone with no context.

framexin

11,511 views • 19 days ago

A CARNIVAL GAG LIKE THIS IS THREE TIMED EVENTS, NOT ONE Bank-a-ball booth, plush prizes hanging overhead. She throws from behind camera, the ball bounces off the board and misses. Right as it lands, a guy in a cap pops up from behind the stand trying to catch it. She laughs, fixes her skirt, leans down for the next ball. None of it happened - not the booth, not the throw, not the guy who popped up at exactly the wrong moment. - Three moving things have to land on the same beat The ball needs its own arc, bounce, and miss off the board. Her throw needs the weight shift and follow-through of an actual pitch, not a mimed one. And the guy behind the stand has to time his entire pop-up to the second the ball lands, or the joke reads as staged instead of caught. None of the three gets generated with the other two in mind by default - getting all three to agree on one beat is the actual trick. Landing three unrelated timings on the same beat, on command, is the same process the article below turns into a business - across five different characters, every time.

A CARNIVAL GAG LIKE THIS IS THREE TIMED EVENTS, NOT ONE Bank-a-ball booth, plush prizes hanging overhead. She throws from behind camera, the ball bounces off the board and misses. Right as it lands, a guy in a cap pops up from behind the stand trying to catch it. She laughs, fixes her skirt, leans down for the next ball. None of it happened - not the booth, not the throw, not the guy who popped up at exactly the wrong moment. - Three moving things have to land on the same beat The ball needs its own arc, bounce, and miss off the board. Her throw needs the weight shift and follow-through of an actual pitch, not a mimed one. And the guy behind the stand has to time his entire pop-up to the second the ball lands, or the joke reads as staged instead of caught. None of the three gets generated with the other two in mind by default - getting all three to agree on one beat is the actual trick. Landing three unrelated timings on the same beat, on command, is the same process the article below turns into a business - across five different characters, every time.

capONE 💎

131,978 views • 17 days ago

This happened at country pop star Morgan Wallen’s concert Friday night in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A fan handed her phone to a security guard. The security guard was standing with her face to the crowd and her back to the stage and was filming Morgan. Morgan comes over and crouches down and gives the phone camera a look, walks away, then comes back and grabs the phone out of the security guard’s hands and then turns around and chucks the phone off the stage. A lot of people are upset with Morgan, I get it, but many people pointed out that the security guard wasn’t doing her job. They said when you sign up for the job, the job entails making sure that you are enforcing no videoing. I personally have never seen a venue employee or security guard, whatever she was, film the performer for a fan. But, depending on the venue, and looking at Morgan’s policies, he allows videoing, not sure about the venue though. Why chuck the phone? 🤯 Do you think the security guard is to blame or do you think Morgan was just acting like a jerk by tossing that fan’s phone?

This happened at country pop star Morgan Wallen’s concert Friday night in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A fan handed her phone to a security guard. The security guard was standing with her face to the crowd and her back to the stage and was filming Morgan. Morgan comes over and crouches down and gives the phone camera a look, walks away, then comes back and grabs the phone out of the security guard’s hands and then turns around and chucks the phone off the stage. A lot of people are upset with Morgan, I get it, but many people pointed out that the security guard wasn’t doing her job. They said when you sign up for the job, the job entails making sure that you are enforcing no videoing. I personally have never seen a venue employee or security guard, whatever she was, film the performer for a fan. But, depending on the venue, and looking at Morgan’s policies, he allows videoing, not sure about the venue though. Why chuck the phone? 🤯 Do you think the security guard is to blame or do you think Morgan was just acting like a jerk by tossing that fan’s phone?

👉M-Û-R-Č-H👈

4,501,828 views • 3 months ago

Korean outfit style board GPT Image 2.5 and Seedance 2.5 on Renoise AI 日本公式 Prompt: A clean, premium 4-second fashion lookbook animation starting from the first frame. The entire layout stays exactly as shown: same background, same cream item panel, same captions, same crown icons, same wordmark, same framing. The model on the right turns a full 360° on the spot the way a real fashion model does on set: she steps her feet around naturally, shifting her weight from one leg to the other as she turns, her arms moving freely and her shoulders relaxed. As she comes around to the back she glances over her shoulder, and as she returns to face the camera she settles into a new, different confident model pose. Natural posture, realistic cloth physics; hair, hems and accessories swing and settle with the motion. She stays in the same spot and at the same size in frame throughout. At the same time, every product cutout inside the item panel rotates in place on its own vertical axis, like a luxury product display render, revealing front, side and back. Each item stays centered in its own slot, keeps its size, and completes exactly one full rotation in sync with the model's turn, ending in its original orientation. The panel, divider lines, captions, crown icons and wordmark stay perfectly fixed; only the model moves and the products rotate. Camera locked off, no zoom, no pan. Soft studio lighting with realistic shadows under the model and the products. Smooth, natural motion, clean commercial fashion-ad aesthetic, ultra-sharp details, luxury catalog presentation.

TSUBAKI

65,244 views • 7 days ago

NATALIA FROM MELBOURNE FLEW TO THAILAND, FILMED 12 SECONDS ON A PRIVATE BEACH AND MADE MORE FROM THAT ONE VIDEO THAN HER ENTIRE FIRST MONTH OF MALL WALKS. Thread. So here's what happens when a mall-walk creator discovers cinematography. Same girl. Same butterfly tattoo. Same body that broke the Melbourne algorithm. But she's not in a shopping centre anymore. She's on a hidden beach in Phuket, dappled shade falling through the trees onto her skin, metallic blue bikini, Miu Miu glasses, and a camera that moves like it's shooting a fragrance campaign for a brand that doesn't exist yet. Here's why this outperformed every mall walk she's ever done. The mall format works because of contrast. A see-through dress in a public place. The beach removes the contrast. There's no grandma staring, no man pretending to check his phone. She's alone on sand. And somehow it works harder because the audience shifted. The mall videos sell the argument. People share them to fight about what she's wearing. The beach video sells the aspiration. Nobody argues about a bikini on a beach. Instead they save it. They screenshot it. They send it to their friend with "this is where I want to be." The mall content grows the page through comments. The beach content grows the paywall through saves. Different mechanic, different revenue, same girl. The production upgrade changed everything. Her mall walks are phone footage with shallow depth of field and that's it. This video has cinematic movement, shadow play from the tree canopy painting her body, camera positions that orbit her instead of following her. It looks like it cost $10,000 to shoot. It cost a flight and a friend with a gimbal. The perceived production value is what tells the viewer "this isn't a TikTok, this is content worth paying for." And paid content lives behind the link. The dappled light is doing work that no filter can replicate. Sunlight through leaves creates random patterns on skin that move with the breeze. Every frame is unique. Every frame looks painted. She's lying on sand and the shadows are doing what a lighting team would charge $5,000 to do. The beach is the studio. The tree is the key light. Nature is the DP. She filmed 47 videos in 4 days in Thailand. Different beach, different bikini, same production style. That's 3 months of content from one trip. The mall requires a new location every week because the background cast changes. The beach doesn't need a background cast. The beach has rocks and water and light and none of them get tired of performing. The mall made her famous. The beach made her rich. The mall is the funnel and the beach is what's inside. Everyone who found her watching a girl walk past a SALE sign in Melbourne is now watching her lie on sand in Phuket. She didn't change. The setting did. And the setting turned a curiosity into a lifestyle brand. The mall asked "who is she." The beach answers "this is how she lives." And the answer costs $25 a month.

framexin

23,271 views • 1 month ago

This AI-generated girl is turning ordinary bowling clips into viral content. The formula is ridiculously simple: She walks into a bowling alley. Picks up a ball. Throws it. Smiles for the camera. But something about the character, the setting, and the realistic movement makes people stop scrolling. One video gets attention. Another gets shared. Then another crosses millions of views. And the crazy part? There’s no actress. No bowling trip. No filming crew. No expensive production. The entire character and every scene can be created with AI. Change the outfit. Change the location. Change the activity. Keep the same face. Suddenly you have an endless content machine built around one recognizable character. The real opportunity isn’t creating one viral AI video. It’s creating a character people recognize - and then putting her everywhere. Bowling today. Beach tomorrow. Gym next week. Same girl. Different scene. Millions of possible videos. And once the audience is there, the views can turn into brand deals, affiliate revenue, product promotions and more. AI isn’t just generating images anymore. It’s creating characters that can become entire media brands.

genuenci

140,143 views • 1 month ago

$Seedance 2.5 is now available on Higgsfield AI 🧩 Prompt: Montage, multi-shot candid observational footage. Do not use a single camera angle or continuous take. Handheld documentary style with the feeling of accidental real-life capture. Slightly imperfect framing, subtle handheld shake, tiny reframing adjustments, gentle exposure breathing, and autofocus that settles half a beat late. Realistic skin texture, soft indoor natural light, film grain, shallow depth of field. Relaxed breathing, natural blinking, restrained and authentic performance. Total of 7 shots. The woman from @ Image 1 is wearing a matching cotton pajama set consisting of a scoop-neck sleeveless top and loose shorts made from the same fabric and design. Barefoot, she lies on her stomach across a lived-in, slightly messy bed in her bedroom, browsing a mobile shopping page on a black smartphone. A house cat jumps onto the bed seeking attention, and she affectionately plays with it. Moments later, a friend calls. She answers, chats, and eventually bursts into laughter. The doorbell rings, so she ends the call and gets up to collect her dinner. Shot 1 (0–2s): She is already moving. One thumb scrolls through a shopping page while she frowns slightly, thinking. She quietly mutters in Korean: "아, 뭐 살랬더라…" ("Ah... what was I going to buy again?"). Lips synchronize naturally. Her bare feet gently sway behind her. A low handheld camera glides along the edge of the mattress, with soft bedding partially obscuring the foreground. Shot 2 (2–4s): The house cat jumps onto the bed, compressing the blanket as it walks toward her forearm and lets out a single meow. The camera gives a slight jolt from the impact, then quickly reframes from the phone to an over-the-shoulder view that includes her face, hands, phone, and cat. Shot 3 (4–6s): She turns warmly toward the cat, stroking it once from its forehead to its shoulders. In a gentle, affectionate tone she says: "우리 애기 왔어?" ("Did my baby come?"). Lip sync is clear and natural. The camera pushes in briefly through the cat's softly blurred foreground toward her face and hand. Shot 4 (6–8s): A friend's ringtone sounds. She glances down, confirms the caller, swipes to answer, and brings the phone to her ear. The camera moves in a loose semicircle from a slightly tilted overhead angle, capturing the entire answering motion. Shot 5 (8–11s): Her friend begins talking. She responds first with confusion, then disbelief: "어, 왜? 진짜 거짓말." ("Huh? Why? No way, you're kidding."). Immediately afterward she naturally bursts into laughter. The cat kneads the blanket beside her. A close handheld side angle keeps both her phone and profile within the same focal plane. Shot 6 (11–13s): A clear doorbell interrupts the laughter. Both she and the cat turn toward the bedroom door. She braces one hand on the mattress to get up. The camera reacts a fraction too late, briefly turning toward the door before naturally correcting back to her rising movement. Shot 7 (13–15s): Still on the phone, she hurriedly says: "어, 나 밥 왔다. 끊어." ("My food's here. I'll hang up."). She ends the call with her thumb, gets off the bed, and walks toward the door while the cat follows across the blankets. The camera slides low beneath her elbow and tilts upward as she stands in one continuous motion. Sound: No music. Only raw production sound: bedding rustling, quiet breathing, finger taps on the phone, the soft impact of the cat jumping onto the bed, one natural meow, faint purring, a single short incoming ringtone, call connection tone, the friend's voice through the phone, the woman's four Korean lines with accurate lip sync, a genuine brief laugh, one clear doorbell, the tap ending the call, and soft cat footsteps. No subtitles, no on-screen text, no logo, no watermark. Never render a reference sheet or duplicate the subject.$

Seedance 2.5 is now available on Higgsfield AI 🧩 Prompt: Montage, multi-shot candid observational footage. Do not use a single camera angle or continuous take. Handheld documentary style with the feeling of accidental real-life capture. Slightly imperfect framing, subtle handheld shake, tiny reframing adjustments, gentle exposure breathing, and autofocus that settles half a beat late. Realistic skin texture, soft indoor natural light, film grain, shallow depth of field. Relaxed breathing, natural blinking, restrained and authentic performance. Total of 7 shots. The woman from @ Image 1 is wearing a matching cotton pajama set consisting of a scoop-neck sleeveless top and loose shorts made from the same fabric and design. Barefoot, she lies on her stomach across a lived-in, slightly messy bed in her bedroom, browsing a mobile shopping page on a black smartphone. A house cat jumps onto the bed seeking attention, and she affectionately plays with it. Moments later, a friend calls. She answers, chats, and eventually bursts into laughter. The doorbell rings, so she ends the call and gets up to collect her dinner. Shot 1 (0–2s): She is already moving. One thumb scrolls through a shopping page while she frowns slightly, thinking. She quietly mutters in Korean: "아, 뭐 살랬더라…" ("Ah... what was I going to buy again?"). Lips synchronize naturally. Her bare feet gently sway behind her. A low handheld camera glides along the edge of the mattress, with soft bedding partially obscuring the foreground. Shot 2 (2–4s): The house cat jumps onto the bed, compressing the blanket as it walks toward her forearm and lets out a single meow. The camera gives a slight jolt from the impact, then quickly reframes from the phone to an over-the-shoulder view that includes her face, hands, phone, and cat. Shot 3 (4–6s): She turns warmly toward the cat, stroking it once from its forehead to its shoulders. In a gentle, affectionate tone she says: "우리 애기 왔어?" ("Did my baby come?"). Lip sync is clear and natural. The camera pushes in briefly through the cat's softly blurred foreground toward her face and hand. Shot 4 (6–8s): A friend's ringtone sounds. She glances down, confirms the caller, swipes to answer, and brings the phone to her ear. The camera moves in a loose semicircle from a slightly tilted overhead angle, capturing the entire answering motion. Shot 5 (8–11s): Her friend begins talking. She responds first with confusion, then disbelief: "어, 왜? 진짜 거짓말." ("Huh? Why? No way, you're kidding."). Immediately afterward she naturally bursts into laughter. The cat kneads the blanket beside her. A close handheld side angle keeps both her phone and profile within the same focal plane. Shot 6 (11–13s): A clear doorbell interrupts the laughter. Both she and the cat turn toward the bedroom door. She braces one hand on the mattress to get up. The camera reacts a fraction too late, briefly turning toward the door before naturally correcting back to her rising movement. Shot 7 (13–15s): Still on the phone, she hurriedly says: "어, 나 밥 왔다. 끊어." ("My food's here. I'll hang up."). She ends the call with her thumb, gets off the bed, and walks toward the door while the cat follows across the blankets. The camera slides low beneath her elbow and tilts upward as she stands in one continuous motion. Sound: No music. Only raw production sound: bedding rustling, quiet breathing, finger taps on the phone, the soft impact of the cat jumping onto the bed, one natural meow, faint purring, a single short incoming ringtone, call connection tone, the friend's voice through the phone, the woman's four Korean lines with accurate lip sync, a genuine brief laugh, one clear doorbell, the tap ending the call, and soft cat footsteps. No subtitles, no on-screen text, no logo, no watermark. Never render a reference sheet or duplicate the subject.

Oogie

27,627 views • 1 month ago

I genuinely cannot understand how someone can watch this story and still stand there, looking at two women, and somehow decide that the wrong one is the victim. On one side, you have a girl (Yıldız) who has been mistreated her entire life. Since the moment she was born, she was treated like a sacrifice for a conflict she was never even part of and later we find out that this conflict never even existed. Her right to study was taken from her. She was pushed into a marriage at a very young age just imagine being six, seven, eight years old, living in fear of being tied to someone you don’t even know. She was treated like a servant in her own home, by the very people she thought were her family. And just when she gets close to the happiness she dreamed of, the man she was engaged to shows up with another wife. She gets mistreated by that wife, by his family, and even (unintentionally) by him, because he was trying to run away from his own feelings, and that only caused her more heartbreak. The whole world was literally against her. She fought through all of that, only to find out in the end that everything she suffered for was based on something that wasn’t even real. Her entire life was built on a lie. That she isn’t even part of that family that she has literally no one in this world. Now on the other side… You have a girl (Melek) who, yes, was taken from her biological mother but she was raised by loving parents. She had everything anyone could wish for: education, freedom, a happy childhood, a healthy environment. She lived her life, fell in love, went out, made choices and no one questioned her, no one controlled her. And then what did she do? She found out that her man was engaged to another woman before marrying her (and even saw him marry her) and instead of holding on to her dignity, she chose to stay, to fight for a man who lied to her, to hold onto a marriage he tried to end multiple times. She used her unborn child to keep him tied to her. She lied constantly, and her excuse was that she was “protecting her marriage” a marriage that was already broken from the moment Serhat removed that ring at the airport in episode one. She tried to hand Yıldız (a woman who had already suffered enough) over to dangerous people. Then she found out the truth about her own birth (that her father ra*ped her mother.)And still no empathy. No moment of humanity toward her own mother. All she cared about was herself. And even though none of this had anything to do with Yıldız, she still found a way to blame it on her. Instead of holding her father accountable, she went and made a deal with him to get rid of Yıldız. She literally made a deal with the devil just to hurt Yıldız one more time. And after all of that… you want me to feel sorry for her? You want me to call her a victim? I honestly cannot believe we are living on the same planet with people who see this and still say, “she’s the victim.” Not morally. Not logically. Not emotionally. There is no world where this makes sense. It’s like watching someone clearly cause harm, and still calling them the victim and actually BELIEVING it. #HalefKöklerinÇağrısı

I genuinely cannot understand how someone can watch this story and still stand there, looking at two women, and somehow decide that the wrong one is the victim. On one side, you have a girl (Yıldız) who has been mistreated her entire life. Since the moment she was born, she was treated like a sacrifice for a conflict she was never even part of and later we find out that this conflict never even existed. Her right to study was taken from her. She was pushed into a marriage at a very young age just imagine being six, seven, eight years old, living in fear of being tied to someone you don’t even know. She was treated like a servant in her own home, by the very people she thought were her family. And just when she gets close to the happiness she dreamed of, the man she was engaged to shows up with another wife. She gets mistreated by that wife, by his family, and even (unintentionally) by him, because he was trying to run away from his own feelings, and that only caused her more heartbreak. The whole world was literally against her. She fought through all of that, only to find out in the end that everything she suffered for was based on something that wasn’t even real. Her entire life was built on a lie. That she isn’t even part of that family that she has literally no one in this world. Now on the other side… You have a girl (Melek) who, yes, was taken from her biological mother but she was raised by loving parents. She had everything anyone could wish for: education, freedom, a happy childhood, a healthy environment. She lived her life, fell in love, went out, made choices and no one questioned her, no one controlled her. And then what did she do? She found out that her man was engaged to another woman before marrying her (and even saw him marry her) and instead of holding on to her dignity, she chose to stay, to fight for a man who lied to her, to hold onto a marriage he tried to end multiple times. She used her unborn child to keep him tied to her. She lied constantly, and her excuse was that she was “protecting her marriage” a marriage that was already broken from the moment Serhat removed that ring at the airport in episode one. She tried to hand Yıldız (a woman who had already suffered enough) over to dangerous people. Then she found out the truth about her own birth (that her father ra*ped her mother.)And still no empathy. No moment of humanity toward her own mother. All she cared about was herself. And even though none of this had anything to do with Yıldız, she still found a way to blame it on her. Instead of holding her father accountable, she went and made a deal with him to get rid of Yıldız. She literally made a deal with the devil just to hurt Yıldız one more time. And after all of that… you want me to feel sorry for her? You want me to call her a victim? I honestly cannot believe we are living on the same planet with people who see this and still say, “she’s the victim.” Not morally. Not logically. Not emotionally. There is no world where this makes sense. It’s like watching someone clearly cause harm, and still calling them the victim and actually BELIEVING it. #HalefKöklerinÇağrısı

Maurora🫦

10,530 views • 6 months ago