mistressofmuses: Image of nebulae in the colors of the bi pride flag: pink, purple, and blue (Default)
mistressofmuses ([personal profile] mistressofmuses) wrote2022-08-06 06:50 pm

(no subject)

Boy it sure is something to hear about what seems like garden-variety fandom BNF flounce-drama, passing distantly... and then to actually find out that ah, this shit is way wilder than I thought.

How many BNFs turn out to be abusive wannabe cult leaders who are also convinced of something that makes them better and more spiritually and uniquely special than everyone else out there in the world?
Like... I'm sure the real answer would shock me, but I feel like any number greater than 0 is a problem.

Fucking yikes.

-

We are about to head out to our friend's album release show. Fingers crossed it all goes well. Alex seems... like he doesn't really want to go, but I'm hoping he has a good time once we do. I'm looking forward to seeing everyone, but I'm also still pretty anxious about it. Haven't tried to get together with people like this since before Covid.
chemicalcain: a dog with a knife. there is a red glare in its eyes (Default)

Re: apparently AO3 slander really grinds my gears

[personal profile] chemicalcain 2022-08-09 10:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, my policy is that if people don't want to read something, they can revoke consent at any time by closing the browser. They implicitly consent by continuing to read content that was posted publicly and not directed at them (which would be covered under the Harassment section of the TOS.) Basically this:
A running skeleton captioned "JUST WALK OUT. you can leave! If it sucks... hit da bricks!!"

Looking at the AO3 TOS, their commercial activity policy is quite permissive. They aren't saying you can't host commissioned works on AO3, only that you can't promote commercial endeavors or solicit donations on the Archive itself. This user wouldn't have gotten in trouble for soliciting donations for chapters if the solicitation was off-platform. So it seems absurd that someone would dig their heels in so hard when there were easier ways to accomplish what they wanted and when the rules are so few and so clear.

Since DW policies lean hands-off in the same way AO3 does, and since both sites make it really easy to back up my data, I feel very comfortable here. Sites with unclear content restrictions remind me that everything I say or do can be interpreted with malicious intent. I get the same reminder when reading about queer history, honestly. Someone can and will claim that writing a certain trope or expressing my gender a certain way inherently proves I'm a predator; then they can use that claim to try to leverage me out of public space. It's another way to make certain varieties of queer people unacceptable.
chemicalcain: a dog with a knife. there is a red glare in its eyes (Default)

Re: apparently AO3 slander really grinds my gears

[personal profile] chemicalcain 2022-08-10 03:48 am (UTC)(link)

Yesyesyesyes. The "perfect queer" thing is a huge problem. It's metastasized into the idea that queer people can't write stories that involve any kind of trauma - that writing someone who experiences abuse makes the author inherently abusive. Or, sometimes, that writing trauma poorly makes the author an abuser, even though writing is fucking hard. It suuuuuucks.

I think cancel culture at large grew out of a good motive, originally. There are people who abuse others to gain more power, so when people point out abuse, we can help the people who were targeted. But trying to pre-empt abuse by labeling traits or interests that "predict" abusive behavior is gonna net a lot of people who are really just doing their goddamn best out here. It can be a fine line to tread, but man, a lot of people saw the line and decided to walk perpendicular.

chemicalcain: a dog with a knife. there is a red glare in its eyes (Default)

Re: apparently AO3 slander really grinds my gears

[personal profile] chemicalcain 2022-08-11 03:13 am (UTC)(link)

Yes to all this. Once again I am glad to have more or less abandoned Twitter. The policy of Twitter staff is almost explicitly "reward what gets clicks," and the stuff that gets clicks is performative outrage. It's not exclusive to Twitter, obviously, but it's very apparent to me that the site is actively designed to bury nuance and polarize opinions.

It also lets actually harmful people slide under the radar, because they know the right things to say or interests to talk about to make themselves seem "safe".

^^^ This, this, this. People can and do take advantage of this kind of moralizing in order to find easier targets. Calling it "weeding out sinners" feels spot-on, because you see this exact same shit in lots of church congregations. (Specifically thinking about evangelical Christians here, because that's where my experience comes from)