#if people don't subscribe to your theories

[chirpsythismorning]

Realistically do you still think Milvn will breakup in the first couple of episodes? I feel like the fabdom is focusing on fanon so much at this point that they are missing canon and actual narrative on the show. It seems very unlikely to me for Mvln's breakup taking place in first couple of episodes. But the fandom are still stuk in their previous thoughts and cannot seem to think differently at all and never even consider the possibility of mlvn breakup happening way later on in the next season. Most of the Byler's analyses about El's character has turned out to be wrong. El doesnt seem to be done with the relationship. She still loves Mike (or thinks she does) and she drew strength from his monologue. A mildvn breakup right into S5 does not make any sense canon narrative wise. We can argue that the show was different that the script, while i agree with it to an extent i reaaaly think people are trying way too hard to discredit the writers intention and the script here. El was not angry at Mike. She was sad about Max and Hawkins' situation. 🤷‍♀️

What i am saying is that i feel like most Bylers are misinterpetating what is happening with the narrative here and it leads to unrealistic and baseless expectations for the characters and S5 regarding how Mlvn vs Byler will take place. And i am greatly sorry but i dont think Mike lied in his monologue, like at all. And the situation reads like "Mike loved el romantically but they wont be together bc of incompitability". El is not even still over Mike. And people expect her to be like "i breakup with you bye" right into S5. Mike still has underlining feelings for El. Like... all i am saying is people shouldnt base their expectations on headcanons and fanon misinterpretations.

Lastly, while i really would like a more detailed gay coming of age and sexuality storyline for Mike, realistically going by canon i dont think its happening. Sorry. They will mostly focus on Will's sexuality and coming of age it seems like and Mike will mostly have a "realization" arc where he realizes El and him are not fit for each other and then he decides to be with Will.

Based on the show’s trend of doing break-ups (or at least implied break-ups) early in the season, yes I do think it’s likely that the audience will at least have the impression that Mike and El are broken up early in s5.

That’s based on a technique they have done repeatedly, whereas the assumption that they will break-up midseason is based on what exactly? The Duffers saying that s5 is jumping right back into the action?

I mean, if anything shouldn’t that be an indication that the arcs heavily built up in s4, that were left deliberately unresolved, are going to be dealt with in a timely manner, as opposed to being put on pause and then squished into mid s5, when we’re arguably going to have even more stuff the characters are dealing with? Like, them literally fighting for their lives?

When it comes to Mike’s monologue giving El strength according to the script, this is actually really easy to explain and so I will! 

For starters, they did not disclose El's feelings about the monologue in the Piggyback script, bc they released it knowing it would go public, at least two years before s5 is set to actually come out. They would not just throw in a huge spoiler like that, seeing as it was intentionally left unaddressed in s4, with the intention to be addressed in early s5. That’s the whole thing about s4 kind of leaving things so shaky and uncertain, with s5 jumping us right back into that, bc there was just so much set up for all of those dominos to inevitably fall.

To understand Mike’s monologue and its impact on El better, it might help to recall the memory of El’s birth and how her mother’s love is what gave her the strength to defeat Henry the first time in 79’.

I mean look at the lighting of that scene, it’s probably the brightest fucking lighting we’ve ever seen in the entire series (you know what light means... pure, genuine, true love…). And it’s because strength from love is much more powerful than strength from anger. That’s something she is literally throwing back in Henry’s face that day of the massacre, going against what he told her to do and instead using the memory of her mother’s love to beat him. 

During Mike’s monologue, we see El using anger to give her strength to finally break free and stop Vecna, all orchestrated by events that Henry has had a role in impacting, meaning he was actively going up against her this second time, all while knowing that in order to actually beat her, she needed to be vulnerable and unable to use love as strength, with her only option being anger. And so what we see is anger about Mike still woefully misunderstanding what she had tried to explain to him earlier in the season, along with watching her best friend be murdered in front of her. And look at the lighting of that scene, she's literally seeing red. The atmosphere is eerily uncertain at best.

This monologue was SOOO necessary for the narrative in order to keep the public away from considering Byler. Because they already don’t want to consider it as it is, and that monologue gives them an excuse not to. You saw how they reacted to the piggyback script? Like it was this huge sigh of relief for them? Meaning that they were having doubts…

The thing is, I have considered the possibility of a mid-season Milkvan break-up. I’ve talked about how waiting until mid-season, something that would be unprecedented bc they’ve never done it before, would be odd considering we will be dealing with vastly different concerns and conflicts by that point. 

For them to hold off settling a break-up, that was built up all of s4 (arguably since s3), until mid-s5, would fall flat. If anything jumping right into the action means all the major stuff built-up, but left unaddressed in s4, is what we’re jumping back into.

They need to address those things so that they can move on to the aftermath of all of that and then beyond that. 5 episodes of ignoring that, and then 4 episodes of it happening and processing all of it AND dealing with endgame right as the finale is coming to a close, would be hard to juggle and make satisfying.

The reason they like this approach so much, is because it allows the audience to root for the other option in the love triangle. And with Will getting home-wrecker allegations as it is, a milkvan break-up is extremely necessary this time around as well, especially with byler being endgame and them really wanting us to root for them finally. 

How can we do that if the Duffer’s break their own trend of early break-ups and in turn make it difficult for us to root for byler, all while leading on milkvan’s unnecessarily even longer (with no intention of going that route), making it even more unlikely for viewers to accept Byler endgame?

They’ve been building up to this inevitable break-up since s3, with s4 ending in a way that made it sort of obvious El is not happy with Mike and with Mike clearly struggling with something.

Are we just going ignore the implications of the inevitable painting reveal or the fact that Mike called El ‘his’ superhero (the most insulting thing he could do honestly, least of all during a love confession) at the end of s4, and have that confrontation be stretched out? For what? El hasn’t even responded to it or told us her side at all? She told Mike she missed him and that’s it… That’s all we’ve got. Like, let her speak and actually say how she feels about their fight in her room and the events at Surfer Boy and everything leading up to this inevitable moment for them.

While Mike and El didn’t outright break up in s4, there was heavy implications of it, and that was for a reason. They wanted us to watch those Will and Mike scenes throughout the season and see something more. Even though it didn’t end with a kiss between them, nor them officially getting together, they still did it because they wanted us to interpret those scenes as romantic comfortably. That's also why they kept Mike and El seperate at the end of s4, because they wanted us to look at Mike and Will in a way that made us go 🫣🫣🫣 at the very least.

Now, if s5 is leading to Byler endgame, just imagine how much more important it is to make it really clear that Mike and El aren’t happening?

Another even more important reason to have break-ups early in a season in general, is to allow the overall season to have a vibe that is cohesive as it’s own entity. Major stuff happens at the beginning and major stuff happens at the end, with the middle making up the overall vibe and feeling they want us to subscribe to the whole time, with certain pairings being constant that time more than the end/beginning. It makes more sense for us to root for byler most of the season, the whole middle, and for the first time at the end now as well, while letting go of El and Mike early on, even if it’s ambiguous like it was in the previous season. Personally I think the prospects of a dump your ass parallel are high… (can we do something interesting and fun like speculate how the break up would go down? Will it be angsty? Will it be lighthearted? Like I want to see all of those hot takes bc that's actually something that is more fun to think about than the 'when').

I know some people are here because they love romances or love queer romances and just enjoy shipping in general, but I’m genuinely here bc Byler makes sense based on all that stuff you would probably consider to be reaching. That stuff is the best part to me. So, if you don’t like others doing that, then consider muting those that you deem as people ‘misinterpreting the narrative’, again, according to you. 

At the end of the day you can believe whatever you want to believe. 

This idea that it’s okay to tell other people they are wrong and have baseless claims, all while ignoring the actual evidence they are presenting… Like I mean this just comes off like Milkvan’s telling Bylers they’re delusional for considering Mike and Will as being a possibility at all. If you have to constantly use, it’s not that deep as your core argument after being presented with evidence, while only yourself giving maybe one or two reasons at most for why your interpretation makes the most sense, then you’re probably not actually open to considering things based on evidence. You want to believe what you want to believe and you're projecting onto others for not following along with it.

Especially when it comes to the whole Mike having a coming of age story or whatever, where some fans have tried to make the argument that there is nothing to support that, when that actually couldn’t be further from the truth. Bylers have provided heaps of evidence. If all of that is not enough for you, that’s something that you have to contend with at this time. Just like us believing what we believe based on evidence we’ve gathered is our concern and something we have to deal with, not you. No need to apologize! Just try to worry about your own interpretation of things and feeling confident in that, but without having to tear down others' because they don’t subscribe to yours interpretation of things.

Because I feel like it would honestly be a lot more humiliating to insist other peoples theories are wrong and they’re only going to embarrass themselves in the end, only for that person saying that to end up being wrong… Everyone is making theories and everyone is bound to be wrong about some or even most. That's okay. That's natural. That's sort of an unwritten part in the agreement we all agree to by participating in this theorizing in fandom experience.

When it comes to Mike again and his arc, I always say this, but it really comes down to this more than anything.

Finn is 2nd top billed among the kids. He used to be THE top billed among the kids for s1-3, but then he got bumped down behind Millie in s4. There is a major possibility, that Noah is going to be ranked up, with him going from being paired up with Sadie, under Gaten and Caleb, to be bumped up under Finn with them sharing a title card. Though it’s unlikely they would rank Finn down under Noah, who was not even in the opening credits of s1, while he was the first name that season and the following two, meaning Finn's character Mike needs to live up to that top billed spot right behind Millie. He needs to have an arc on his own that is equally as substantial as Will and El's arcs, and separate from them just like theirs will have aspects that are separate from Mike as well.

Because Mike was the protagonist of the first season, he HAS to be important again in a similar vein in the end for the show to work as an overall five part story. When people go back to rewatch after s5, they are going to be met with Mike front and center. That will only be satisfying if we get genuine insight into his character in the final season, beyond the surface level.

Quite honestly, ALL of the kids deserve something deeper than what you are implying for Mike, and so applying that to him, the og protagonist, is just so absurd to me. If anyone is going to come out with a surprising arc we’re not expecting, it’s Mike. The audience is already not expecting Will to actually get the boy, that's the aspect that they aren't prepared for for Will, and so what about Mike's unexpected reveal?

Literally most of the audience doesn’t even think there is the slightest possibility Mike could be queer. You don’t think that warrants some addressing and unpacking…? You know… because he never really unpacked…?

I feel like people hear me say Mike is going to be important in s5 and go oh so you don’t think Will is the main character?? And it’s like?? Honestly my answer is yes and no. I think Will is literally the spine, the heart, or whatever you want to call it. In Finn's own words, he is the reason that everything happens and he is the most important character arguably, because of how important he is in terms of all of these events taking place throughout the series.

However, Mike is at the forefront from the very beginning and we arguably see everything from his eyes in s1 and 2 more than anyone else. But that goes away in s3-4. And that felt extremely intentional based on what is about to go down (byler endgame). You can tell that by doing this, they are trying to lead up to a reveal that brings him back to his original place in the story for the audience to see him as his most authentic self again, and with answers for why we lost that insight in between.

I could count up at least 20 Easter eggs hinting at Mike being in danger/targeted, which goes all the way back to the first episode of the series. 

This isn't even considering, that another trend they’re likely to bring back in s5, bc if they don’t they’d be breaking a series long trend, is Mike being late. He starts every season late. And so, what is Mike going to be late for this time? Could it have something to do with all of the unknowns about him that are yet to be addressed?

I think that sometimes we say that something isn’t going to happen because we don’t want it to. A lot of this stuff I’m saying happening isn’t based on feelings, it’s based on actual evidence.

If you don’t want certain things to happen because of x, y, z, you can just say that is the case instead of making arguments that there is nothing supporting it, when that’s not actually true?

Like nothing? Nothing at all? Baseless? Like, be serious rn.

ST5 is very likely going to give off s1-2 vibes. While Mike is going to be less in the background compared to s3-4, Will AND El are still going to have equal, if not more attention than him, bc I do believe that their bond is what is going to also be a part of saving Hawkins.

The ending is going to be surprising bc those primary color-coded bitches are the answer to it all. If me saying that upsets anyone because it goes against their interpretation of things, I'm sorry too I guess!

#byler #stranger things #st5 speculation #pls go make theories of your own and have fun #if people don't subscribe to your theories #maybe don't assume everyone else is wrong #like is that really the only possibility here #i mean we all technically agree bylers are right about byler being endgame.. #so they have a record for at least being close to being right because they're paying close attention to the details #i feel like using 'all bylers think this' as like a dig or some sort of attempt at discrediting a theory is sort of weak #a lot of people probably like something because it makes sense... #is that always the case? #no obviously not #still calling bylers delusional is so triggering like come on now why are we using milkvan methods #stop even implying bylers delusional #even if it's out of love #embrace the delusion #and let people be responsible for their own emotions if they're right/wrong in s5 #this is a tv show #we'll all be okay either way #but along the way lets not make play it off like we care for other people's feelings all while basically telling them they're stupid... #be confident in your interpretation and leave it at that

[paganinpurple]

AO3 Etiquette -UPDATED

Based on both decent and not so decent replies, I have made some changes to my original post below.

It would seem a whole new kind of AO3 reader/writer is emerging and it is becoming clear not everyone quite understands how the website community works. Here is some basic guidance on how most people expect you to go about using AO3 to keep this a fun community archive that funtions correctly:

As well as likes, kudos is for when the story was interesting enough to make you finish reading. If it sucked or was badly written, you probably left. If you finished it, you liked it - so kudos.

If you really liked it, you should try to comment. It can be long and detailed or a literal keysmash. Writers don't care, we just love comments.

No critisism unless the author has specifically asked or agreed to hear it (so use your notes to say if you want some constructive feedback). Even constructive critisism is a no-no unless an author note tells you it's okay. No, posting it online is not an open invitation for that. Many people write as a fun hobby or a way to cope with, among other things, insecurity and just want to share. Don't ruin that for them. I've seen so many authors just stop writing coz they can't handle the negative emotions the critism brings, and it's only meant to be a fun thing shared for free (pointing out tagging errors is not included in this).

Do not comment to ask the author to write/update something else. It's tacky and off-putting and will probably have the opposite effect than the one you want.

There is no algorithm, it's an archive. Use the search and filter function to add/remove the pairings/characters/tropes etc. you want to read about and it will find you the fics that fit the bill.

For this to work, writers must tag and rate stories. This avoids readers finding the wrong things and missing the stuff they want. I don't care how cringy that trope is in your eyes - it gets tagged.

The tag exception is if you don't want to tag a million things or spoil your story, you can rate it as "chose not to use warnings," and maybe tag the bare minimum.

Don't censor tags. How can someone exclude a tag if the word isn't typed out correctly? There are no content bans for terms so don't censor them.

If the tags are mostly content/trigger warnings, especially if they are things considered very fucked up or graphic, you might want to use "dead dove - do not eat" to ensure people know that you're not messing around with tags and what they get is exactly what you've warned them about.

Character A/Character B means a ROMANTIC or SEXUAL relationship of some kind. Character A&Character B is PLATONIC, like friendship or family.

Nothing is banned. This is an rule because banning one thing is a slipperly slope to banning another and another, until nothing is allowed anymore. Do not expect anyone to censor for you. Because of the tags system, you are responsible for your own reading experience.

People can create new chapters and sequels/fic series any time after they "complete" a story. So it's considered perfectly normal to subscribe, even to a finished story. You can even subscribe to the author instead just to cover your bases.

Do not repost stories or change the publishing date without an extremely good reason (like a complete top to bottom rewrite or an exchange youve written for going public). It's an archive, not social media. No one cares what's the most recent, only what fits their tag needs.

Instead of deleting a story you wrote if you hate it - consider making it anonymous or orphaning it so others can still enjoy it, without it being connected to your name anymore. If you still want to delete it, fair enough.

It's come to my attention that metaworks ARE allowed on AO3, which is something I wasn't aware of. So if you do post an essay or theory, please tag it as such so others can choose to search for it or exclude it. Art is also allowed.

The only reason this archive works is because NON ONE PROFITS. Do not link to your ko-fi or patreon or mention monetary gain in any way or you violate the terms and risk having your account removed. If anyone does link, it leaves the archive open to people claiming it's for profit and having the whole thing removed.

I KNOW there's plenty more I missed but I'm trying to cover most of the basics that people seem to be struggling with.

I invite anyone to add to this, but please explain, don't berate.

#ao3 #using ao3 #archive of our own #fanfiction #fanworks

[freckliedan]

wait can you talk more about christmas 2018?

Anonymous asked: Just what you said in your post! "the first christmas where they publicly spent that much time together" did they usually keep quiet about where they were?

i can't speak to the 2014-16 era because i fell out of touch with the fandom at that time, but i was absolutely around during 2017 & 18. both of those years marked HUGE shifts, and both of those huge shifts came at the tail end of gamingmas/dilmas. you can check out my original frog theory post and my frog theory tag for elaboration on the function of gamingmas irt all of this. as just like. prerequisite framework reading.

ANYWAYS. the thing that was such a big deal was that dan was openly visiting the lesters with phil. yes, you can visit friends' families during the holidays. but it's much more frequently something you do with a significant other. so the ruckus was because dan and phil knew the conclusions people would jump to if we knew dan visited the lesters at christmas, and they still let us know that it happened.

(this got disgustingly long, so i'm putting the rest of this post under the cut.)

part of what made that such a big deal was having that happen after the no homo/closet era, the "we're not together we're not even that close of friends we're just roommates" era. the significance of their trust & openness was MUCH more tangibly felt. a way larger percent of the fandom at that time had been present when the vday video leaked/had joined shortly afterwards when that was one of the biggest things impacting both phandom culture and our relationship with dnp.

so in 2017 when we got a glimpse of dan up north at the lesters' in a couple of cornelia's instagram stories? we lost our fucking minds about it. it was only 2 (i think) background cameos, but it was quite literally unprecedented. it's not something that qualifies as openly spending time together at the holidays because of the method throug which we found out about it, but like. there's no way they didn't know that cornelia was posting those, and no way that they didn't know we'd know about it.

when i say we, i mean dedicated phannies. people who could possibly be reading this post, not casual subscribers to the gaming channel. because when it comes to casual viewers, or even people who aren't a part of dan and phil's usual audience at all? there's a lot of methods of communication that they just plain aren't paying attention to and won't be aware of.

the most direct, permanent methods dan and phil have for communicating are videos on either of their individual channels or on dan and phil games, and after that is instagram grid posts or tweets, as well as videos on their side channels. twitter replies, insta stories, livestreams, and their public likes on any social media platform? those are for a more private audience. their appearances in other people's posts reaches a similarly small audience.

knowing that they were starting to be more and more open through the communication channels only open between them and dedicated fans, and that it was a trend - december 2017 is also when phil, in a liveshow, read out someone's "you and dan are so married" comment and just.. laughingly said "it-it's a useful thing". (link to gifs of that). it wasn't a one-off. it was a trend.

and compared to 2018, it was dust. they spent the whole year becoming increasingly open with us, through increasingly direct methods. it was a whirlwind. even for people who've watched all the videos and liveshows, you don't have the whole picture. the onslaught was coming at us from every angle at all moments. you'd have to also explore the full archives of social media posts, insta stories, meet and greets , social media likes, and like.. the archived recordings of every interactive introverts tour date. it was batshit.

it was genuinely one of the most insane years of my life. i was having physical symptoms. we all knew what was coming, we all could tell they were working up towards coming out, but nobody wanted to trust that we were right about that. my dashboard was regularly at a fever pitch.

and december 2018 was the culmination of everything. and then they were talking directly to us in a liveshow and being. insanely open. they told us that dan was going with phil to visit the lesters. and they told us that pinof was ending. and then dilmas started dropping, aggressively cementing the fact that dab and evan were sim-universe proxies for dnp, while dan and phil posted instagram grid and story updates about visiting the lesters. and then dab and evan came home to the howlter house for the holidays. and got engaged.

and then they went on hiatus, and we pretty much did not hear from dan until he came out.

the point is. we knew there was a fucking insane energy. we KNEW something big was coming. we fucking knew. it was a two year build up to dan and phil being the most publicly gay they'd ever been on the gaming channel and every single other platform - and part of that insanity was them being open about dan visiting the lesters, which coincided with them having their proxy sims get gay engaged while visiting family.

"did they usually keep quiet about where they were?" anon, the last time before all this that they had openly acknowledged dan visiting the lesters during the holidays was 2009.

the way they were acting over christmas of 2018 had me experiencing shrimp emotions to such an intense degree i was having verifiable psychic visions.

#jam replies #anon #jam thoughts #frecklie thoughts #phan #dan and phil #dan and phil games #phandom

[blubberquark]

Auto-Generated Junk Web Sites

I don't know if you heard the complaints about Google getting worse since 2018, or about Amazon getting worse. Some people think Google got worse at search. I think Google got worse because the web got worse. Amazon got worse because the supply side on Amazon got worse, but ultimately Amazon is to blame for incentivising the sale of more and cheaper products on its platform.

In any case, if you search something on Google, you get a lot of junk, and if you search for a specific product on Amazon, you get a lot of junk, even though the process that led to the junk is very different.

I don't subscribe to the "Dead Internet Theory", the idea that most online content is social media and that most social media is bots. I think Google search has gotten worse because a lot of content from as recently as 2018 got deleted, and a lot of web 1.0 and the blogosphere got deleted, comment sections got deleted, and content in the style of web 1.0 and the blogosphere is no longer produced. Furthermore, many links are now broken because they don't directly link to web pages, but to social media accounts and tweets that used to aggregate links.

I don't think going back to web 1.0 will help discoverability, and it probably won't be as profitable or even monetiseable to maintain a useful web 1.0 page compared to an entertaining but ephemeral YouTube channel. Going back to Web 1.0 means more long-term after-hours labour of love site maintenance, and less social media posting as a career.

Anyway, Google has gotten noticeably worse since GPT-3 and ChatGPT were made available to the general public, and many people blame content farms with language models and image synthesis for this. I am not sure. If Google had started to show users meaningless AI generated content from large content farms, that means Google has finally lost the SEO war, and Google is worse at AI/language models than fly-by-night operations whose whole business model is skimming clicks off Google.

I just don't think that's true. I think the reality is worse.

Real web sites run by real people are getting overrun by AI-generated junk, and human editors can't stop it. Real people whose job it is to generate content are increasingly turning in AI junk at their jobs.

Furthermore, even people who are setting up a web site for a local business or an online presence for their personal brand/CV are using auto-generated text.

I have seen at least two different TV commercials by web hosting and web design companies that promoted this. Are you starting your own business? Do you run a small business? A business needs a web site. With our AI-powered tools, you don't have to worry about the content of your web site. We generate it for you.

There are companies out there today, selling something that's probably a re-labelled ChatGPT or LLaMA plus Stable Diffusion to somebody who is just setting up a bicycle repair shop. All the pictures and written copy on the web presence for that repair shop will be automatically generated.

We would be living in a much better world if there was a small number of large content farms and bot operators poisoning our search results. Instead, we are living in a world where many real people are individually doing their part.

#dead internet theory #small web #large language models #search engine optimisation

[creature-wizard]

Some things associated with New Age that aren't inherently bad

Since this blog can get kinda heavy sometimes, and because there's some people out there who think that anything remotely adjacent to New Age is evil and must be banished forever, I figured I'd write something on elements it includes that aren't necessarily bad.

Its general concept of God and divinity

New Age beliefs typically posit that God, or Source, effectively split itself into many different souls in order to have different kinds of experiences. There's nothing wrong with this model of divinity in itself, since it doesn't by itself imply anything hateful or suggest any kind of action that might lead to harm. Where it gets messed up is when people start claiming that if you're suffering, it's because you deliberately chose to have this kind of experience before you incarnated. That's just victim blaming, and it's wrong.

Energy healing

Energy healing on its own is a harmless practice, and many people do report feeling better for doing it. Dismissing energy healing as inherently bad in itself would be like dismissing prayer for recovery as inherently bad. It's really not. The problem is always when people start believing they should only rely on energy healing or prayer, or fall into the belief that pharmaceutical medicine is sinful or an evil conspiracy.

Listening to relaxing tones

No, those "healing frequencies" probably won't cure any serious ailments. But that doesn't mean they can't make you feel more relaxed or help you focus. You don't have to subscribe to any specific belief system to listen to these audios.

Glossolalia

The New Age practice of speaking in light languages is a form of glossolalia, which basically involves relaxing and speaking whatever sounds immediately come to you. Doing it can be cathartic and relaxing, and you don't need to subscribe to any specific belief system to do it.

Tarot reading

Reading tarot cards doesn't require subscribing to any specific spiritual belief system. Nor do you even need to be spiritual at all; you can read tarot cards with the perspective that what you're doing is prompting your own mind to consider things from new angles.

Meditation

Meditation is known to have beneficial effects, and doing it doesn't require subscribing to any particular belief system. Yes, it's a problem when somebody subscribes meditation as a cure-all, or use it as a form of spiritual bypassing, but that's a problem with the teacher, not the practice itself.

Eating more plant foods

Provided you don't have any allergies or intolerances, eating more fruits, vegetables, nuts, and the like usually isn't a bad idea. The problem with New Age is when it effectively moralizes food by decreeing certain foods "high vibrational" or "low vibrational," or when it's pushing conspiracy theories about modern processed food items being intentionally poisoned to block our psychic abilities or keep us dependent on the healthcare system. And obviously, it's appallingly ableist to tell someone that they could cure a chronic illness by switching to an all-natural vegan diet or something.

Belief in aliens

It's a big universe, and it's not unreasonable to think we're not alone in it, and that maybe there's beings who are observing us. The problem is when belief in aliens becomes part of a conspiratorial worldview that scapegoats certain groups of people for the world's problems, displaces real history, and misuses other people's traditions and beliefs.

Belief that things can and will get better

To paraphrase Terry Pratchett's words in The Hogfather, we sometimes need to believe in things that aren't true (such as justice and mercy) so they can become true. Believing that things can change makes people feel like their efforts are worth something. Meanwhile, when everyone's got a doomer attitude nothing will change for the better because nobody will even try.

One problem with New Age's optimism in specific is that they tend to believe that things getting better is contingent on converting a large number of people to New Age spirituality, which includes getting them to accept a large number of conspiratorial beliefs that target and harm vulnerable minorities, and/or distort and erase the actual spiritual beliefs of people from different cultures (many of whom are marginalized minorities and/or have been severely harmed by colonialism already).

Another problem is when you get the whole 5D ascension thing going on. 5D ascension is basically the New Age version of the Rapture, and just like the Rapture, it's always said to be right around the corner, but it never materializes. (If you'd like examples, here are predictions for 2012 and 2015.) Very concerningly, New Agers often list a number of physical and mental health symptoms as "ascension symptoms." They were claiming this as far back as the 2010s, when December 31, 2012 was supposed to be the big day. (Here's an example.)

Basically, hope and belief that things can get better is important - but it's also important not to hang our hopes (and medical decisions) on supernatural predictions that have already failed multiple times.

Wanting to promote compassion and understanding between people

This is a great thing to want! The problem with New Age isn't that they want to spread peace and harmony, but rather the way they want to do it without really listening to the people they supposedly want to help. You can't, for example, genuinely fight colonialism if you're engaging in cultural appropriation and misrepresenting their spiritual traditions - you're an active part of the problem. Promoting compassion and understanding begins with you shutting up, listening, and learning without imposing your own preconceptions or reacting from your ego. You're not doing this if you're looking for mythology to project aliens onto, or dismissing anything you don't want to hear as a conspiracy.

And here's some critical thinking tips before you go

When you're evaluating any belief system or practice, it's always important to remember that belief and practice are not the same thing. Most of the time the practices are harmless in and of themselves; the actual danger comes from the conspiratorial and morally polarized worldviews many practitioners also subscribe to. Nobody's ever died from putting rose quartz in their room or getting a reiki session. They have died from refusing evidence-based medical care because someone convinced them that the health care industry is a scam and will also separate them from Source.

When it comes to beliefs themselves, ask yourself what kind of narratives they're upholding. If they basically promote the same kind of conspiratorial narratives used by Nazis, witch hunters, or far right Christians to justify their hatred and violence, that's a pretty strong sign that this belief is bullshit. But of course, there's a pretty stark difference between believing that aliens could be out there, and believing blood-drinking reptiles have invaded the Earth.

#new age #beliefs #belief #spirituality #witchblr #critical thinking #discernment

[noctvrnal9999]

Ascended Astarion, Cazador Szarr and how they are NOT alike (at all)

Some of you probably saw this coming already, that I would go out of my way to talk about the whole "Ascended Astarion is Cazador 2.0" thing because it's such a ridiculous notion. Here it is, my personal take on why I disagree.

First and foremost I will address the whole: "Oh my GOD Astarion follows the Four Rules right from the beginning!" mindset. Here they are, the rules as Vellioth passed them down onto Cazador:

First, thou shalt not drink of the blood of thinking creatures.

Second, thou shalt obey me in all things.

Third, thou shalt not leave my side unless directed.

Four, thou shalt know that thou art mine.

Rule one is pretty obvious - don't drink blood of thinking creatures. That's one of the tools Cazador used to keep his Spawn subservient and demoralized. We don't get any in-game information that Cazador went back on this rule in any instance whatsoever, seems it was very much set in stone for him. Ascended Astarion (which I will shorthand to AA from this point on) breaks this rule the moment he Ascends with his Blood Bride/Groom. Not only he gives player character his blood (willingly, I will mention), he speaks also about drinking PC's blood and they drinking his:

Already breaking the very first rule he himself had to obey for two centuries. And in-game mechanics support this of course, PC can use Bite action on anyone who is not classified as undead (like Astarion, for example, PC can freely chomp on him if they wish so).

Rule two is also obvious - Cazador compelled his Spawn through his bond as their master. That is evident in the scene where Astarion's siblings attack the camp:

They have no choice but to obey Cazador's command even if they struggle. The only reason Astarion is free because of the tadpole. We could apply same logic to Bride/Groom PC, that Astarion cannot compel PC only because of the tadpole. However, PC can ask Astarion about this:

To which he replies:

The implication here is that he thinks he can compel PC but he's choosing not to. Now, whenever you subscribe to the theory I presented before that he can't compel PC and is lying or not, it's up to you, but if we're taking this line at face-value only it's very very clear - AA is not going to compel PC, to him it's a ridiculous idea (Why would I need to?). He trusts that PC and him are on the same page (and personally I read the second part of his sentence as being cheeky, but maybe that's just me.)

Rule three, just like first two, is simple and easy to understand - don't leave your "master" unless directed. Cazador sent out his Spawn to lure victims for two hundred years, however, Astarion, if we believe he can compel PC, is not even attempting to make PC stay by his side (or send them away, for that matter). All he says is this:

And this is in conversation about not being able to walk in the sun, which is about his newfound powers being extended to PC. Nothing in any dialogues (that I can remember) suggests that he commands PC to stay by his side. The only such dialogue option appears in the epilogue (keep in mind that epilogue was added later) and if you legitimately argue with AA (I would never do it but there's some crazies out there, stay safe xoxo) but to be completely honest you can ask for your freedom:

To which he replies:

Even if we take this as "daunting" as some people portray it to be, we still see AA acting more like a brat-tamer than a cruel master Cazador has been. Try putting these lines into Cazador's mouth and tell me they work lol.

Rule four is self explanatory. And this one we can definitely apply to AA. From the moment of Ascension he insists confirming to PC that well, they are his, but he also emphasizes that he is theirs in turn (if blood drinking line is anything to go by). Vampires by nature are possessive, it makes sense that AA feels the need to speak about it. PC is the only person he ever loved, now he's expressing that love, albeit maybe a tad intensively (according to some).

But on the flip side, where AA can be seen as possessive as Cazador, AA does 180 and shares his power and status with PC. There's an incredible amount of lines in the game where he speaks about being equals, sharing power and standing side by side, unlike Cazador.

And these are just couple from same conversation, there's so many more, but pay close attention how many times he says "we" or "you and me". PC is not just a spawn to him, not someone to be controlled but a true equal, sharing power, wealth and goals.

Which leads me to another point that needs addressing and emphasizing - AA is still a vampire, just like Cazador. Yes, these two creatures are power-hungry, that's in their nature, in any vampire's nature. I'll draw attention to the fact that even as a Spawn, Astarion is hungry for power and freedom. Once he has freedom, his goal still remains power. While Cazador's goal was to become Ascendant, AA's is well, world domination, basically. He surely has the time if not power to try and achieve that. However, this doesn't make him "just like" his former master, it just makes him a vampire.

And let's not forget that even before becoming a vampire Astarion was already power-hungry, which is clear from his choice of career as a Magistrate. Albeit a far shout from world domination, he still sought positions of power even while alive.

So to summarize before this becomes too lengthy - AA is simply a vampire. Not a reflection of his former master. They share some traits because they belong to same caste by the end of Astarion's personal quest, but that doesn't make him any more similar to Cazador than any other Vampire Lord or even Strahd.

Simply put - AA is a monster. Vampires are classified as monsters and they are Lawfully Evil aligned in DnD. Just because he has unpleasant traits, it doesn't mean he took them from Cazador. It just means that he has unpleasant traits. Make the man accountable for his own flaws (or just generic vampire traits), after all, as Ascendant, I'm sure he take it :)

#lord astarion #ascended astarion #thots and prayers.tm

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Big Tech’s “attention rents”

Tomorrow (Nov 4), I'm keynoting the Hackaday Supercon in Pasadena, CA.

The thing is, any feed or search result is "algorithmic." "Just show me the things posted by people I follow in reverse-chronological order" is an algorithm. "Just show me products that have this SKU" is an algorithm. "Alphabetical sort" is an algorithm. "Random sort" is an algorithm.

Any process that involves more information than you can take in at a glance or digest in a moment needs some kind of sense-making. It needs to be put in some kind of order. There's always gonna be an algorithm.

But that's not what we mean by "the algorithm" (TM). When we talk about "the algorithm," we mean a system for ordering information that uses complex criteria that are not precisely known to us, and than can't be easily divined through an examination of the ordering.

There's an idea that a "good" algorithm is one that does not seek to deceive or harm us. When you search for a specific part number, you want exact matches for that search at the top of the results. It's fine if those results include third-party parts that are compatible with the part you're searching for, so long as they're clearly labeled. There's room for argument about how to order those results – do highly rated third-party parts go above the OEM part? How should the algorithm trade off price and quality?

It's hard to come up with an objective standard to resolve these fine-grained differences, but search technologists have tried. Think of Google: they have a patent on "long clicks." A "long click" is when you search for something and then don't search for it again for quite some time, the implication being that you've found what you were looking for. Google Search ads operate a "pay per click" model, and there's an argument that this aligns Google's ad division's interests with search quality: if the ad division only gets paid when you click a link, they will militate for placing ads that users want to click on.

Platforms are inextricably bound up in this algorithmic information sorting business. Platforms have emerged as the endemic form of internet-based business, which is ironic, because a platform is just an intermediary – a company that connects different groups to each other. The internet's great promise was "disintermediation" – getting rid of intermediaries. We did that, and then we got a whole bunch of new intermediaries.

Usually, those groups can be sorted into two buckets: "business customers" (drivers, merchants, advertisers, publishers, creative workers, etc) and "end users" (riders, shoppers, consumers, audiences, etc). Platforms also sometimes connect end users to each other: think of dating sites, or interest-based forums on Reddit. Either way, a platform's job is to make these connections, and that means platforms are always in the algorithm business.

Whether that's matching a driver and a rider, or an advertiser and a consumer, or a reader and a mix of content from social feeds they're subscribed to and other sources of information on the service, the platform has to make a call as to what you're going to see or do.

These choices are enormously consequential. In the theory of Surveillance Capitalism, these choices take on an almost supernatural quality, where "Big Data" can be used to guess your response to all the different ways of pitching an idea or product to you, in order to select the optimal pitch that bypasses your critical faculties and actually controls your actions, robbing you of "the right to a future tense."

I don't think much of this hypothesis. Every claim to mind control – from Rasputin to MK Ultra to neurolinguistic programming to pick-up artists – has turned out to be bullshit. Besides, you don't need to believe in mind control to explain the ways that algorithms shape our beliefs and actions. When a single company dominates the information landscape – say, when Google controls 90% of your searches – then Google's sorting can deprive you of access to information without you knowing it.

If every "locksmith" listed on Google Maps is a fake referral business, you might conclude that there are no more reputable storefront locksmiths in existence. What's more, this belief is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy: if Google Maps never shows anyone a real locksmith, all the real locksmiths will eventually go bust.

If you never see a social media update from a news source you follow, you might forget that the source exists, or assume they've gone under. If you see a flood of viral videos of smash-and-grab shoplifter gangs and never see a news story about wage theft, you might assume that the former is common and the latter is rare (in reality, shoplifting hasn't risen appreciably, while wage-theft is off the charts).

In the theory of Surveillance Capitalism, the algorithm was invented to make advertisers richer, and then went on to pervert the news (by incentivizing "clickbait") and finally destroyed our politics when its persuasive powers were hijacked by Steve Bannon, Cambridge Analytica, and QAnon grifters to turn millions of vulnerable people into swivel-eyed loons, racists and conspiratorialists.

As I've written, I think this theory gives the ad-tech sector both too much and too little credit, and draws an artificial line between ad-tech and other platform businesses that obscures the connection between all forms of platform decay, from Uber to HBO to Google Search to Twitter to Apple and beyond:

https://pluralistic.net/HowToDestroySurveillanceCapitalism

As a counter to Surveillance Capitalism, I've proposed a theory of platform decay called enshittification, which identifies how the market power of monopoly platforms, combined with the flexibility of digital tools, combined with regulatory capture, allows platforms to abuse both business-customers and end-users, by depriving them of alternatives, then "twiddling" the knobs that determine the rules of the platform without fearing sanction under privacy, labor or consumer protection law, and finally, blocking digital self-help measures like ad-blockers, alternative clients, scrapers, reverse engineering, jailbreaking, and other tech guerrilla warfare tactics:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/#hey-guys

One important distinction between Surveillance Capitalism and enshittification is that enshittification posits that the platform is bad for everyone. Surveillance Capitalism starts from the assumption that surveillance advertising is devastatingly effective (which explains how your racist Facebook uncles got turned into Jan 6 QAnons), and concludes that advertisers must be well-served by the surveillance system.

But advertisers – and other business customers – are very poorly served by platforms. Procter and Gamble reduced its annual surveillance advertising budget from $100m//year to $0/year and saw a 0% reduction in sales. The supposed laser-focused targeting and superhuman message refinement just don't work very well – first, because the tech companies are run by bullshitters whose marketing copy is nonsense, and second because these companies are monopolies who can abuse their customers without losing money.

The point of enshittification is to lock end-users to the platform, then use those locked-in users as bait for business customers, who will also become locked to the platform. Once everyone is holding everyone else hostage, the platform uses the flexibility of digital services to play a variety of algorithmic games to shift value from everyone to the business's shareholders. This flexibility is supercharged by the failure of regulators to enforce privacy, labor and consumer protection standards against the companies, and by these companies' ability to insist that regulators punish end-users, competitors, tinkerers and other third parties to mod, reverse, hack or jailbreak their products and services to block their abuse.

Enshittification needs The Algorithm. When Uber wants to steal from its drivers, it can just do an old-fashioned wage theft, but eventually it will face the music for that kind of scam:

https://apnews.com/article/uber-lyft-new-york-city-wage-theft-9ae3f629cf32d3f2fb6c39b8ffcc6cc6

The best way to steal from drivers is with algorithmic wage discrimination. That's when Uber offers occassional, selective drivers higher rates than it gives to drivers who are fully locked to its platform and take every ride the app offers. The less selective a driver becomes, the lower the premium the app offers goes, but if a driver starts refusing rides, the wage offer climbs again. This isn't the mind-control of Surveillance Capitalism, it's just fraud, shaving fractional pennies off your paycheck in the hopes that you won't notice. The goal is to get drivers to abandon the other side-hustles that allow them to be so choosy about when they drive Uber, and then, once the driver is fully committed, to crank the wage-dial down to the lowest possible setting:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

This is the same game that Facebook played with publishers on the way to its enshittification: when Facebook began aggressively courting publishers, any short snippet republished from the publisher's website to a Facebook feed was likely to be recommended to large numbers of readers. Facebook offered publishers a vast traffic funnel that drove millions of readers to their sites.

But as publishers became more dependent on that traffic, Facebook's algorithm started downranking short excerpts in favor of medium-length ones, building slowly to fulltext Facebook posts that were fully substitutive for the publisher's own web offerings. Like Uber's wage algorithm, Facebook's recommendation engine played its targets like fish on a line.

When publishers responded to declining reach for short excerpts by stepping back from Facebook, Facebook goosed the traffic for their existing posts, sending fresh floods of readers to the publisher's site. When the publisher returned to Facebook, the algorithm once again set to coaxing the publishers into posting ever-larger fractions of their work to Facebook, until, finally, the publisher was totally locked into Facebook. Facebook then started charging publishers for "boosting" – not just to be included in algorithmic recommendations, but to reach their own subscribers.

Enshittification is modern, high-tech enabled, monopolistic form of rent seeking. Rent-seeking is a subtle and important idea from economics, one that is increasingly relevant to our modern economy. For economists, a "rent" is income you get from owning a "factor of production" – something that someone else needs to make or do something.

Rents are not "profits." Profit is income you get from making or doing something. Rent is income you get from owning something needed to make a profit. People who earn their income from rents are called rentiers. If you make your income from profits, you're a "capitalist."

Capitalists and rentiers are in irreconcilable combat with each other. A capitalist wants access to their factors of production at the lowest possible price, whereas rentiers want those prices to be as high as possible. A phone manufacturer wants to be able to make phones as cheaply as possible, while a patent-troll wants to own a patent that the phone manufacturer needs to license in order to make phones. The manufacturer is a capitalism, the troll is a rentier.

The troll might even decide that the best strategy for maximizing their rents is to exclusively license their patents to a single manufacturer and try to eliminate all other phones from the market. This will allow the chosen manufacturer to charge more and also allow the troll to get higher rents. Every capitalist except the chosen manufacturer loses. So do people who want to buy phones. Eventually, even the chosen manufacturer will lose, because the rentier can demand an ever-greater share of their profits in rent.

Digital technology enables all kinds of rent extraction. The more digitized an industry is, the more rent-seeking it becomes. Think of cars, which harvest your data, block third-party repair and parts, and force you to buy everything from acceleration to seat-heaters as a monthly subscription:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

The cloud is especially prone to rent-seeking, as Yanis Varoufakis writes in his new book, Technofeudalism, where he explains how "cloudalists" have found ways to lock all kinds of productive enterprise into using cloud-based resources from which ever-increasing rents can be extracted:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/28/cloudalists/#cloud-capital

The endless malleability of digitization makes for endless variety in rent-seeking, and cataloging all the different forms of digital rent-extraction is a major project in this Age of Enshittification. "Algorithmic Attention Rents: A theory of digital platform market power," a new UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose paper by Tim O'Reilly, Ilan Strauss and Mariana Mazzucato, pins down one of these forms:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/publications/2023/nov/algorithmic-attention-rents-theory-digital-platform-market-power

The "attention rents" referenced in the paper's title are bait-and-switch scams in which a platform deliberately enshittifies its recommendations, search results or feeds to show you things that are not the thing you asked to see, expect to see, or want to see. They don't do this out of sadism! The point is to extract rent – from you (wasted time, suboptimal outcomes) and from business customers (extracting rents for "boosting," jumbling good results in among scammy or low-quality results).

The authors cite several examples of these attention rents. Much of the paper is given over to Amazon's so-called "advertising" product, a $31b/year program that charges sellers to have their products placed above the items that Amazon's own search engine predicts you will want to buy:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/28/enshittification/#relentless-payola

This is a form of gladiatorial combat that pits sellers against each other, forcing them to surrender an ever-larger share of their profits in rent to Amazon for pride of place. Amazon uses a variety of deceptive labels ("Highly Rated – Sponsored") to get you to click on these products, but most of all, they rely two factors. First, Amazon has a long history of surfacing good results in response to queries, which makes buying whatever's at the top of a list a good bet. Second, there's just so many possible results that it takes a lot of work to sift through the probably-adequate stuff at the top of the listings and get to the actually-good stuff down below.

Amazon spent decades subsidizing its sellers' goods – an illegal practice known as "predatory pricing" that enforcers have increasingly turned a blind eye to since the Reagan administration. This has left it with few competitors:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/19/fake-it-till-you-make-it/#millennial-lifestyle-subsidy

The lack of competing retail outlets lets Amazon impose other rent-seeking conditions on its sellers. For example, Amazon has a "most favored nation" requirement that forces companies that raise their prices on Amazon to raise their prices everywhere else, which makes everything you buy more expensive, whether that's a Walmart, Target, a mom-and-pop store, or direct from the manufacturer:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/25/greedflation/#commissar-bezos

But everyone loses in this "two-sided market." Amazon used "junk ads" to juice its ad-revenue: these are ads that are objectively bad matches for your search, like showing you a Seattle Seahawks jersey in response to a search for LA Lakers merch:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-02/amazon-boosted-junk-ads-hid-messages-with-signal-ftc-says

The more of these junk ads Amazon showed, the more revenue it got from sellers – and the more the person selling a Lakers jersey had to pay to show up at the top of your search, and the more they had to charge you to cover those ad expenses, and the more they had to charge for it everywhere else, too.

The authors describe this process as a transformation between "attention rents" (misdirecting your attention) to "pecuniary rents" (making money). That's important: despite decades of rhetoric about the "attention economy," attention isn't money. As I wrote in my enshittification essay:

You can't use attention as a medium of exchange. You can't use it as a store of value. You can't use it as a unit of account. Attention is like cryptocurrency: a worthless token that is only valuable to the extent that you can trick or coerce someone into parting with "fiat" currency in exchange for it. You have to "monetize" it – that is, you have to exchange the fake money for real money.

The authors come up with some clever techniques for quantifying the ways that this scam harms users. For example, they count the number of places that an advertised product rises in search results, relative to where it would show up in an "organic" search. These quantifications are instructive, but they're also a kind of subtweet at the judiciary.

In 2018, SCOTUS's ruling in American Express v Ohio changed antitrust law for two-sided markets by insisting that so long as one side of a two-sided market was better off as the result of anticompetitive actions, there was no antitrust violation:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3346776

For platforms, that means that it's OK to screw over sellers, advertisers, performers and other business customers, so long as the end-users are better off: "Go ahead, cheat the Uber drivers, so long as you split the booty with Uber riders."

But in the absence of competition, regulation or self-help measures, platforms cheat everyone – that's the point of enshittification. The attention rents that Amazon's payola scheme extract from shoppers translate into higher prices, worse goods, and lower profits for platform sellers. In other words, Amazon's conduct is so sleazy that it even threads the infinitesimal needle that the Supremes created in American Express.

Here's another algorithmic pecuniary rent: Amazon figured out which of its major rivals used an automated price-matching algorithm, and then cataloged which products they had in common with those sellers. Then, under a program called Project Nessie, Amazon jacked up the prices of those products, knowing that as soon as they raised the prices on Amazon, the prices would go up everywhere else, so Amazon wouldn't lose customers to cheaper alternatives. That scam made Amazon at least a billion dollars:

https://gizmodo.com/ftc-alleges-amazon-used-price-gouging-algorithm-1850986303

This is a great example of how enshittification – rent-seeking on digital platforms – is different from analog rent-seeking. The speed and flexibility with which Amazon and its rivals altered their prices requires digitization. Digitization also let Amazon crank the price-gouging dial to zero whenever they worried that regulators were investigating the program.

So what do we do about it? After years of being made to look like fumblers and clowns by Big Tech, regulators and enforcers – and even lawmakers – have decided to get serious.

The neoliberal narrative of government helplessness and incompetence would have you believe that this will go nowhere. Governments aren't as powerful as giant corporations, and regulators aren't as smart as the supergeniuses of Big Tech. They don't stand a chance.

But that's a counsel of despair and a cheap trick. Weaker US governments have taken on stronger oligarchies and won – think of the defeat of JD Rockefeller and the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911. The people who pulled that off weren't wizards. They were just determined public servants, with political will behind them. There is a growing, forceful public will to end the rein of Big Tech, and there are some determined public servants surfing that will.

In this paper, the authors try to give those enforcers ammo to bring to court and to the public. For example, Amazon claims that its algorithm surfaces the products that make the public happy, without the need for competitive pressure to keep it sharp. But as the paper points out, the only successful new rival ecommerce platform – Tiktok – has found an audience for an entirely new category of goods: dupes, "lower-cost products that have the same or better features than higher cost branded products."

The authors also identify "dark patterns" that platforms use to trick users into consuming feeds that have a higher volume of things that the company profits from, and a lower volume of things that users want to see. For example, platforms routinely switch users from a "following" feed – consisting of things posted by people the user asked to hear from – with an algorithmic "For You" feed, filled with the things the company's shareholders wish the users had asked to see.

Calling this a "dark pattern" reveals just how hollow and self-aggrandizing that term is. "Dark pattern" usually means "fraud." If I ask to see posts from people I like, and you show me posts from people who'll pay you for my attention instead, that's not a sophisticated sleight of hand – it's just a scam. It's the social media equivalent of the eBay seller who sends you an iPhone box with a bunch of gravel inside it instead of an iPhone. Tech bros came up with "dark pattern" as a way of flattering themselves by draping themselves in the mantle of dopamine-hacking wizards, rather than unimaginative con-artists who use a computer to rip people off.

These For You algorithmic feeds aren't just a way to increase the load of sponsored posts in a feed – they're also part of the multi-sided ripoff of enshittified platforms. A For You feed allows platforms to trick publishers and performers into thinking that they are "good at the platform," which both convinces to optimize their production for that platform, and also turns them into Judas Goats who conspicuously brag about how great the platform is for people like them, which brings their peers in, too.

In Veena Dubal's essential paper on algorithmic wage discrimination, she describes how Uber drivers whom the algorithm has favored with (temporary) high per-ride rates brag on driver forums about their skill with the app, bringing in other drivers who blame their lower wages on their failure to "use the app right":

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4331080

As I wrote in my enshittification essay:

If you go down to the midway at your county fair, you'll spot some poor sucker walking around all day with a giant teddy bear that they won by throwing three balls in a peach basket.

The peach-basket is a rigged game. The carny can use a hidden switch to force the balls to bounce out of the basket. No one wins a giant teddy bear unless the carny wants them to win it. Why did the carny let the sucker win the giant teddy bear? So that he'd carry it around all day, convincing other suckers to put down five bucks for their chance to win one:

https://boingboing.net/2006/08/27/rigged-carny-game.html

The carny allocated a giant teddy bear to that poor sucker the way that platforms allocate surpluses to key performers – as a convincer in a "Big Store" con, a way to rope in other suckers who'll make content for the platform, anchoring themselves and their audiences to it.

Platform can't run the giant teddy-bear con unless there's a For You feed. Some platforms – like Tiktok – tempt users into a For You feed by making it as useful as possible, then salting it with doses of enshittification:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2023/01/20/tiktoks-secret-heating-button-can-make-anyone-go-viral/

Other platforms use the (ugh) "dark pattern" of simply flipping your preference from a "following" feed to a "For You" feed. Either way, the platform can't let anyone keep the giant teddy-bear. Once you've tempted, say, sports bros into piling into the platform with the promise of millions of free eyeballs, you need to withdraw the algorithm's favor for their content so you can give it to, say, astrologers. Of course, the more locked-in the users are, the more shit you can pile into that feed without worrying about them going elsewhere, and the more giant teddy-bears you can give away to more business users so you can lock them in and start extracting rent.

For regulators, the possibility of a "good" algorithmic feed presents a serious challenge: when a feed is bad, how can a regulator tell if its low quality is due to the platform's incompetence at blocking spammers or guessing what users want, or whether it's because the platform is extracting rents?

The paper includes a suite of recommendations, including one that I really liked:

Regulators, working with cooperative industry players, would define reportable metrics based on those that are actually used by the platforms themselves to manage search, social media, e-commerce, and other algorithmic relevancy and recommendation engines.

In other words: find out how the companies themselves measure their performance. Find out what KPIs executives have to hit in order to earn their annual bonuses and use those to figure out what the company's performance is – ad load, ratio of organic clicks to ad clicks, average click-through on the first organic result, etc.

They also recommend some hard rules, like reserving a portion of the top of the screen for "organic" search results, and requiring exact matches to show up as the top result.

I've proposed something similar, applicable across multiple kinds of digital businesses: an end-to-end principle for online services. The end-to-end principle is as old as the internet, and it decrees that the role of an intermediary should be to deliver data from willing senders to willing receivers as quickly and reliably as possible. When we apply this principle to your ISP, we call it Net Neutrality. For services, E2E would mean that if I subscribed to your feed, the service would have a duty to deliver it to me. If I hoisted your email out of my spam folder, none of your future emails should land there. If I search for your product and there's an exact match, that should be the top result:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/platforms-decay-lets-put-users-first

One interesting wrinkle to framing platform degradation as a failure to connect willing senders and receivers is that it places a whole host of conduct within the regulatory remit of the FTC. Section 5 of the FTC Act contains a broad prohibition against "unfair and deceptive" practices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

That means that the FTC doesn't need any further authorization from Congress to enforce an end to end rule: they can simply propose and pass that rule, on the grounds that telling someone that you'll show them the feeds that they ask for and then not doing so is "unfair and deceptive."

Some of the other proposals in the paper also fit neatly into Section 5 powers, like a "sticky" feed preference. If I tell a service to show me a feed of the people I follow and they switch it to a For You feed, that's plainly unfair and deceptive.

All of this raises the question of what a post-Big-Tech feed would look like. In "How To Break Up Amazon" for The Sling, Peter Carstensen and Darren Bush sketch out some visions for this:

https://www.thesling.org/how-to-break-up-amazon/

They imagine a "condo" model for Amazon, where the sellers collectively own the Amazon storefront, a model similar to capacity rights on natural gas pipelines, or to patent pools. They see two different ways that search-result order could be determined in such a system:

"specific premium placement could go to those vendors that value the placement the most [with revenue] shared among the owners of the condo"

or

"leave it to owners themselves to create joint ventures to promote products"

Note that both of these proposals are compatible with an end-to-end rule and the other regulatory proposals in the paper. Indeed, all these policies are easier to enforce against weaker companies that can't afford to maintain the pretense that they are headquartered in some distant regulatory haven, or pay massive salaries to ex-regulators to work the refs on their behalf:

https://www.thesling.org/in-public-discourse-and-congress-revolvers-defend-amazons-monopoly/

The re-emergence of intermediaries on the internet after its initial rush of disintermediation tells us something important about how we relate to one another. Some authors might be up for directly selling books to their audiences, and some drivers might be up for creating their own taxi service, and some merchants might want to run their own storefronts, but there's plenty of people with something they want to offer us who don't have the will or skill to do it all. Not everyone wants to be a sysadmin, a security auditor, a payment processor, a software engineer, a CFO, a tax-preparer and everything else that goes into running a business. Some people just want to sell you a book. Or find a date. Or teach an online class.

Intermediation isn't intrinsically wicked. Intermediaries fall into pits of enshitffication and other forms of rent-seeking when they aren't disciplined by competitors, by regulators, or by their own users' ability to block their bad conduct (with ad-blockers, say, or other self-help measures). We need intermediaries, and intermediaries don't have to turn into rent-seeking feudal warlords. That only happens if we let it happen.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/03/subprime-attention-rent-crisis/#euthanize-rentiers

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

#pluralistic #rentiers #euthanize rentiers #subprime attention crisis #Mariana Mazzucato #tim oreilly #Ilan Strauss #scholarship #economics #two-sided markets #platform decay #algorithmic feeds #the algorithm tm #enshittification #monopoly #antitrust #section 5 #ftc act #ftc #amazon. google #big tech #attention economy #attention rents #pecuniary rents #consumer welfare #end-to-end principle #remedyfest #giant teddy bears #project nessie #end-to-end

[edenfenixblogs]

"Night" is Free if You're an Audible Subscriber

A lot of people's only experience with learning about the Holocaust is Anne Frank's Diary or works of fiction.

Anyone speaking about i/p right now NEEDS to read this first person account of life in a concentration camp.

There is a right way and a wrong way to read this book.

The right way: Sit with the uncomfortable feeling that non-Jewish people did this to Jews. Not just Germans and not just Nazis. The European leaders who aligned with Hitler and fought with him did this. The Russians who distributed and popularized the antisemitic conspiracy theories which informed much of Europe's Jew hatred at the time did this. The neighbors who sat back and watched as government officials carted off people they knew and saw every day or shot them in the streets and buried them in mass graves. The ones who convinced themselves they were good people simply because they didn't pull the trigger or operate a gas chamber. The citizens of nations of the Allied powers who turned away Jewish refugees from Europe. The Nazi sympathizers in the US. The vast ,expansive hatred against Jews that prevented anyone from intervening on our behalf.

Sit with the fact that nobody intervened to protect Jews, ever. The Allied powers intervened to stop German expansionism, not to protect Jews. They did not fight in WWII to protect Jews. That any Jews survived at all is a miracle. The fact that the camps were liberated at all is a miracle. Because it wasn't a goal. It wasn't something that people were fighting to achieve. That's what people don't seem to understand.

Killing Jews WASN'T the thing that the Allied powers had a problem with.

Plenty of Americans and Europeans from Allied nations thought it sure was a shame that Hitler was so aggressively expansionist, because he had some great ideas about how to kill all those Jews.

And unless you're Jewish, there is the extremely uncomfortable but likely chance that someone you loved was pretty OK with killing my family.

Or, at the very least, that someone killing my family was not something they had the emotional capacity or willingness to engage with. Think about what that does to my trust for YOU. And if you don't think that someone you loved passed on that apathy and antisemitism to you, then you're naive.

The only correct way for a non-Jew to read this book is to sit with who they are as people and think about how they treat Jews and try to empathize with how this indescribable tragedy affected and continues to affect Jews worldwide.

If you have never read this book, I want you to think long and hard about how absolutely terrifying it is for Jewish people that, I, a Jewish woman, have to BEG non-Jews to read it. Because your education system failed you. And because Jews are afraid that YOUR BEHAVIOR WILL DO THIS TO US AGAIN.

The wrong way: Making this true memoir about living through an industrialized genocide about ANYTHING other than antisemitism and antisemitic apathy. You don't get to use it to draw parallels to other atrocities or wars or people. At least not during/while processing your first reading of this book. Why? Because until you sit with your own internalized antisemitism, where and who it came from, and are willing to confront your own hate toward us, then you are missing the point. The point is that people can convince themselves they are good and that they care about their fellow humans and they can have empathy for everyone except Jews. Sure, they might think it's sad that bad things keep happening to Jews. But it never really seems to be the priority, does it? It never seems to be a pressing enough issue to be worth addressing. There's always something more important happening.

That's antisemitic thinking too. You do, actually, need to prioritize dismantling your antisemitism in order to, you know, dismantle it. Just because you don't sit around daydreaming about Hitler doesn't mean you're not antisemitism. Ignoring us is part of your antisemitism--one of the most damaging and intrinsic parts of antisemitism actually. The Holocaust did not happen because most people hated Jew enough to kill us. The Holocaust happened because a bunch of people didn't care enough Jews to stop the people who DID want to harm us.

If you can't think of the last time you tried to unlearn something antisemitic within yourself, then people like you are why the Holocaust happened. If you have had to tune out Jewish pain because it feels like a "distraction," then people like you are why the Holocaust happened. If your reaction to reading this is to feel some kind of righteous anger that I've called you a bad person because you have proof you care about other people, then you are the kind of person who allowed the Holocaust to happen. And you're also wrong.

Because I'm not calling you a bad person. I'm calling you a flawed person who has the ability to fix a flaw that has the potential to harm others. I'm not asking you to care about other, non-Jewish, people. And I'm not asking you to STOP caring about the non-Jewish people you care about.

What I am saying is that claiming that you care about Jewish people is not the same as actually caring about us.

I'm asking you to sit and read this book and to remember that it is about JEWISH PAIN and a JEWISH TRAGEDY that happened to JEWISH PEOPLE. You need to actually devote time to caring about Jewish people, because society never taught you how to do that, and it has no infrastructure built to help you do that. Because antisemitism is baked into the infrastructure itself. Take the time. Read the book. Let Jewish pain be about Jewish people. Let us own our own tragedy. Do not take it from us to apply to other situations. ESPECIALLY not when the actual original situation was something that nobody cared about enough to prevent.

Understand this: If you're not Jewish, there is no way I can explain to you how painful it is to watch people be so invested in likening every terrible thing that happens to any other group of people to the Holocaust, when those same people never actually first tried caring about the Holocaust and the people it actually happened to.

#an eden original #elie wiesel #antisemitism #holocaust inversion #leftist antisemitism #shoah tw #holocaust tw #night

[indigovigilance]

indigovigilance meta index

blue marks my must-reads for meta theory, bold are recommended just for fun/feels/fanfaves

A Nightingale Sang in 1941 Maggie is Possessed Aziraphale, Nina, and Identity Miracles Don't Work Like That I’m honestly very glad that they went with two middle-aged men. Baraqiel and Azazel Lament of the Metatron The Erasure of Human!Metatron Jimbriel, Satan, the Book of Life, and what it means for Crowley Angel Pinky Rings Before the Beginning is Doctored Aziraphale Knew that Crowley was Living in his Car When They Became Their Own Side Falling Up: Jimbriel, Satan, the Book of Life, and what it means for Crowley pt2 Every single minisode is Aziraphale's memory, and why that's [not?] important It will be a line, but not between the two of them. Why Aziraphale Wears Reading Glasses Homoerotic Pistols at Dawn (a conversation with @queerfables) Tarot Symbolism in 1941 Why Crowley Rescues Aziraphale Honolulu Roast: the story of a coup One more note on Time Muriel is a Paralegal, and Crowley is going to need her help Aziraphale punches Jesus in the face

Sovereignty, Citizenship, and the Bookshop Why Crowley is "blind" to his Yellow Eyes Bildad the Shuite in Edinburgh Their Canon First Date Sodom and Gomorrah: A Speculative Meta Anthony, Anthony, Anthony The Final Fifteen is about Terry Pratchett's Death Neil Gaiman's 3 Cameos Mr. Brown Comforting Crowley Continuity Errors Book of Job - gamma-edit of @sensitivesiren Closeness They won't get married The Astrologer that Fell into a Well Why Crawley renames himself Crowley The Hornet in the Beehive The Child in S2E5 What's Up with Maggie Aziraphale, Kermit the Frog, and Fraggle Rock Season 2 Episode 6 ruined me Snake Vision Miraculous Energy Did God Forgive Aziraphale about the Sword? Restoring Angel!Crowley was Aziraraphale's Hope for 2,000 Years What Will Make Aziraphale Snap Aziraphale will go looking for people in Heaven Reusing the Cast Crowley's Dream Bullet Theory

You can also subscribe to my meta series on Ao3 to have new metas sent directly to your inbox, if you like.

~

General Post Index: contains links to others' meta and add'l resources

Support the community, read voraciously!

#good omens #good omens 2 #good omens meta #ivoc #indigovigilance answers asks #good omens speculation

[violetasteracademic]

An In Depth Look at the Gwyn/Lightsinger Theory

As always, we are bringing a text based analysis straight from the books!

Full disclosure, I have mixed feelings about the Gwyn Lightsinger theory. It definitely could be the case, but I also have an alternate theory about her powers that I'll share at the end. The reason I don't love it 100% is because it is founded in a bit of a messy way. My understanding is g/wynriels started this theory because: Lightsinger and Shadowsinger! Light and dark! Cute, meant to be. Then us Elriels replied by saying babes, lightsingers are evil AF and that's not a good thing. Thus Evil Gwyn was born which I do not subscribe to.

Lightsinger *is* totally an option, I but there is some context both for and against and I'll share my take on both sides! That being said, not a whole lot is actually said about lightsingers and the manner in which their power functions.

Here is the only passage describing lightsingers in the book (and this is their description on wiki):

Key words that stand out to me re: Gwyn- ethereal, friendly faces.

Now let's read the chapter where Gwyn's singing lures Nesta into a spell-like trance where she then begins to scry completely against her will or knowledge:

Key words: The bells ringing at 7 pm. A faint glow radiating from Gwyn.

Key takeaways: Gwyn's song beckoning and calling only to Nesta, lulling her into a place down into her own bones which are somehow then used to scry. Scrying with your own bones is *not* generally possible!

Key takeaways: Doors and pathways trying to be opened by Nesta's own body and the stones of the mountain becoming scrying tools while listening to the 7 pm service.

Key takeaways: Nesta literally collapses and everyone is looking at her concerned. She was the ONLY one who has been affected by the priestesses service in this way.

Now let's take a look at Azrie'ls bonus chapter:

Azriel and his shadows can hear a song, and his shadows replied to it. One of the most critically important elements to this occurring that I feel very few people discuss is the importance of Cauldron made items being the only ones having this reaction to Gwyn. Nesta herself is Cauldron made, and Gwyn's song literally controlled her entire person (I'm not saying intentionally! That is just what happened.) Azriel bears truth-teller, a Cauldron made weapon. There is a lot of indication that his shadows are also closely linked with truth-teller, they are all commonly described as a part of him. Only Made beings or beings with Made objects on their person can hear Gwyn's song, and it absolutely lures Cauldron made power. Is this lightsinger power? Maybe. We simply don't have enough context to the nature of lightsingers or Gwyn to say for sure, but it is compelling.

Now Azriel, bearing a Made object, finds himself present as the bell chimes 7 pm for the evening service. Exactly as Nesta had.

I do think an important mention is also this:

Does Azriel sing because he's a shadowsinger? No, it's just a being/species/whathaveyou. As lightsinger is just a being. The fact that they do sing is irrelevant to singer in their alleged respective titles.

So key items *for* Gwyn being a lightsinger: She is described as an ethereal beauty, containing a secret beneath her lovely face by Nesta. She has some sort of spell like power in her song. Is it luring specifically? Or is it something that calls to and controls Made objects?

My personal opinion is that the latter is more explicit in the text. There is no conversation around lightsingers having any specific impact on Made objects and Made objects alone. Why are only these two experiencing Gwyn's impact on their powers? If she could have had a luring effect on Cassian as well, in his POV book, I would have loved to see it.

I also think Gwyn being part river nymph might prove more relevant. Lightsingers are creatures of the Bog of Oorid, and they lure their prey into the bog. River nymphs are different water creatures entirely. So when would a fae or river nymph have gone to the Bog of Oorid to mate, when lightisngers eat both human and fae alike? I think it's possible we may see she is a Siren or some other yet to be discovered being.

I also think her proximity to the Cauldron in Sangravah, which we now know was corrupted and leaks dark power, is *extremely* interesting. I'm here looking for the connection for why only Nesta and Azriel experience this with Gwyn, and I think the Cauldron will prove relevant!

Whether Gwyn is a lightsinger, whether she is something else, I can't wait to find out! Please know I love Gwyn. My being an Elriel does not detract from how beautiful I thought her story was. Her being evil would honestly devastate me. However, I don't quite understand why g/wynriels are against the notion of Gwyn's secret powers and it being reflected again in the bonus chapter. It only serves to actually make her relevant to the plot, which is otherwise very lacking for our cute ginger Valkyrie!

What do you guys think? Are you still team Gwyn lightsinger after reading or are you seeing other options?

I'm leaving my usual Elriel tags on here to avoid getting unprompted boomer yelling style all caps DM's again from angry g/wynriels, even though I always try to be respectful to her and all ship opinions while also passionately sharing my own, but feel free to share!

#elriel #pro elain archeron #pro elain #elriel supremacy #elriel endgame #azriel x elain

[catpriciousmarjara]

Tell me: Is He Gay or In a Sherwani?

Imposition of western norms in fandom analysis of Asian characters

With the rising popularity of Indian cinema sparked by the recent success of RRR on international platforms as well as the easy availability of multiple streaming services, in addition to the appearance of South Asian characters in prominent roles in western, particularly US media, I've begun to see some concerning 'analysis' posts online. So I thought I'd address something I found common in most of these takes.

Guys, characterizing your blorbos as queer is great and all, love it, but you're making a fundamental mistake by making their clothing choices the foundation for your queer headcanons, especially when it comes to male characters. Do not apply existing western cultural ideas regarding male clothing onto South Asian characters and their dressing please.

The vast majority of the clothes being used by people in various online spaces as 'evidence' of a character being queer(gay or bi mostly) are just normal Indian clothing for men, like daily wear. A top being pink or a character's wardrobe being mostly pastel means absolutely nothing...cos Indian clothing tends to be colourful in general and the tendency to ascribe colours masculine and feminine qualities is considerably less in the subcontinent. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but generally not a concern.

There's also this pervasive idea that colourful clothing = flamboyance = queer and that itself is something many people have already pointed as a deeply flawed way of thinking and a stereotype. Furthermore, even if you do lean into the archetype of queer men being flamboyant, subscribing to the 'stereotypes exist for a reason don't they?' school of thought perhaps, there's also the fact that ideas of what is considered flamboyant change dramatically across different cultures. What is 'flamboyant' for someone might just be normal for others. Like maybe pink or purple or yellow might be considered too much, unmanly, emasculating etc in the US or something but they're just perfectly normal colours for men to wear in many, many cultures.

It's the 'Is he Gay or European?' principle. Did you characterize this Indian character (or any South Asian character really) as queer because of their canonical behaviour and portrayal, or did you just see their clothing and decide they're queer because being well groomed and having a colourful wardrobe is a character trait you exclusively ascribe to being queer?

Like guys, I like Chaipunk like the rest of you, but if you consider Pavitr queer just because his costume is a lot fancier than the others' (An actual take I've seen multiple times) without taking into account his cultural background....¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let me make this clear, I don't think people need a ten page analysis to imagine their fave as queer. Headcanoning a character as queer can have any reason ranging from 'I said so and so it is' to 'this is my light character analysis that makes a masters thesis look shabby' and they're all valid and an integral part of the fandom experience. What I am annoyed at are these so-called 'well-researched' theories that did not make the slightest effort to look into South Asian culture and simply transposed their western bias onto Indian media and confidently make flat out wrong judgements and mislead other people. Clothing based sexual identity determinism is the least of it. That I can at least understand through the lens of a habitual process built through years of analyzing crumbs of queer representation available only through queer coded characters and symbolism such as clothing choices being the only way to see an aspect of yourself portrayed in an aggressively heteronormative media ecosystem. I do that too, because media is tragically heteronormative everywhere. But the rest? Its just straight up misinformation and misrepresentation touted as truth.

Its the same with relationships between men. There are plenty of cultures where skinship between men is not unusual and dynamics and nuances tend to be vastly different from western representations of male friendships. In xianxia and wuxia fandoms you can see this same problem in a different font when outsiders, most often the western side of the fandom, try to apply their own standards and morals onto the original work and try to interpret it through a lens it was never supposed to be interpreted through in the first place, except maybe for comparative analysis. This practice itself isn't a major problem, its natural for people to apply what is familiar to them to try and understand something new. But when this is also accompanied by them foisting their personal interpretation and analysis as the 'correct' one and trying to impose it on the fandom as a whole, it escalates into a powder keg situation as you can imagine.

Again, not saying that western parts of fandoms are the root of all evil or anything like that, gods know how toxic netizens can be. But in this specific situation, where people try to impose western ideals on to non-western content and assumes the universalism of their own principles and value systems? Indeed an issue to be addressed.

#ATSV #South Asian Characters #Desi characters #South Asian culture #Desi Culture #Fandom analysis #LGBTQ+ #Brown culture #Spiderman: Across the Spiderverse #Pavitr Prabhakhar #Hobie Brown #Chaipunk #RRR #Miss Marvel #Tagging Miss Marvel and RRR only because they're in the intro-two pieces of media that are good examples of the increased attention- #on South Asian characters and Indian cinema #Not included in the body of the post except under umbrella terms like South Asian character/South Asian media & other such categories

[genericpuff]

On your post about rather having 100 mature readers than having a large group of immature readers for your comic, in the tags you mentioned the "hanza situation". If you don't mind me asking, what's that?

So there's been talk about Hanza , the creator of The Guy Upstairs on Webtoon, supposedly wanting to drop the comic altogether due to how their fanbase ships the main characters (one of which is a serial killer) and just due to the fact they've fallen out of love with their own comic over the course of publishing it on Webtoons. The comic isn't confirmed cancelled yet, it's just what they apparently want to do and are gonna be running it by WT for approval.

Which like, yeah, I don't blame them if that's true and if they've "fallen out of love" with their work, that shit can and does happen all the time especially when your work winds up exploding to a degree that you become 'detached' from it. And I don't blame them for being ick at the fandom for their comic shipping their main characters, apparently that started when it was being pirated on another site and miscategorized as a romance when it's a horror / thriller comic but that's just what I've heard from others who do read the comic.

The actual vibe on the whole situation is unclear, they posted like last week about how the two characters were siblings which I THOUGHT was an April Fool's joke because it was legit posted on April 1st. But now apparently they actually ARE siblings? So they deadass just spoiled their comic before it was over? Though apparently this was for the purpose of trying to get their fandom to knock it off, but it's just led to people getting even more pissed because they see that as Hanza 'baiting' them into reading a dark romance comic which... it never was.

IDK man I'm getting such mixed signals off the whole thing esp because we haven't seen these DM's/emails/etc. which like... okay obviously Hanza doesn't need to share anything they're not comfortable with but there's tinfoil hat theories about them using it as a cover for just not wanting to do the comic anymore. But I don't really subscribe fully to that theory because... why? I'm just not sure which thread of logic to follow here lmao

I honestly have no fucking clue what's going on with this situation anymore because it seems to get more complicated by the day LOL I don't read The Guy Upstairs so I have zero stake in it but let's just say this - I've been on Webtoons since 2016 and am more than aware of how the WT fandom tends to behave on a regular basis, and that's just an audience that I personally don't want, regardless of how positive or negative other people's experiences are. There are people in the WT fandom who are sane and normal, yes, but I'd like to think those people are also fully capable of finding comics outside of WT if they so choose. The general demographic of WT who don't travel outside of it as I've experienced it over the years is just not one I want to tailor to so I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Hanza was experiencing this and just wanting it to stop. Someone mentioned to me the other day that Webtoons is like the webcomic version of BookTok and ngl I couldn't agree more 💀😆

But yeah, that's about all of my knowledge on the Hanza situation lol

#ask me anything #ama #anon ama #anon ask me anything

[destroy-some-evil]

So... I'm watching Until We Meet Again while waiting for more episodes of The Sign (because I need more reincarnated soulmates please and thank you).

And I can tell the narrative says this:

But my theory presupposes that maybe:

Look I get it - the narrative really wants us to buy that Korn is the "strong silent" type and Dean, as his reincarnation, is similar in attitude but a way better Dom because he learned from his past life and became better at caring for his loved ones. Meanwhile, Intouch was the "adorable cinnamon bun" in the past who couldn't cook and occasionally pushed Korn's boundaries, and now as Pharm, who can cook (character development!), is basically the perfect sub to Dean's Dom (yes, I read @lutawolf's post about the soft D/s moments in the series and clicked subscribe -what off it). I get that's the story they are showing. Also, I like the story it's been fun to watch and I'm looking forward to the last two episodes.

But - but what if

Korn who basically was forced to be the strong silent type because he was the eldest and not allowed to be soft with how his dad raised him. He just wanted read literature volume 4 or what ever but circumstances and society expected different of him. I don't know there is something sweet to think that in his next life he gets to be that soft boy who likes cooking. Who still takes care of those around but he doesn't have to force himself to be the visibly strong one all the time. Both Korn and Pharm were both the ones who were initially afraid of what it meant to love this person in front of them.

Meanwhile, Intouch, who just wanted to care for Korn, makes that the core of who he is in his next life. He's not as carefree as he once was, but he still loves to be in the water. (All In's suggestions for vacations related to water. The beach vacation they took and the raft one they never got to do.) He still loves teasing his boyfriend and he still makes it his life goal to make him happy. Also, he can now at least follow directions for cooking but it's not something expected of him. And on a more serious note, he's more able to protect Pharm than Intouch was able to protect Korn. Korn probably would have never allowed Intouch to protect him because he had to be the one in charge; even if, maybe, he didn't want to be. Also, both Intouch and Dean are the ones who see their other half and go, "yes, that's him. He's the one I'm going be with for the rest of my life." No hesitation, just plans for how he's going put a ring on it. (I also have a headcannon that Dean was the one to suggest the red thread faculty tours. His fellow classmates tease that Dean's thread is already picked out for Pharm. And in the past Intouch is the one to tie the red thread on Korn.)

I also get that visually the show wanted to associate that Intouch and Pharm look similar and that Korn and Dean look similar because that makes it easy.

But you know what stupid romantic is this post about the Japanese legend that you have the face of the person you loved the most in your previous life (okay so the post applying that legend to Avatar the Last Airbender but it's still stupid romantic).

Apply that to these two and tell me it's not sweet and romantic to think that they get reborn into the same families they were originally in and that they are surrounded by people who loved them in both their lives and now those people have grown and learned to support them AND they have the face of the person who they loved most in their past life.

Yes, I'm late to the party (I only found found out about how to get easy access to Thai BLs in October 2023 - thank you @talistheintrovert) but I have thoughts. Also this was fun.

#until we meet again #deanpharm #Now that what I call overthinking! #I have thoughts #This probably isn't new

[es-draws]

Why are so many of us are so turned on by weight gain? Where do kinks come from? I'm curious if there's any science behind it. Which part of the brain is involved? Sorry for the multiple questions in a long ramble

No worries, I had the same question! Probably the top thing I think about with this kink. I've done a lot of research, and what I found is that we really don't know where fetishes come from.

Psychologists are split into two camps - it's either something you develop and learn, or something that you were innately born with.

Some research suggests that fetishes are developed in childhood, and are learned through exposure to specific scenarios and instances that end up "triggering" a sexual response. The most common example here is spanking - Freud and those that subscribe to his theories believe that spanking during childhood leads to sexual urges for spanking as an adult. With feedism, I've heard people say that being exposed to fat admiration at a young age triggered their kink. Listen to Fat Bottomed Girls if you want to hear an example of how a fat naughty nanny can cause you to enjoy big butts.

But many psychologists now believe that fetishes are innate. There's some prominent research on foot fetishes that shows that the neurons for feet and genitals are close enough to overlap. But just like how we once thought that anything that wasn't heteronormative was "learned", it is now much more commonly believed that sexual preference is something people are born with. The precise cause can't be easily found neurologically, but it seems likely that some are innately attracted to things that aren't as common as others.

As for me personally? I have always found weight gain attractive. I can think of no life experience that triggered or developed this kink for me. And I know many, many other feedists who say the same thing. So I personally would ascribe to the "born this way" hypothesis, but I also know that others might disagree, based on their own experiences.

And as a final note, I think we should be wary of the "fetishes develop in childhood" theory. Why? Then it becomes easy to say that this fetish is something that "went wrong" with you. You were exposed to trauma around your body weight, that's why you have this weird kink! You had an ED and body issues - see? It's all just a mental problem. Your feedism fetish is just another disorder. You should get therapy so we can "fix" you. Sounds a bit like how they used to treat other marginalized folks, don't you think?

This is just my opinion, but I'd be curious to hear other people's experiences too, of course!

#es-answers

[gorgeouslypink]

Anons FAQ

Hi guys! Today I wanted to answer a bunch of questions that I frequently get asked in my asks. This is going to go over a bunch of topics so skim through to find what you're struggling with and I hope this helps everyone 💗

"I feel like it's unfair to manifest in the void and it's stopping me from entering. Won't it give me an unfair advantage over everyone?" Life is unfair in general. There's disparity in everything, from attractiveness, to income level, to intelligence. Even the people around us. Some people are born in much better circumstances than others and you entering the void is to just get your ideal circumstances. Don't hold yourself back thinking about what's fair or not because nothing is fair so just get your dream life.

"Please tell me a guaranteed way to instantly enter the void." There is none. Trust me, I really wish I could just tell you to listen to this one subliminal and you're guaranteed to enter or to do this meditation and you'll enter but there's no such method that is 100% guaranteed. If there was, I would have shared it by now. Fortunately, there are methods to enter the void but it's going to have to be trial and error to find one that is compatible with you. My own void journey was filled with trial and error and even then, I entered the void on accident. The "guaranteed way" I guess would be through loa and fixing your mindset but that's not really a method.

"I have issues with my desires." / "I feel like something is stopping me. Why do I keep procastinating?" Read this.

"I'm scared of what happens when you manifest. I don't want to shift. What should I do?" I have talked about this many times before but I'll say it again. Stop obsessing over irrelevant details. No one knows what happens when we manifest. Scholars and monks who have dedicated their lives don't, Tumblr bloggers don't, I don't, and you don't. All anyone has is their own experiences and knowledge and from that, they derive theories. Just subscribe to theory that suits what you want the most. It's law of assumption, whatever you assume is the truth so just assume whatever theory you like is the truth and your problem is solved.

"Why do void bloggers not show proof?" Privacy and peace of mind. One of my mutual just told me about this but there's a tiktoker who used subliminals to look like a BTS member and he glowed up but he shared that he used subliminals and now he's getting hate. The post where he shared that he used subliminals is deleted but there were people calling him delusional, saying he's still ugly, kpop fans mad that he "stole" a kpop idol's beauty, etc. You can learn a bit about it here.

"Is it possible to...." Yes.

"Please give me advice"/"What is advice you wish you could give everyone?" The key is consistency. This applies even if you're choosing to enter through LOA. For LOA, you need to keep a consistent mindset. As for other methods, consistency is still important. A few of you might have picked up on this already but a lot of success stories are people entering unexpectedly, including me. This is why consistency is so important. You never know what method will work/when you're going to tap in but if you atleast consistently listen to a subliminal or do a meditation, you might tap in anyday.

[creature-wizard]

The shitweasels from That Antisemitic Satanic Website have sent me another anon message! And again, it's copypasted! Loooool.

I know it's copypasted, but it's still fucking rich that they've rushed to reassure me that they aren't "white supremacists," because I never called them white supremacists. I called them "antisemitic conspiracy theorists," because they believe in antisemitic conspiracy theories. They treat The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as if it's a genuine document and not a proven forgery. Among other things, they believe that Christianity is a Jewish tool of world domination and mind control, and that the Pentateuch was somehow stolen from the five suits of tarot, despite tarot being a 15th century invention.

Also, "Asian high priest"? From which part of Asia? Do you folks think Asia is a monolith or something? This isn't exactly helping you beat the racism allegations here.

This is the most pathetic attempt at playing the victim here. For one thing, Abrahamic religions aren't a monolith. There are different values among the many of them that exist (and there are quite a few more than three), and even within Christianity there's a substantial amount of diversity in values.

Also, worshiping pagan goddesses isn't exactly the win for feminism they seem to want to imply. Polytheistic Greeks were patriarchal.

Also, no shit that religions like Christianity are "anti-Satanic." You dork-ass losers aren't worshiping some ancient pre-Christian god. You're just worshiping the bad guy from Christianity, whom you've done mental gymnastics to convince yourself is actually Enki or Ea. Because you subscribe to that racist ancient aliens BS.

It doesn't matter how you try and paint yourselves up as progressive, it doesn't matter how diverse your movement is, the fact remains that you still buy into conspiracy theories created by Nazis and white supremacists. If you don't like it when people call you Nazis and white supremacists, maybe stop subscribing to their bullshit?

#anonsense #conspiracy theories #conspiracy theory #conspiracism #antisemitism #racism #nazis #paganblr #witchblr #occultblr