#look i see so many posts arguing why ao3 should have an algorithm and they disgust me | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fandoms-ruin-life · 3 years

Text

Adding onto all this ao3 discourse, because I know that this is one of the main sticklers for people’s gripes about fandom in general, not just ao3- RPF. Now, you can have your own opinion on this or whatever, but it’s always going to be out there and ao3 is amazing for this. The main argument against it that I’ve seen, is that the real people feel uncomfortable about it. (Again, this is a case-by-case basis and jfc I’m not about to get into *that* argument here), but with ao3 that doesn’t matter.

For the person to even see it, they would have to be actively searching for it, and in my opinion, whatever they feel about it after that is entirely on them. With Tumblr, for instance, the fics find themselves in the main tags and it’s very easy for them to see it, even if they don’t want to, so the RPF argument holds much more weight. But Ao3 is a safe haven where it allows people to express themselves and write what they want but also protects the original people in the process.

You can have this ‘purity culture’ and argue about what people should or shouldn’t write until the end of time, but the thing is... people will always just write what they want to. And to be honest, telling them *not* to will more than likely just make them double down on their decision to do so and make them find sneakier ways of putting their fics out there.This just means no content warnings, aka how the hell are you meant to avoid it???

Instead of this weird crusade against ao3′s policies of not interfering, shouldn’t we rather be pushing the need for good tagging practice?

Tags are amazing, and ao3 have given us all the tools required to block anything that simply annoys us, let alone something that actively triggers us. The main reason ao3 will always be superior to me over sites that regulate work like ff.net is *because* of the tags.

Over the years I’ve personally seen a few fics that I rather wouldn’t have seen because the person didn’t tag properly, and yes it sucked, but it also didn’t come close to the amount of times it happened when I still used ff.net regularly.

Also, go to any library or bookstore in existance, do you see many (if any) content warnings? Surely this means ao3 goes above and beyond in this instance? I have a much better idea of what I’m getting myself into when I sit down to read something from this site than I do in any other place that I know about.

It is very easy to just avoid anything that would affect us personally, for whatever reason you may hold. In my opinion, *that* is a far better way of running a site than having someone use their personal morals to decide what is right or wrong.

Think of it this way. People in other posts have mentioned Nazi apologism as an example, and this actually works really well for my argument so I’m going to continue in that vein. It’s simple isn’t it? Nazi = bad ---> Nazi in good light therefore also bad.

But how do you draw the line between an actual Nazi and someone just writing a horrible character/making a satirical piece?

There’s a musical on youtube called Spies Are Forever by the Tin Can Brothers, and there is a song in it called ‘Not So Bad’. Pretty standard, right? Except no, because the main line in the song is “Nazi’s are not so bad”... so judging by the earlier standards, this show should be removed, right?

Except also no. Because when watching it, it is clearly satirical in design and the actor who sings it is Jewish. But on paper, or just by looking at a tag and seeing ‘Nazi’, how would you be able to tell that this is something that shouldn’t be deleted had it been on ao3 and ao3 deleted fics based on an algorithm or similar?

So once again, I ask, where do you draw the line? You may say, ‘well satire is clearly different than Nazi apoligism’ and I would say yes, of course it is. But also, why aren’t people allowed to write/explore dark media in a dark manner?

Hannibal is a relatively popular show, with a pretty strong following on here, but no one is saying that anything that is portrayed in that show is *right*. Murder and cannibalism are quite clearly bad, after all, but it is also portrayed as a beautiful thing because we are seeing how the characters view it.

And honestly, I think my entire ramble can just come under this point: Characters do not equal the author’s thoughts on the subject.

Let people explore the dark and depraved, they’re going to anyway, no posts talking about how it’s “so bad” will stop them, because newsflash- they already know the subject is bad. Ao3 allows you to curate your experience of the site to your taste, and if you choose not to take them up on that opportunity, then that is not on them.

TL:DR- Tags are good and we should be pushing the importance of good tagging practice over ao3′s content policies

#ao3 #ao3 discourse #discourse #I posted this as a reply to another post but I'm putting it as a solo post in the main tags to reach more people #moi #otw #fanfiction #archive of our own

23 notes · View notes

adventures-in-a-world-of-fiction · 4 years

Text

Practicalities of Censorship

Every so often I see a thread cross my dashboard arguing about censorship with relation to AO3 - in particular people claiming that AO3 is bad because it allows basically any story regardless of content, that people are bad for supporting it, or that AO3 should implement some method by which problematic fics get taken down. These complaints are usually met with explanations around the history or AO3, why it was implemented the way it was, and why thinking that AO3 is fine the way it is does not equal being a pedophile. I want to tackle this from another angle - practicality.

Let's assume for the sake of this post that the people making these arguments are correct and that there are some things which shouldn't be allowed on AO3 (or an an alternative fic platform set up to be a better version of AO3 without all the bad stuff - I'll mostly be taking about "fixing" AO3 in this post but the same problems would apply to setting up a new and "safer" fic site). There are a lot of arguments against censorship to do with quality of works produced and whether this results is less good art when people are scared to produce things that might get banned, or whether there is artistic merit to works that display despicable actions. Let's just imagine for the moment that the whole argument is settled and the "let's purify AO3 for the sake of the children" crowd are correct. What would need to happen next? This isn't something I've seen addressed in these posts.

There are a lot of problems with censorship. Skipping over the ethical discussion of whether censorship is good or bad and in what circumstances it should be accepted, let's focus on two practical aspects: deciding what should and shouldn't be banned, and how you would implement such a ban. Let's start with problem one: where do you draw the line?

Let's assume we have some scale of rating from absolutely sickeningly awful deserving of destruction to perfectly clean and innocent with not the slightest thing wrong with it. Somewhere between these two endpoints is a line and everything to one side of it is bad and should be banned/blocked/deleted from AO3, etc. Everything on the other side of the line is fine and should be left available for people to read. Some things may seem easy to define. Fic A is incest porn, where a child is graphically raped in a way that's cleanly meant to titillate rather than horrify and the abuse is glorified and justified in text, and it's full of poor writing, spelling and grammar mistakes, and has no artistic merit as a work (how you judge artistic merit would need a few thousand words to explore as a subject on its own right). Let's stick that on the bad side of the line since that's the sort of thing that people on Tumblr are crying out to be banned. Fic B is a fluff fic where a character makes another character soup because they're feeling ill and they watch movies together. Nothing remotely sexual, just two adult characters being sweet to each other. So we'll put that on the good side of the line, right?

But the problem comes in deciding where that dividing line should be and what should be done about the things that sit close to the line. You could come up with some simple rules. Let's say, "Everything involving underage incest is on the bad side of the line." Seems straight-forward. But what if you have a story dealing with someone's recovery from incest and CSA? The story has a character who was abused in the past and the narrative deals with them getting therapy and overcoming their trauma. None of the abuse is shown in the text of the story, it all happens off-screen as it were, and the story sends a message that incest and CSA are bad but offers hope to former victims. Surely that story would belong on the good side of the line? So maybe we amend the rule to, "Everything involving graphic incest is on the bad side of the line." That would let us keep the story about overcoming the trauma on the good side but block anything that uses incest as porn. But is consenting incest between grown adults treated the same as abusive incest?

And what if you get a story that's more about the trauma but that has a handful of flashbacks about the rape that would count as graphic. These flashbacks are meant to be horrifying not sexually exciting. Would that be okay? Is it the intent of the scene that matters? But in that case, what happens if the author writes a scene that's intended to be horrifying but a reader interprets it as arousing? Would it be okay if the author includes a disclaimer in the notes saying that this is a terrible thing and shouldn't be done in real life? Is it the intensity of the scenes shown directly in the story? In which case, where do you draw the line between something described explicitly and something merely eluded to? Is it the precise terms used? Which terms? Or how many times those terms are use? Is a subtle allusion to an event okay? In which case, what happens with a slightly less subtle allusion?

The stories that are far away from the line are easy to place, but the ones close to it become a challenge. Any attempt to define straight-forward rules starts to fall apart quickly and you get to the point where you have to argue on a case-by-case basis for each story, which would involve a massive amount of time invested to check each of these stories and decide whether or not they're allowed. Once again the practicalities of "how would you enforce something like this?" rear their ugly head but that's a question we'll address later.

We also have the problem that where I might draw the line between the bad and the good might be different from where you would draw the line, and would be different from where someone else would draw the line. Let's go back to Fic B as described above, our perfectly innocent fluff story. I might think that's perfectly acceptable, but if those two characters are both the same gender, there will be some homophobic people who will say that it's wrong and corrupting innocents because it sends the message that homosexual relationships are good. Or even if the characters are different genders, some highly religious people might think it sends a bad message if those characters are unmarried and living together in a relationship, even if nothing explicit happens within the story. Or what if the characters are married but it's an interracial marriage? A KKK member might say that sends a bad message. Different people have a different idea of what counts as bad content.

In the real world, there have been cases of books that address racism being banned because they use the n word. Harry Potter has been banned by religious groups. According to the website www.banned-books.org.uk a sweet children's book about two penguins hatching an egg was banned by a lot of schools and libraries in the US because the two penguins are both male - even though this story was actually based on a true story. The book Black Beauty, about the experiences of a horse, was banned during the Apartheid in South Africa simply for including the word "black" in the title. If you look at that site, a lot of books have been banned for a lot of different reasons and a lot of good literature has ended up caught up in the censorship usually because religious groups objected to in on moral grounds.

You could say "don't let the bigots and racists be in charge of the censorship," but historically, when censorship has come into play in the past, the people who tend to end up the worst for it are minorities. LGBTQ+ groups and people of colour tend to get censored more than straight, white men. Stories about their experiences often deal with problematic issues and therefore they get banned. The groups that generally end up making decisions about what is and isn't okay tend to be the groups that have the most power to begin with, and the end result is silencing of minority voices. This is one reason I'm very wary of anything to do with censorship, because the people who usually end up the worse for it are those who most need their voices heard.

But let's imagine all of these problems are magically overcome and we come up with a perfectly clear set of rules about what counts as good and bad fic and the dividing line is agreed by good, rational people who aren't remotely bigoted and who are able to define the criteria for what should be banned in a way that will only ever block the harmful stuff.

We still have to deal with the practicalities of enforcement we set aside earlier. We've built our perfect set of rules to define good and bad fics and now we want to put them into practice to ban any of the awful stuff. How would you go about doing it?

We could try and get machine filters to do censorship by looking for keywords and particular tags or using more complex algorithms to judge what a piece of content is about, but this ends up with chaos like Tumblr auto-flagging a lot of perfectly clean content, or YouTube blocking videos that just happened to be by/about LGBTQ+ people. Any software based implementation would struggle because someone talking about a thing as a problem contains the same words as someone glorifying that thing, and machines tend not to be great at picking up tone. You would get a massive amount of errors with things being falsely flagged as bad and things being falsely let through despite breaking the rules.

And people would be sneaky. Someone wanting to include their graphic story wouldn't tag it as for over 18s because tagging something as for over 18s would get it banned, so they would tag it as something else. The terms "lemon" and "lime" used to describe fics by older members of fandoms started from exactly this sort of thing. Websites decided to not allow adult content so people continued to post adult content but they used the citrus scale for tagging it so people would still be able to find it. Which works when people know the terms to look for or avoid, but which doesn't work for people not in the know. Is a "lemon" or a "lime" fic more explicit? Do you know what a fic being tagged as "grapefruit" would mean? By their nature, these tags are coded, which is not great for clarity.

Any sort of system that just blanket bans key words or tags would result in people just not using those keywords and tags but posting the stuff anyway. It would actually make the situation worse because there would still be incest porn and the like, only now it wouldn't be tagged. As it stands on AO3, people use the tagging system very well and people who don't want to see the incest porn can do things like exclude that tag from searches, or just not open fics they see that have the tag. If there were rules in place to not allow anything with that tag, then people would stop using the tag, which would actually mean more people would see incest porn they didn't want to because it would no longer be tagged properly, or it would be tagged using code words which only mean something to the inside group. It would be much harder to avoid the things you don't like.

So let's say we don't let a computer decide what's breaking the rules. Let's say there is a system by which readers can flag a fic as being inappropriate to get it banned. Human beings get to decide, but what's the threshold? Does a thing get banned as soon as someone reports it? Or does it need to be flagged by multiple people to be banned? In which case fics written in tiny fandoms might slip through the cracks because not enough people are reading it to them flag it. This is also open for exploitation. Someone who takes a dislike to a particular person might encourage others to flag their fics as inappropriate, regardless of whether or not they are. Someone might create fake accounts or log in anonymously over proxies to spam a fic with flags.

And even if no one acts maliciously to abuse the system, not everyone will be careful about checking the precise and perfect rules defined to mark the difference between acceptable and unacceptable work. People will flag things incorrectly, based on their own viewpoints of what should or shouldn't be allowed, which we've already said is a problem because everyone will draw the line in different places based on their own beliefs.

So what's the alternative to a community-driven method for managing content? You could have specific people whose job it is to go through content and decide whether it adheres to the rules. Maybe a computer system or community flagging could funnel fics into a review channel where human beings check every one carefully. These people would understand the rules and be certain to always judge fics accurately according to the magically perfect rules defined earlier, which are guaranteed to only ever block bad fics but never block a good fic.

So problem solved, right? We have our perfect rules perfectly implemented.

Except where humans are employed to check whether content is acceptable or not, it involves a large number of people checking through basically the worst content out there. Some social networking sites do this sort of thing now and it can be hugely traumatising for people who do that work. It's not good for them mentally to have to be exposed over and over to the worst content being put up online. There tends to be a high turnover in those jobs because they burn out fast, and that's where people are being paid for this stuff.

A site like AO3 relies on volunteers so it would require a large number of people to volunteer to look at the darkest most gruesome content and decide if it breaks the rules or not. Either you have people who hate those sort of fics doing this out of a sense of duty to maintain the purity of the content, in which case they will probably struggle with having to read a load of stuff they really, really don't enjoy. Or you will have people volunteer because they really like those fics and this is the way for them to read them. And that probably defeats the point of doing this, because it means that the people who would be seeking out those stories anyway would be the ones reading them to see if they break the rules.

There are a lot of problems with censorship, both ethically and practically. Even if you are fully on the side of censorship from a moral standpoint, you have to address the practical concerns if you want to propose an implementation.

As it stands, I think the current system works. There is stuff on AO3 that I would not in a million years want to read, but I don't have to. AO3 is brilliant for its tagging system and I can look at the tags and nope past fics that are full of my personal squicks or that I think endorse something terrible. Readers can exclude tags they want nothing to do with or just not click on ones that include elements you dislike. You can curate your own experience, which actually works with the whole idea of everyone drawing a line in a different place. You and I will have different stories we want to avoid, and we can both choose to avoid them based on author's tagging for them, rather than some other person decreeing what is acceptable for either of us to see.

If you still think that AO3 should be blocking or banning certain content, have a think about how this would work in reality. Because when ideas like that are implemented in the real world, all manner of problems happen.

I think the fact that this post is still a couple of thousand words long with me skipping over several parts of the debate is a sign that this is not a simple problem that can be easily fixed.

#censorship #long post

9 notes · View notes

afinepricklypear · 4 years

Text

I’m writing this largely in response to angel-rhetenor’s replies on my recent reblog with comments of the post “Why is the BSD fandom so terrible about leaving comments?” The replies I received from this person and the OP were understandably emotional responses but also problematic because they made claims of there being some hidden meaning behind my statements that wasn’t there and accused me of attacking OP, which I didn’t. I’m not posting to defend my statements or place blame, I stand by what I wrote and encourage people to read it, rather than the replies it was given, to decide for themselves. Unfortunately, I know that most people won’t. It is long and it’s easier to see the responses, and because those individual’s posed arguments that are easy to agree with (yes, it is wrong to call someone stupid or to say that their work is low quality when you haven’t read it, and, yes, it’s equally wrong to suggest that writing shorter stories, shorter chapters, one-shots, and/or rare-pairs makes your writing bad – btw, a ludicrous assertion to claim I said, not least of all, because I do and have written all of these things).

As well there were issues that these individuals claim I either ignored or did not speak to, which was simply because the primary intent behind my comments was to discuss analytics, how they work, how to interpret them, and how to use them to improve your own work.

Quick side note, I also briefly want to acknowledge remarks made about my comments being “well-researched” – I deleted the credentials from my original comment, I didn’t think it lent anything to it, but I’ll add them here: I have a BA in Anthropology, I’m two semesters from a BS in Computer Science, and I work as an Analyst for a public utility company. Data, data analysis, and interpreting data as it relates to population behavior, not to mention, research is all, kind of, my thing.

There were a number of issues that were raised by these individuals, and some points made in their replies that I’d love to address, but there is one I really need to talk about that was brought up in angel-rhetenor’s reply: reposting fanwork. This is a big issue in regards to any kind of intellectual property, and angel-rhetenor posed it as being analogous of the issues regarding feedback and whether people “owe” fanfiction writers or, really, any content creators compensation (in the form of likes, feedback, comments, etc.) for enjoying their work when it is provided free of access. This person concluded their statements with the bold, and yes, true assertion that artists and writers deserve recognition for their work.

So, if this conclusion is true, what can I have to say about it, right? This person must’ve really proved me wrong.

Well, the biggest problem I have with this argument is that, as presented, it is a false equivalency. Meaning, the issues behind reposting and giving feedback are not the same. In fact, the issues behind reposting and giving recognition, as this person indicated, are not even the same.

To be clear: The issues behind reposting are not about feedback, not about showing appreciation/gratitude to content creators, and not about recognition.

Now, before you run to your keyboard to react to this statement, let me explain.

These may seem on the surface to be the same thing, they may even feel related to one another, they certainly feel like they derive from the same place in the audience, but it’s important to understand the distinctions between them if you are posting your work online especially because reposting someone’s work, unlike the other issues discussed, can be a legal matter. If find yourself in the situation where your work has been stolen, you need to understand the difference between these issues and why. Although some of the concepts behind these other issues do inform legal problems in the real world, it is not in the way that you may think.

Feedback

One of the things that really set me off about the post that started all of this was OP’s comments to another individual reply on this post that Kudos/Likes are not showing gratitude, that she doesn’t even look at them, and they aren’t real feedback. To an extent, she isn’t wrong. Feedback/Comments and Kudos are not exactly the same. Kudos/Likes are a form of positive feedback only, they do show gratitude for the work, they do indicate that the work was liked and appreciated – that is their entire meaning exactly. An author may decide that they want more than kudos from the readers, but it is up to the author to determine what they are looking for in return from posting their work online and then finding the appropriate forum to get that return – in which case, if you don’t want Kudos, AO3 is probably not the place for your work.

If all you want is praise for your work, that’s what Kudos are, but feedback in general isn’t always given because someone liked your work. In fact, feedback in an open forum is often given by people who just felt strongly about your work one way or another. That is unless you’ve directly asked someone to read and give you feedback – in which case, these kinds of obligatory transactions need to be arranged with the individual up front rather than after the fact, otherwise you are getting into ethical issues of scamming, conning, and manipulation ß this is actually the basis behind “Unordered Merchandise” complaints, which you can read about more on the FTC website. There are ways to encourage people to give feedback that don’t include any of these sticky problems, such as, starting the conversation for them (via the notes section of your story) by asking questions or making your own comments about the work, or simply being clear about what kind of feedback you’re looking for from the readers. Some good examples might be:

· Making speculations about the plotline, “I wonder what this character is really up to…”

· Highlighting parts of your writing you really want people to notice, “Feeling proud of that dialogue, really hope you guys agree…”

· Or calling attention to areas of the writing you feel shaky on, “Not really happy with how that action scene went, felt clunky…let me know what you guys think?”

Additionally, if what you are looking for is feedback to improve as a writer, I might mention that the fanfiction community is probably not the best place to go for it. I love the readers, I’ve been highly impressed by the quality of comments I’ve received on AO3 over the comments I’ve gotten on FF.net, but many of the readers are younger, not writer’s themselves, and, while they can tell whether something is “good” or “bad”, they can’t necessarily tell you why or give you the constructive criticism necessary to develop better writing skills. Additionally, readers tend to be more generous in their feedback because they have received the content for free, in which case, you’re not getting the most honest feedback. Feedback is better received by joining/starting a writing group, teaming up with beta-readers, or hiring an editor. But I don’t want to turn this into a discussion about how to get feedback or use it to improve, that’s not the point of this post.

Given this definition, I hope you can better see how feedback and reposting are not the same thing. While reposting poses the issue of diverting feedback from the creator, there is a vast ethical difference between whether I should be required to give you my opinion on your work or not and me posting your work elsewhere.

Appreciation/Gratitude

Many arguments presented by the OP of the “Why is the BSD fandom so awful at leaving comments” post and angel-rhetenor are predicated on the idea that everyone who read or looked at your work liked it, they were entertained by it, and, thus, should show appreciation or gratitude to you for it. Of course, this is the understood socially accepted behavior, isn’t it? I’ve given you this ‘gift’, and now you tell me “thank you”. As I’ve already argued, this is what Kudos are designed to do. However, beyond gratitude and appreciation, Likes/Kudos also serve as forms of endorsement. It means, I’ve read this and I approve of it. Now, this type of endorsement is stronger in social media systems like Instagram, Twitter, and Tumblr, where the newsfeed algorithm is going to push to me those posts that people I follow (read as: opinions I trust) are liking and, therefore, helping to grow that person’s audience. In AO3, public bookmarks are actually a better form of an endorsement in this sense. That said, if I’m trying to decide if something is worth my time to read, I might jump to the Kudos to see who else liked it, furthermore, if a story has a large number of Kudos, that means that a larger number of people endorsed it and stamped it with their seal of approval. You might feel that Kudos is meaningless to you, but that is someone giving you a show of support that serves as a visual indicator to other potential readers that your work is worth reading.

Of course, this also touches on the concern raised by angel-rhetenor of audience entitlement. The issue as stated was that audience members feel entitled to a creator’s time and that they are allowed to demand that a creator makes work or delivers new works for free.

The thing is, they are allowed to make those kinds of demands of a creator, at least, until that creator blocks them on social media. In the same vein, you are perfectly allowed to demand people leave comments on your fanwork that you’ve posted to AO3. But just as readers are not obligated to leave you feedback, creators are not obligated to provide free content. You can scream into the wind as loud as you want: GIVE ME FEEDBACK! GIVE ME CONTENT! No one has to listen to you or deliver on it. There’s nothing obligating them to do so. That said, if they like your work and want to see more of it, then yes, they should understand that showing support is going to be the way to ensure new work appears without shaming or guilting or emotionally blackmailing them into it. As I said in my last post, if I have one reader that likes my work, I’m going to write for them. If I don’t have any readers liking my work, I’m less likely to continue that story, I’ll probably just keep writing and posting until I lose interest. But that’s fine. Yes, once again, I get that it can be frustrating especially when you see other works that you, maybe feel aren’t as good as your own, getting more attention because they hit the nail on the head of what their audience was looking for. But you can’t force or obligate the readers to give you that feedback, especially if they, maybe, aren’t interested in supporting your work even if they did enjoy reading it.

As for the comments regarding monetization, and the attitude that “because this is provided free, why should I pay for it from you”…uh…they’re not wrong. This is ECON-101, supply and demand, and, despite popular belief, it is NOT exclusive to fanwork. Every business has to overcome this problem. What are you offering consumers that goes beyond what they can get elsewhere and is worth them spending their money on to get from you?

angel-rhetenor also accused my comments of promoting, rather than discouraging, what they feel is an erroneous and harmful thought process, that “Everyone can make fanwork”. Here’s the thing, everyone can make fanwork. Everyone out there in the fandom is capable of it, that’s what makes it great and accessible to people that want to create. You have to figure out how to set your fanwork apart and how to effectively sell that. It might help to pose this in real world terms: Microsoft Office is a relatively expensive word processing software. Microsoft Wordpad is also a word processing software that comes free with your Windows operating system. So why do people spend money on Office, when Wordpad accomplishes the same thing without additional expense?

You set the value of your own work, you determine how much your time is worth, but the harsh reality is that just because you’ve decided that this is how much you want for your work, that doesn’t mean everyone, or anyone for that matter, is going to agree to pay that much for it, especially not if they can go to someone else and get what they’re asking free. Does that mean that those people are right and you need to start giving your work away for free? No. It means you need to figure out what it is that you’re selling that they should want to pay for, market yourself. Is it higher quality, is it a cleaner more polished work, do you have a better vision or take on the characters, is it a better display of skill. Are you selling them Microsoft Office or are you charging them for Wordpad when it’s a free software? You’ll still have people that are willing to settle for less, Wordpad is still around for a reason, but there are those who will pay you for your work because they want your work.

However, if no one wants your work for the price you’re asking, you need to revisit your business model, and that might mean that you need to improve what you are trying to sell. In terms of artists, there are decidedly better artists out there than others who are posting and sharing their work. Now I may hit the ‘Like’ buttons for a beginner artists’ shared artwork to show them support and encourage them to keep trying, but I’m not going to buy their artwork until they have developed their skill. A slightly better artist, I might pay for their work, but I’m not going to pay as much as I would for artwork from a master artist. This isn’t to say that the beginning artist sucks and didn’t work hard on their artwork, but to claim that they should receive the same return on their product than a more experienced artist who has spent many more years developing their skill is unfair to those artists that have put in the hours to develop their craft, and actually does more to harm people who are trying to monetize their work than helps by belittling and devaluing what it takes to develop a skill and build a following around their work.

Now I know where people are going to go: doesn’t saying it’s okay for people to share their work free with no obligations support the idea that people can also just take your work if they want it? You can go ahead and jump to the Reposting section to get the full answer on this, but in the meantime, consider this example: Imagine you’re shopping for a couch. You go to the store and decide its way more than you’re willing to pay, decide to shop around some. On your way home, you come across someone dragging their couch out to the curb, you go to speak to them, turns out it’s brand new, past return date but too big for their place so they’ getting rid of it and yes, you can take it if you want. Does that mean I can now go back to the store and just take the couch they had on sell there for free? No. The idea that because someone else is giving their work away for free, doesn’t then justify you taking someone else’s work for free.

Posed like this, I hope it’s obvious to see why demanding endorsement (in the form of Likes/Kudos) is, once again, not the same issue as reposting someone’s work, and, a bit of how these concepts relate to monetized works. In fact, many people who are reposting works when confronted with this perspective would easily counterargue that they are showing appreciation/gratitude by reposting someone else’s work. They see it as a sincere form of endorsement and support to that creator. They say “imitation is the highest form of flattery”, right, so outright copying must be the height of love? Which brings us naturally to recognition.

Recognition

It is a true statement that artists should be recognized for their work. Recognition is not feedback nor is it appreciation or gratitude. Recognition is just saying, “This person created that”. This is the most flummoxing part of angel-rhetenor’s argument regarding reposting because in terms of reposting, it is not enough to say that the artist needs to be given credit, and giving credit is not the issue regarding reposting. Someone can repost my story on Wattpad, complete with name on the byline, a link to my AO3 profile or email so that readers can contact me and ensure that feedback comes to me, and then they could even leave a comment praising my work and telling me that they’ve posted it on Wattpad for me, “You’re welcome!”.

So, what’s the problem here, huh? They’ve given me feedback, they’ve given their readers a method to forward me feedback, they even let me know that it was posted there, made sure proper credit was in place, and I can’t think of a higher form of endorsement, or show of gratitude/appreciation, than going to the trouble of reposting my work elsewhere for me in an effort to help give my work attention and grow my audience. Gosh, aren’t they nice? Isn’t this wonderful of them? They seem like they did all the right things.

Except, I don’t want my work on Wattpad. That’s why I don’t post it there.

Reposting

It is easy to get confused on what the real issue is in regards to reposting someone else’s work, especially because there are so many other concerns that get lumped in with regards to it that, reposting may affect, but those issues don’t have any relevance to the ethical reasoning behind reposting. I hope I made it pretty obvious in my last example, that there are ways that reposting work can look, on the surface and, in some instances maybe even truly, be beneficial to the creator. The reposter can seem to do all the right things in terms of addressing those issues, but it’s still wrong. At this point, many of you are probably thinking, “Well they needed permission before doing all of that, duh!”

But permission isn’t the issue either. The issue is ownership.

It is incredibly important for a content creator to understand the concept of ownership in terms of intellectual property, because this is the way it will be argued in terms of the law, and this is the information you need to gather before you post your work online (what are you agreeing to in terms of your ownership of your work when you post to a platform) or make claims of theft. It’s also important not to conflate this issue with things like recognition, showing appreciation/gratitude, or giving comments/feedback, because those are strawman arguments that are easy to counter. They don’t actually support the notion that you shouldn’t repost another’s work even though they may all represent reasons that a creator doesn’t want someone else reposting their work.

When I post my work to AO3, I am only granting people access to read my work for free through AO3, I grant AO3 permissions to distribute my work through its various networks, and while a reader is able to download my work from AO3 for their own individual use, no one else is allowed to distribute it. This is the explicit contractual agreement that authors and readers make when using AO3, and in that sense, exactly as I have stated, no one owes you anything for reading and enjoying your work, because you are giving them that access to it for free. Arguing that they are then obligated to give you feedback after the fact falls into the same realm as ‘Unsolicited Merchandise’.

However, you are not giving anyone ownership of your work just because you have made it available for them to read or view. Retaining ownership of my work means that I get to dictate where and how it is distributed and displayed. For a real-world example, let’s take into consideration holiday decorations. I might decide to decorate my door with a Holiday Wreath, it is free for people to see, they are not required to come to my door and thank me for the decoration, but they also cannot take my wreath and move it to my window or to their own door or to the door of a neighbor down the street. Depending on what they do with my wreath, it can be classified as vandalization or theft.

This is a problem that just about everyone that shares their creative content online is going to run into, and it is difficult – in many instances, impossible – to fight against. This is not a widespread issue, as angel-rhetenor suggests, in the sense that the majority of people are purposely doing it despite knowing the reasons for why they shouldn’t. Most people actually want to do the right thing, they just don’t know what the right thing is, and when you confuse all of these elements and complaints within the fandom, it can be difficult to determine what is right. You will see people reposting artwork asking who the creator is, unintentionally contributing to the problem and if they don’t know who the source is or what the permissions are for sharing that work, they should not be reposting it. You’ll see people remarking to a reposter that they need to give credit to an artwork, when, no, unless they can prove they have permission to post it, they need to take it down. These people are not trying to do wrong in most of these cases; they just may not recognize that this is a problem at all. Some might even misunderstand and argue that “because it was posted in a public place, it is now public property”, but the flaw with that argument is that it was not posted in a public place. It was posted to a private platform for the use and purposes of that private organization that owns that private platform as contractually detailed in that private platform’s Terms of Service, which you agree to when using that private platform’s services. AO3, Tumblr, Twitter, etc., all have written into their ToS that their content providers retain ownership of the content they share via these platforms. When you repost someone’s work from AO3 or Tumblr or Twitter or…so on and so forth, you are not just stealing someone’s property, you are in violation of that platform’s Terms of Service.

Does that mean that there aren’t individuals in the community that do it knowing full well that they shouldn’t, and having been given the reasons why? Absolutely not. Criminals exist. They are a thing. The question is, how many of these people fall into that category? Not as many as you think, most are willing to take it down when they understand why it is wrong, but it is made more difficult that many people don’t understand IP to be property owned by someone, IP Theft is often considered to be a victimless crime, and the fact that when you post something on the internet it becomes difficult to control where it is spread.

Unfortunately, if your work is not monetized, damages are hard to prove over IP Theft and usually take more effort/resources to combat than what you’ll get out of winning the fight, you may not have much in the way of a copyright claim unless someone has commercialized your freely distributed work. In other words, if someone stole a story, I wrote to share with people free on AO3, and posted it to their website which is monetized through advertisement, they are now profiting off my work and I have grounds to sue them. People who do monetize their work have a bit more of a leg to stand on in terms of copyright claims, because they can demonstrate financial damage caused by the theft or plagiarism of their work. But it is still an arduous process that causes more than just emotional distress over “nobody likes my work”.

So here is the bottomline: If you are posting your fanwork on free-to-access platforms, no one is obligated to give you feedback and no one is obligated to Like/Kudos your work. That is endorsement and support that goes above and beyond what you’ve agreed upon by posting on that platform. It is a nice thing to do and does help to ensure that your favorite content creators continue to create work. They will most assuredly stop if you do not give them encouragement. That said, content creators should not be telling their audience that they need to or they are required to give feedback or comments on works they’ve read/enjoyed, or to shame those who do not, on the grounds that they are “not being grateful or appreciative”, because that is emotionally manipulative and, overall, unethical. If you want feedback on your work, that needs to be arranged and agreed upon before sharing it.

Reposting someone’s work without their explicit consent isn’t just morally wrong, it is a crime. Equating it to asking for feedback or showing appreciation trivializes the severity of the issue. These are not equivalent, and while not giving someone feedback on their work may hurt their ego or lead to them feeling discouraged from continuing to create, reposting someone’s work can have real world economic consequences for the creator and cause tangible damages.

1 note · View note

theclaravoyant · 7 years

Text

AN ~ some Fitz & Daisy Post-Framework hurt/comfort, with a happy ending, because I need more of this in my life. title from song of the same name by Lady Antebellum.

Rated low T, for some mentions of violence & Framework occurrences.

Read on AO3 (~1300wd)

down the road, the sun is shining

Fitz slammed the screwdriver down on the bench and forced his hand to let go of it, raking his fingers through his hair instead and pulling until the pressure stabilised him. He let out a deep breath, and then another, and opened his eyes again with his hand still in his hair. He stared at the screwdriver sitting before him, taunting him, and he felt another wave of rage and hopelessness as the sight of it swept him even further back, past the Framework, into another pit of despair. A pit he’d climbed out of that time, at least.

“You did it before,” he whispered, clinging to that flicker of hope. “Just do it again.”

“Did what?”

Fitz jumped so aggressively he nearly knocked over his own stool, scrabbling for the screwdriver in an instant. He wondered if it was Madame’s face he’d see behind him, and if he’d have the guts to put the screwdriver through her eye.

But it was Daisy.

“Woah, hey, sorry.” She raised her hands, pretending to be off-handedly offended so he couldn’t see that she’d jumped too. Not sure it had worked as planned, she frowned softly and strolled further into the room, approaching slowly and gently.

“What’re you doing?” she asked. Fitz sighed loudly.

“Nothing, apparently,” he snapped. “Can’t touch a thing. Can’t build anything. Not even a toaster. Literally. That’s a toaster right there.”

“Really?” Daisy frowned deeper, leaning over him examining the scattered parts. She couldn’t see it. Then again, she’d never been Fitz.

“Well, it was going to be,” Fitz explained, “but I can’t… I don’t know how to explain it. It’s not even the aphasia or my hands or anything. It’s just…”

“Writer’s block?”

“Yeah. I guess.”

Fitz sighed again, and pinched his nose, and Daisy rubbed her hand over his nearest shoulder in sympathy.

“Give yourself a break,” she insisted. “You don’t have anything to prove, okay?”

Fitz grimaced. His father’s harsh face was burned into the back of his eyelids. How much of that had been based on real life? Was it even his real face? His real father? The real sting of a belt-strap across his back? How much was Aida’s creation, and how much had he just forgotten?

Daisy leaned further over him and wrapped her arms around him in a hug.

“I’m sorry,” she whispered, “but I might have something that can help.”

“Lead the way.”

Daisy led him to one of the side rooms she’d coopted as her office space. She had her laptop set up on the desk and plugged into another monitor, and in front of them was a 360-degree projector. As they walked in, the lights turned on, and then lowered as the projector took priority. All around them, all over the walls, was a flow chart with hundreds, maybe thousands of possibilities.

“Daisy?” Fitz wondered, turning slowly as he entered the room, attempting to read the boxes, but there were too many. A few stuck in his mind: The Pod. Father left. But not enough for him to figure it out. “What is this?”

“It’s a map,” Daisy said, “of your choices. Sort of.”

“I don’t understand.”

Joined Shield. Left Shield.

Stayed in Scotland. Left Scotland.

Fitz jumped when some of the boxes lit up in red. Taking a step back, he followed their path around the room, climbing upward and upward to ever-smaller boxes as choices split off from choices split off from choices. His eyes followed and the computer zoomed in as it reached its final conclusion:

Fitz is Hydra.

His breath caught. He clenched his fist, and asked tightly:

“Why would you show me that?”

“The red is, from what I can remember, the path that Aida made you take. She set up an algorithm that mapped this out for you, and this was the path she picked. Now, obviously, I don’t know every choice you’ve ever faced or every circumstance you’ve ever been in, so I made some up, and I thought I’d show you…”

Daisy scrolled down, letting the final conclusions of some of the pathways roll past Fitz’s eyes.

Some of them were unpleasant:

Fitz dies. Fitz is trapped in another dimension. Fitz leaves.

Some of them, he just hadn’t seen in himself:

Fitz is a journalist. Fitz is a surgeon. Fitz works in hospice care.

Gradually they start getting more and more like him:

Fitz is a speech therapist. Fitz is a conservationist. Fitz is a teacher. Fitz is a Dad.

And he was smiling by the time he got to

Fitz is Fitz.

It lit up blue.

Daisy touched his shoulder again, drawing his attention so that she could explain, as she put the full flow chart back up. Blue path after blue path lit up, as hundreds of pathways that did not lead to the first conclusion took their course.

“Look,” she said. “I’ll be honest, I think what happened to you in there was brainwashing, but the reality is, greater minds than I have been arguing about what that entails for longer than we’ve both been alive. Either way, it was fucked up. But here’s what I do know.

“You are here. You are you. Whatever choices you made to get here, whatever happened to push you to make those choices, they are all part of you. This you. Real you. You are who you are, not who he is, and I am grateful for that. I love you. You’re my best friend. And –“

Daisy blinked. In hindsight, she should have been expecting to get choked up, but she didn’t think it would be this visceral.

“-And it hurts me, so, so much, that anyone or anything could ever turn you into something so… not what you are. Someone so hateful and…”

She shook her head.

“But you’re not that. You would never choose to be that. Whatever else, you wouldn’t be that. But, uh, going back to the toaster…you don’t always have to be this either.”

Fitz frowned, confused, and Daisy blinked back her tears and brought up some of the final options again. The positive ones. The ones he could be.

“Look. Fitz,” she began again. “When I ran away, after Lincoln, it was because… I needed to remake myself. I needed to decide who I was after that. Even though it wasn’t my fault, it still made me feel like all I did was just… bring death to everyone. That’s why I left. If you need to leave – if you need to run away and save the orang-utans tomorrow or something… I’ll understand. I’ll miss you a hell of a lot and I’ll visit every other day but, like, I’ll get it.”

Her eyes dropped, vulnerable, and Fitz felt a tightness in his chest under the weight of her concern and love.

“Are you saying I should leave Shield?” he wondered.

“No,” Daisy said. “I’m just saying… You shouldn’t stay just because you always have. Maybe Leo Fitz: toymaker just hasn’t had his shot yet, that’s all.”

Fitz snorted, looking up and down the list of Daisy’s ideas.

“You really think I could make toys? For a living?”

“Sure.” Daisy smiled a little. “And if you don’t, you’ve never seen yourself in those kooky watchmaker’s glasses.”

“They’re called loupe,” Fitz pointed out.

“Of course they are.”

Fitz smiled at her, and she smiled back, and he pulled her into a one-armed hug, looking up at the list she had presented with pride and gratitude. Daisy smiled fondly up at it too, proud of the diversity of optimistic options she had presented, and glad to have brought them both some happiness and cleared some of the clouds from her best friend’s mind.

“Thank you, Daisy,” Fitz said, his voice raw with sincerity. She wrapped her arms around his torso in a sideways bear-hug.

“I love you too.”

#fitzdaisy #brotp: a tonne of weird crap #leo fitz #daisy johnson #buskidsnet #aosficnet

39 notes · View notes