I did look through the @endOTWracism Twitter account, and I couldn't find examples of any specific posts on the archive. Maybe I missed them while skimming, and I understand the reluctance to link to specific words to avoid encouraging harassment themselves, but it's difficult to tell if there's a systemic enforcement problem when I can't find examples.
I agree that three years to find a hire is inexcusable and progress should be made on that promise as soon as possible.
When it comes to hateful speech being present in titles and tags, you encounter the problem I described earlier of tasking AO3 volunteers with deciding what is or what isn't offensive. And they would likely have to judge intent--for instance, I don't think most people would accuse a POC using an ethnic slur of being racist, or gay people who use homophobic slurs of being homophobic, but those kinds of identities are impossible to establish on the internet. I don't think it is AO3's responsibility to decide which words are appropriate for which people to say. To quote AO3's Diversity Statement, "You are free to express your creativity within the few restrictions needed to keep the service viable for other users. The Archive strives to protect your rights to free expression and privacy."
I also agree that group-based harassment should be covered under the TOS. I don't believe that someone saying, as an example, "lynch all [marginalized group]" should be treated differently from someone saying that towards a specific person. However, I do think the Archive's current stance on distinguishing between targeted threats/harassment, and the depiction or display of bigotry in general, is reasonable and necessary to protect inclusion of all kinds on AO3.
Of course, we're not talking about the usage of the words themselves in any context but for the harassment TOS to cover their usage when used for harassment in general. The harassment TOS already states that intentional harassment is against the rules. The reporting system on AO3 requires someone to report harassment for AO3 to screen them. They do not prescreen. We're not asking them for a unilateral ban of words, but for them to overlook what is currently on the TOS like they have promised. We're not asking them to throw out their core philosophy.
I appreciate that. I still think there needs to be some specific examples shown of the kinds of fics that aren’t being addressed by the abuse team or TOS. Even one would be useful.
Oh yes, you absolutely are. I've seen the posts from the activists making these demands. This has nothing to do with "harassment" and everything to do with backdoor censorship. That's why instead of demanding any actual policy changes, the demand is to hire a "consultant" who will then advance those goals internally, leaving those who oppose censorship on the outside.
I don't think it's productive to assume people are operating in bad faith. Their stated goals are reasonable, in my opinion--expanding the TOS to define what actually constitutes harassment, for one thing. The current policy is a little vague on what is actually considered 'bullying' and 'personal attacks'.
Yes, antis exist, but if we assume that anyone who wants any kind of change to AO3 policy is actually trying to bring about censorship in secret, then meaningful dialogue is impossible.
I'm assuming nothing. I read the website for this little movement. It makes clear what this is really about. I encourage you to read it as well and see what their main complaints and demands are about. It's not about someone being harassed.
https://archive.ph/t6NXp (original link https://www.tumblr.com/end-otw-racism/716978822501875712/fandom-against-racism-a-manifesto)
Alright, read the post through as well as several of the posts linked by it.
I'll quote the manifesto's main demands here:
" * Harassment policies that can be regularly updated to address both on-site harassment and off-site coordinated harassment of AO3 users, with updated protocols for the Policy & Abuse Team to ensure consistent and informed resolutions of abuse claims. * A content policy on abusive (extremely racist and extremely bigoted) content; by abusive, we are talking about fanworks that are intentionally used to spread hate and harassment, not those that accidentally invoke racist or other bigoted stereotypes. "
The first one in my view is completely reasonable. The second suggests that yes, the movement is being disingenuous if they say they're not in favor of at least some censorship, because it implies that any inclusion of bigotry that isn't 'accidental' (which again depends upon the subjective judgment of AO3 volunteers) must be considered abusive/harassment by default. And several of the linked sources clearly have an anti slant--this one specifically accuses AO3 of hosting "child porn": https://www.tumblr.com/nerdlingwrites/624303276296388609/seriously-im-going-to-delete-this-post-just-so .
So I concede that if this post is representative of the movement then it is probably on the whole in favor of censorship, which is obviously unfortunate.
And yet the goals of people in a movement can vary considerably. The EndOTWRacism fic collection contains many fics that have 'problematic' themes. There's no reason to assume that when pretty_weird_ideas says, "We're not asking them for a unilateral ban of words", that it isn't true in their case. We can respectfully engage with people who present positions that aren't asking for content restrictions on the archive without throwing them in with everyone else. Engage with what is said and not what isn't, in my opinion.
Personally, I'm all against harassment as well, which I said before in this thread. I especially think the organization needs to take a stance against organized harassment of authors and volunteers/employees of OTW. However, the repeated failure to point to actual cases of racist harassment should also say something about how prevalent it actually is. Meanwhile, people on this very post are arguably harassing others for disagreeing with this very movement.
I understand not wanting to lump people together, but I would like to point out that when people use hashtags directly referring back to a post like that, or when they organize directly with people connected to posts making specific demands, I will assume they share the same agenda. So the censorship demands aren't tangential here. They're a core part of the movement going on and any claims otherwise are objectively false.
EndOTWRacism doesn't suggest policy because the entire point is that the expert, WHO IS PAID to do this job should be doing it. It shouldn't be on the unpaid labor of the Abuse Team or a bunch of volunteers of color who are breaking their backs to do it. It's also for neutrality. The exact opposite of what your conspiracy is implying. It is so that nobody can content cop and that all viewpoints are relatively useless in the evaluation of OTW's practices. Again, if you have a problem with the promise for OTW to work on its TOS you should reread their original promises... where they state that they will check the TOS and look it over. This isn't a debate with people who made up this proposal, it's asking OTW to do what it promised in 2020 when it admitted that its harassment TOS did not properly cover intentional harassment (especially on the basis of race). The context here is lacking when you try and put "consultants" in quotes as if that isn't a real job (similar to HR).
Also to be clear here the reason why there's a massive change and wide gap in opinions is because of solidarity purposes. The conspiracy that "someone is lying/tricking people because they have nuanced opinions" is ignoring the fact that they purposefully called ALL fandom members with several opinions on what should be done with AO3 to protest. This is specified in their FAQ and tripled down on every time they reblog or retweet something with a "We do not endorse all of their beliefs on policy, we are just facilitating possible options" and those options vary wildly on solutions.
That's why the consultant is being called for and not policy. Nobody on EndOTWRacism agrees on policy, the point is to tell OTW that it needs to be looked over by them and for them to make a choice that follows their own core mission. Solidarity exists here on my side of the internet when it comes to the mistreatment of POC. You're upset that one person says that there shouldn't be a certain clause (on a hypothetical TOS that they don't have control over because OTW agreed to give it to a neutral party) and the other disagrees as if it is a sign of the movement being sketchy when instead it shows actual solidarity and the severity of the issue. This is a sign of severity and solidarity. The people who work with and for this protest don't have to agree on what SHOULD be done, because their demands are that OTW remembers that its paid employees were supposed to debate that. EndOTWRacism's entire job is to be a reminder that OTW had promised these changes, people with any opinion can at least agree that OTW promised they would hire this consultant and that it has yet to be done yet.
If you do not understand what solidarity with a group means, we can't have this conversation. Because accusing entire movements who literally claim over and over again that the policy opinions are not in their hands, and that several members disagree on the options, are all of one opinion is in monumentally bad faith. Nuance exists, you can disagree with a person on one point and still stand beside another point they had made. This pettiness towards .01% of fandom has rotted this discourse to the core, and frankly, racists purposefully did this by creating strawmen of random black and brown fans who were secretly "not real fans" to allow gatekeepers with the self-awareness of sporks try and jump them. We use AO3 just like the rest of you, and even when you search up the term you can see the diversity in the content being made here. As well as look through those who are supporting the movement and recognize that there's a large set of people. Hell, I literally scrolled through the term on Tumblr and saw two people VEHEMENTLY disagreeing about AO3 content who both supported the movement in two posts back to back. People are not war machines ready to kill random people over ship discourse when OTW is currently not done fulfilling its promises. Bigger fish to fry here.
I don’t remember the actual names of the accounts involved and my Tumblr archive is a nightmare, but there is actually a specific incident I’ve seen brought up. We’ll call its victim Jane because again, don’t remember.
Jane is a noted anti-racism activist who left a comment on a work noting that it contained racist tropes. She wasn’t nasty about it, she was just like “you may want to be aware.” The account’s response was to share all her other socmed accounts and encourage followers to hatebomb her and possibly even track her down in meatspace.
AO3 did nothing, on the basis that the TOS doesn’t cover offsite harassment. I feel like that author’s actions are an instaban, personally—you do not use one site to encourage harassment and then get off Scot-free because the act occurred on the site you sent people to.
From an enforcement standpoint I can see why AO3 would be reluctant to get involved in those situations; then AO3 staffers have to investigate acts that occurred offsite, determine if everyone is really who they say they are on other platforms, try and untangle what's going on. I'm imagining an AO3 volunteer having to trawl through Discord chatlogs, for instance. It's unfortunate, but I think that might stretch their resources to a breaking point. My understanding is that the Abuse team can already take over a month to respond to on-site reports.
Ideally AO3 should be able to respond to that kind of problem, but I don't know how you would organize it in a way that wouldn't demand double the manpower, as well as tasking volunteers with making subjective judgments (if someone says 'no, that wasn't my [Twitter] account sending those messages, it's an impersonator or a troll' how do you sort out the truth?).
I mean, I can see that, but surely if you’re posting someone else’s information without their consent that should be bannable. Like it’s different from me saying “hey, if you want to chat my Discord handle is X!” or even “acidbirth said to let you know we’re both on Tumblr, you can find them at tumblrusername.tumblr.com if you want to chat more.” If I were to say “hey, acidbirth told me my depiction of British school uniforms is wrong. Find them on Tumblr at tumblrusername, Twitter at twitterusername, and Discord at acidbirth#1234, show them what happens to someone who fucks with me,” like that should just be an automatic game over. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to banhammer. That’s calling for harassment.
I apologize, I misread the part about them linking 'Jane's' social media accounts directly on AO3. There should have been a ban involved there, I agree, as the intent is completely obvious.
Comment on Resignation of OTW Director
acidbirth Mon 22 May 2023 09:09PM UTC
Comment Actions
pretty_weird_ideas Mon 22 May 2023 09:52PM UTC
Comment Actions
acidbirth Mon 22 May 2023 10:09PM UTC
Comment Actions
MalcontentCatboy Tue 23 May 2023 05:13AM UTC
Comment Actions
acidbirth Tue 23 May 2023 05:28AM UTC
Last Edited Tue 23 May 2023 05:29AM UTC
Comment Actions
MalcontentCatboy Tue 23 May 2023 05:35AM UTC
Last Edited Tue 23 May 2023 06:11AM UTC
Comment Actions
acidbirth Tue 23 May 2023 06:11AM UTC
Comment Actions
MalcontentCatboy Tue 23 May 2023 06:17AM UTC
Comment Actions
pretty_weird_ideas Tue 23 May 2023 06:02PM UTC
Comment Actions
Prismatic Bell (PrismaticBell) Tue 23 May 2023 02:29AM UTC
Comment Actions
acidbirth Tue 23 May 2023 02:42AM UTC
Comment Actions
Prismatic Bell (PrismaticBell) Tue 23 May 2023 06:46AM UTC
Comment Actions
acidbirth Tue 23 May 2023 06:50AM UTC
Comment Actions