(no subject)

[memorizingthedigitsofpi]

I'm not really on social media these days. I run an ask blog on tumblr and I have a separate personal tumblr account that I post on occasionally, but I mostly just scroll when I'm bored and that's about it. I only really engage with other users when I'm answering asks about AO3. 

Yesterday I had an interaction that, while having it, I realized "oh, this person is REALLY online" and I had to take a moment and analyze how I had come to that conclusion. The interaction went like this (and no, I'm not super proud of my side either)

Someone: Can I report fics on AO3 that were written by AI?
Me: No. Those fics aren't against the TOS. What you can do is mute people who post those fics so that you never have to see them.
Really Online Person: I'm going to report them anyway
Me: That's an asshole move, but if you wanna be an asshole 🤷‍♀️
ROP: So you support AI fics? I'm so disappointed

I replied to that ask as well and I really shouldn't have. Both are now unrebloggable - but that's not the point that I'm getting at. It was them concluding that I "support AI fics" (or whatever their phrasing) that made me conclude that they were entirely too online. That's what I wanted to examine more. 

In my response to that last ask, I included the fact that some people with disabilities use AI to assist them. More than one person came to the conclusion that my sentence (1 sentence in a 5 paragraph response) was claiming that people who are anti-AI are ableist. At least one person decided that me saying someone was an asshole for reporting something that isn't against the TOS means that I am pro-AI.

I think my conclusion about the "online-ness" of these people comes from the fact that every statement made is in some way a reflection of someone's character, opinions, morality etc. This is also why everyone frontloads these conversations with "here is my stance" because simply stating facts invites that kind of leap. If you don't write 200 words about why AI is awful before your 1 sentence about how it's not against the TOS, then clearly you love AI. 

I've heard the phrase "post-fact society" used before, specifically about the US. But I think it can be broadly applied to the English-speaking internet. Facts don't matter when you're that online. What matters is where you stand on an issue and whether we're on the same side. If you say something that doesn't align with what I think, then we're on opposite sides. The friend that doesn't think 100% like me is my enemy. 

It's so incredibly similar to all of the "anti" stuff around fanfic. If you state that a certain kind of fic is allowed by the TOS or that writing something "controversial" is in any way okay, the conclusion isn't that you're making a factual statement. The conclusion is that you're stating your own preferences, values, personal habits etc. 

I'm rambling now, but I can't stop thinking about how this also lines up with performative social justice and virtue signalling etc. If everything you say online is meant to be part of a construct of you as a person, and if you want to be seen as a good person, then everything that gets said online aligns with "goodness" or "badness" in some way. There is no neutrality. There are no facts. There are just signs that you're on one side of an issue or another.

Comments

[vriddy]

This kind of interactions is so tiring. It's not really a conversation, and can even be more like a performance if it's happening in public. And that way of thinking seems to spill more and more IRL as well, which is really saddening (and scary).

[misbegotten]

I generally take that as a sign of their youth rather than "onlineness" but I have no data to back that up. Those of us who were around before the birth of the interwebs are less likely to see absolutes and moral character judgments in online interactions the way that asshole is. But I have no data to back that up either.

[i_wish_to_remain_nameless]

I think a lot of Ao3 users don't actually understand what a Terms of Service is and that while it can be influenced by the morals of whoever's running the site it's not a statement of a platform's moral stance but rather a list of rules for what you can and can't use said platform for. That's why people get so mad at Ao3 for stuff like not letting you link your Ko-Fi.
Honestly, I think that the black and white, with us or against us sort of reasoning tends to take hold in the terminally online because man was not meant to see anywhere near the amount of takes your average internet user can easily see on the daily so a lot of people won't really engage with the text of the post but instead just try to sort the opinion into one extreme of the topic or another to save on cognitive load.

[razielim]

Hm. Interesting. It's also like a continuation of the anti sort of thing of feeling powerless to act upon the big injustices in life, so instead setting the hounds on smaller targets. Fight the Goliath ask blog after interpreting their answers in bad faith, report the fic that isn't against TOS but made you feel indignant or disgusted, harrass the Bad shippers, etc. A flurry of activity that does no good, builds nothing, goes nowhere, but provides the online person with a sense of control, competency, and achievement.

[justapotatowriter]

(I'm about to ramble about something; apologies in advance.)

I saw that exchange, and it reminded me of some drama on the r/AO3 subreddit, around the time there was a lot of stuff thrown around about lore.fm. I saw someone just say that they hope the devs didn't receive any harassment over the announcement of the app, and I kid you not, someone replied to them saying "well, they called everyone who opted out "ableist and classist", so naturally, people are gonna be offended". The person who made the first comment doubled down on their "harassment is not okay still" statement and more people were disagreeing with them.

Later, The r/AO3 mod had made several posts explaining the whole issue, because a lot of fearmongering info was being thrown around, and people were having issues with the mod's wording "trying to be neutral" and with how they... said that the app didn't technically do anything illegal?

As far as I know, the mod was just stating facts about the app and asking people not to harass the devs. That was somehow the mod siding with the devs against anyone who had even a little bit of doubt or suspicion about the app or the ulterior motives of a company pretending to be a single fan starting a project ""for fans"".

I guess my point is: it feels like anti mentality + "I ain't reading all that" mentality.