(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

[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.