#partially saying this cause a lot of media creators are being outed recently and

[jack-of-amulets]

My heart goes out to any fictionkin who kin from people with problematic kintype/media creators… As one myself, I know how hard it is and how much of a struggle it can be to live and exist without pressure nor fear, and I just wish you’re all doing okay.

[thoughts-on-bangtan]

The Bias of Body Language

By Admin 1, with help from Admin 2

“About social media…it’s easy to interpret. People think they’re moral or ethical. They talk about themselves thinking they’re logically perfect. In fact, in a relationship, even my mother doesn’t know me, for example. About Yoongi or Hoseok who have lived with me for 10 years, it’s hard to say I know them well. Do I really know the person? It’s hard to know myself. “I know him and he’s like this”. “He’s such a person”. I thought this is quite dangerous.”

-- Namjoon, vlive “Namjun’s 7 Behind”, 57:30 onward

Everything in our life is centered around biases, preferences, our partiality toward everything, regardless if it’s about big or trivial matters. Instead of having a single cellphone model for everyone, you can choose one based on your bias. Walk into a fashion store and depending on your bias you’ll gravitate toward darker clothes, longer dresses, shorter skirts, pants, and so on. Someone could present you the very same dress but in two different colors and despite them being exactly the same, your bias, your preference, will dictate that you’ll think the yellow dress is hideous while the black one is gorgeous. Yet the next person might think the exact opposite.

If that weren’t enough there’s also something called a confirmation bias, which is characterized by a tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports your prior beliefs or values. Both these things, our bias and our confirmation bias, are something we come across and tend to apply to content, in this case, BTS content specifically, and how we view and interpret body language.

Have you ever noticed how when it comes to certain scenes, moments, and/or interactions, suddenly there are thousands upon thousands of body language specialists within ARMY? Suddenly everyone will try to convince you that “based on my experience as body language expert/someone who’s amazing at reading body language this interactions means that”, coming from people who prior to it might’ve never mentioned being such expert or who are plain wrong yet try to convince you otherwise to feed into their own confirmation bias.

Interesting though is the fact that claiming that you’re able to interpret someone’s body language in an infallible manner based on a three-minute video is, to put it lightly, plain wrong and impossible at that. In order to do something like that you’d have to study that person 24/7 in every kind of situation imaginable, take note of every minute detail, interpret it all and, on top of all that, be able to have a conversation with that person to ask them to confirm or deny your theories. Once you’d have all of that, you’d be able to attempt a proper body language reading, and chances are you might still not get it right each time, or at all. Every person behaves a little differently, has their own behavioral pattern, things characteristic for them, and acts a certain way with different people and in different situations, so just because you can read one person right in a singular given situation, doesn't mean it’s the same for every person and every situation.

An example I find very curious is Jungkook during their most recent performance of Life Goes On at the GDAs. When you watch it, you’d think that yes, he liked the miniature set of No More Dream, but that’s it. He was calm, focused, professional. And yet when you watch the behind the scene glimpse at the performance, and watch him specifically, you notice that he was constantly focusing on the set and having to stop himself from messing with it. (x)

What does that tell us? Easy. We only see small glimpses of BTS, of their behavioral patterns, and even the things we do see are polished, controlled, and not entirely natural, so to speak. That isn’t a bad thing by any means, it’s what you’d expect of a professional performer who still is a human like everyone else.

So, if we get body language wrong with something like that, how can these “experts” be sure their interpretations are correct? Even more so when you take into account that every person has some sort of tic, or a number of them. It can be something like absentmindedly playing with a ring, licking/wetting your lips or biting them, scratching or messing with the cuticles on your nails, tapping your foot, or a million other things. There’s also cultural influences/norms that shape certain behaviors in ways someone from another culture might not understand or will interpret completely differently since it means something else entirely in their culture.

And here is where a lot of people, these “experts” as well as those unable to put aside their bias and confirmation bias, go wrong.

More below the cut:

To preface the next two sections, a little disclaimer: I don’t mean to badmouth people like this, after all putting aside these biases is tricky and staying objective about something you’re passionate about is a hard thing to do, as well as distinguishing between an objective observation and a bias one, but it doesn’t change the fact that sometimes people purposefully present their bias opinions as facts. That doesn’t necessarily cause issues, but sometimes it can have a very negative ripple effect that can affect and influence others, taint their opinions and cloud their objectivity when it comes to certain things.

That’s when it becomes a problem.

Section One – non-shipping related interactions between the members

You’d think this would be the more unproblematic section, but turns out it isn’t, though it’s problematic in a different way. While most casual fans or OT7 ARMY watch and enjoy interactions between the members without looking too deeply at them, without analyzing and trying to interpret things, therefore leave aside most biases, there are others who do not.

OT1s for instance go into Episodes, Bangtan B*mbs, or RUN with a bias and a need to feed their confirmation bias, be it by finding “evidence” to prove that their fav is being left out or is mistreated or a plethora of other (usually) negative ideas. People like that don’t watch interactions as just friends trying to make each other laugh or playing off of each other, but instead look for things to get upset or up in arms about because their bias going in is that their fav isn’t happy (because that’s what they want to be the truth in many cases).

Or a situation where a member might be a bit more quiet or stiff. Quickly “body language specialists” jump in and interpret this as that member being unhappy, being overworked, wanting to quit and not getting along with the other members, being bullied or silenced by them. When in reality it’s far more likely he just wasn’t feeling well, was tired or maybe his back hurt. But rationality has no place in a bias view, when the sole purpose for that person to watch that content is to find evidence that feeds their confirmation bias.

You could argue that maybe those people are simply looking out for their fav, just want what’s best for him and that they mean well, but do they really? How come those without that narrow bias lens see the same interaction completely differently? If those same people would take a step back and switch from their bias lens to an objective one, would they still see all that negative “evidence”? Chances are they would not.

Section Two – Shipping related interactions between the members

The irony of calling this section in such a manner is that oftentimes these interactions have no actual shipping relation, hold no proof of anything romantic whatsoever. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

When shippers sit down to watch a piece of BTS content, they enter the video with a clear bias—X ship is real, as example—so they are (only) on the lookout for interactions between their ship and interpret those interactions in a shipping context, while disregarding/ignoring interactions with other members in many cases since those are uninteresting, or when they care it’s only to again feed into their bias. They look for any piece of evidence to feed their confirmation bias, which sometimes goes as far as completely misconstruing, misinterpreting, and manipulating interactions in order to twist them to fit their bias.

Here’s also where body language and tics come back into the conversation. A lot of ship evidence videos on YouTube rely on body language, somehow every creator being an expert in this field and their interpretations are usually backed by thousands of comments confirming that they are right, that it’s the only logical way of interpreting things. Because that interpretation fits their agenda, feeds their confirmation bias. The funny thing though is that many of the things presented as evidence can be easily explains in a different way once you put aside your bias.

Take wetting/biting your lip as example. Thousands of videos edit together interview moments in which member X supposedly looks at member Y while wetting his lip. That, of course, is taken as ship evidence, interpreted as proof that member X is in love with member Y, that they feel romantic/erotic attraction for member Y showcased through that lip bite. That though is a very bias way of interpreting that action, especially since it removes all context and logic.

Let’s try looking at it a bit more objectively:

I don’t know if you noticed this, but the more you wear a mask, the more your lips are dry and chapped, which explains the need for lip balm. What’s that remind us of? Exactly. The members have been seen countless times using lip balm, even on stage, and they also wear masks a lot, as you do in a pandemic and also because it’s a completely normal thing to do in Asia. Why do you use lip balm? Because your lips are dry. Why do you bite your lip? Because they are dry/chapped, and/or because it’s a tic.

Now, if we look at that same scene again, member X looking at member Y while biting his lip and take into account the above deduction, isn’t it a far more likely explanation than member X feeling the need to showcase his attraction for member Y in that very moment, especially if they are at an interview about their new album, for example? Furthermore, does looking at someone necessarily mean it’s an action done out of love? Isn’t it far more likely that member X looked at member Y because Y was saying something and it’s the polite thing to do, or X was simply looking in Y’s general direction since you have to look somewhere, can’t just stare at the ceiling or close your eyes, right?

Another example I’d like to discuss is how “body language experts” interpret the very same action in two drastically different ways depending on which bias it’s supposed to feed. This point, I think, highlights just how ridiculous and bias these body language interpretations really are, and how unreliable they truly are.

Let’s take member A lying down and cuddling with member B, which is interpreted as two lovely boyfriends cuddling in bed, but when member A lies down and cuddles with member C it’s interpreted as just two bros and nothing more. Even though the scene looks exactly the same. A and B cuddling feeds their confirmation bias, so A and C cuddling is dismissed and downgraded to not interfere with their bias. This is oftentimes done subconsciously, because they are so deep into their bias mindset, they see no other way of interpreting these actions. Even though the basic scene is the same, yet occasionally it might actually come across more relaxed and “romantic” when A and C do it as opposed to A and B, but since that doesn’t fit the confirmation bias, it’s dismissed and interpreted otherwise.

And this is where we circle back to Namjoon’s quote at the beginning of this whole thing: claiming you can interpret their body language with a 100% certainty is a foolish and naïve statement because all we get to see are small glimpses of their days. We see what they want us to see, the best version of themselves, we see edited clips and controlled behavior, the members putting forth their best faces, their nicest smiles, and thinking that just because your bias tells you that a touch of a thigh or upper arm or bitten lip with their face turned in the general direction of another member must mean something or another, it doesn’t mean it’s truly so.

We can theorize, we can analyze, we can make jokes and have fun, but the moment people get into fights or start hate against other members solely based on bias body language interpretations, that’s where we have an issue. And that happens all the time. And it doesn’t just happen with their body language, but also with their words, but that’s an entirely different can of worms I might try to dive into another time if you’d be interested in my thoughts on it. Let me know.

TL;DR: Body language is a very complex thing, interpreting it in an infallible way basically impossible, so making claims of exactly being able to interpret it without bias is naïve, as is believing those interpretations. In order to truly be able to interpret/understand the dynamic between members, body language alone isn’t enough in any kind of way. It isn’t a good enough source or tool to make proper judgements, it’s actually the weakest and most lacking one, especially when it isn’t done in an 100% unbias manner.

The only thing body language can tell us if someone’s a good actor or not, but figuring out true feelings between the members solely based on it, especially when these interpretations are usually skewed due to a bias, isn’t really possible. Even less so if you don’t also take into account the context in which whatever interaction you are interpreting is happening in.

[polandspringz]

I read your essay, but I was more concerned by how Diavolo and Simeon acted in the event than whether the devs were wrong for making it. Simeon obviously for his sneaky behavior and Diavolo for basically saying he wishes his alleged best friend had fallen under the same non consensual mind control spell as his brothers because it would be fun to see a new side of him, even though Lucifer clearly hates to lose control of himself. I know he would not enjoy that as much as Diavolo would, and I can't help but wonder if he actually cares about Lucifer. In events Diavolo is often messing around with the brothers, kinda using them for his own amusement, but this event really brought that into focus. It might not be as big of a deal as it feels to me because I'm kinda sensitive about stuff like mind manipulation for some reason, I can't help but be mad at him for basically not caring at all, which is disappointing since they just released all that stuff for the side characters... What are your thoughts on this?

I want to preface this by saying technically I am have not started lessons 21-40. I am aware of the events that happened in them, but have not played through them for myself, so I can’t necessarily comment on a lot of Diavolo’s character development in the recent lessons.

I think it’s fine to be uncomfortable with how the characters acted. Writing should evoke emotion, both good and bad. My post ended up going more into people being mad at the creators because I’ve been seeing that build up for months now, and just thought that now was a particularly trivial reason (and I didn’t want people to start attacking the devs for something that I think was just being misunderstood). Like you though, I did not like Diavolo and Simeon’s actions in this event either.

When I first read what the bangles did, my thought was that the characters were actually going to the Celestial Realm for a party, and that the bangles would just keep them from acting out while there and corrupting other angels or causing a scene. Simeon’s characters I think has just been always a bit more complicated than the pure angel that much of the fandom reduces him too (when I saw a screenshot of him saying “Did he just discover a new kink?” from a previous event, I was shocked.) We know about the Celestial Realm from the brothers’ talking about Lilith that the angels were aware of the human realm and it’s culture (although some of it is anachronistic in terms of them knowing about manga back when the War happened thousands of years ago), and so it seems that the story’s version of angels are not the way we normally see angels portrayed in media (100% good, never faltering), but instead are just like humans that are usually very good and selfless but capable of doing bad things. I think this brings up a good point with Simeon’s character about how hypocritical he acted during this event, forcing the characters to act good when he himself has committed what in, at least Christian interpretations, could be viewed as wrong (not necessarily a sin) but more of a bystander issue. During the main story even, he often is just standing back while the rest of the characters are having trouble, he’ll often just find amusement in what’s going on rather than step in to help. I think this brings to mind that theme again of questioning what is good and evil in the lens of this type of story. Lastly, I forget where I read it, but in the past I did extensive research on angels for my own writing, and I remember a detail in one interpretation of them that “angels often got into disagreements with one another” and that God had to step in to help resolve them. I think this is an interesting thing to point out that angels themselves are not 100% pure or perfect, and are just of capable of committing sins like the demons, (as that is what leads to them becoming demons to begin with). In the frame of this story, I think the way Simeon acted in this event and how he normally takes amusement in seeing the brothers’ struggle may be indicative of future story lines that may highlight through our perspective with the demons, that the Celesital Realm is not good and that we may actually see a character fall. I know the popular fan interpretation is Simeon, but I actually see Luke as the one who could stay behind in Devildom.

Now, in terms of Diavolo- I think he has always been a manipulator too. Although he enjoys spending time with Lucifer, we know from the story in Lessons 1-20 that in exchange for Lilith being saved, Lucifer had to swear himself to him. Diavolo and Lucifer cannot ever have a true friendship because of this, and although we are viewing the story through a lens that makes us more partial and sympathetic towards the demons, that doesn’t meant that all the demons are in that view. Diavolo from the start seems/acts like a nicer ruler than the one the Celestial Realm has purely because he gave the brothers refuge when they fell. He lets them be their true selves rather than hold them to strict, righteous standards (standards that this event showed are not even what the angels themselves are held to, thus making Simeon’s actions hypocritical). However, as much as he may seem to be friends with Lucifer, we have to remember that Lucifer and his agreement was not one of friendship, and their perceived friendship is much more one that has just been forged by happenstance of them being around each other for so long. I’ve incorporated this discussion on Lucifer and Diavolo’s relationship into a few of my fanfictions for this series, and I truly think that Diavolo wanting to see Lucifer act under a mind controlled spell is completely within his character. After all, he already has control over Lucifer in some ways, he already has power over him. Why would forcing Lucifer to act a certain way be any different of him?

I can understand why this still makes people uncomfortable. I think at a certain point in stories and through fandom culture, when we consume stories in small pieces and then discuss them at large, it allows for many more views and interpretations. (Like a big book club!) However, I think a problem can occur if the largely vocal aspects of that discussion circle are overtly negative or angered about something within the media, as it normally does not fuel a positive discussion about the work (as in, constructive discussion, not positive as in considering the work perfect with no flaws) but instead can quickly spiral into a hate circle. Works can cause you to experience emotion and feel conflicted about things, which is a good thing. However, when you then discuss those things with others, I wish I saw more people not being so strong with their language in discussions of “I hate all these things” without talking about why or examining it. I probably sound very pretentious with all this, but like I said in my previous post, I think this is just one example of a greater problem in all fandom culture. I guess a more clearer example of this would be that the fact that the “book club” has people from so many different ages and backgrounds, but no one to moderate like in socratic seminar or no one who knows the ultimate, true answer (even though there never is one to writing, but with classics and established books we tend to all agree on main themes, symbols, and points that we find more valuable or more central to discuss) and what can often happen is members of the circle with less maturity or less experience in consuming media become the more vocal groups and refuse to hear other sides, thus spawning more negativity and preventing more discussion.

I promise that last bit wasn’t directed at you at all! I just thought of it was a good way to sum up my whole thoughts at the end. I’m glad you messaged me asking for my thoughts on Diavolo, and just to end off, I think we cannot mistake that there might be a culture difference in Japanese creators making a romance story. Like how Belphegor is categorized as the “yandere” character, some Japanese players may prefer Diavolo fitting some trope that has more negative, darker connotations. (Although it’s only hitting Japan now, the game itself is Japanese. I still don’t know why it was released to the western market first, but usually Japan is the predominant market). Anyway, that’s all the thoughts I have more now. If you have any more questions, I would be happy to follow up on anything I said here!

[aprilwritesabook]

I appolgize in advance for this long ass post haha.

Alright, so here's the deal. This post is gonna be part rant, part confessional, and part inspirational speech. So if your following this blog purely for the updates on my books you can skip it haha.

I know a currently published author. I used to kinda be friends with them in highschool, but it was more like a friend of a friend type deal. But I digress. Point is. They recently released there second book on Amazon. And I really wanna be happy and proud of them, and to see it as an inspirational thing, buuuuut I'm almost 100 sure they are actually a fraud?

And that's not me being bitter. I really really really wish this wasn't the case. But I have the evidence to back this theory up.

1- they claimed that there first book sold out multiple times. And to be fair this one might be at least partially true. Its rated pretty high on amazon, But then again they only have 4 people rate it and three of those people are the editor formattor and artist for the book. Soooo. Yeah I sure hope they rated it well.

2- they are constantly posting stories to there social media that are far fetched at best. They work in a bookstore. And almost every other week its a slightly diffrent story about a customer who "didn't even know" he was the author who would "burst into tears" the second he told them what the book was about because they were just Soooo touched by the message that they wept to a total stranger??? If that had happened even once it would have been an odd occurance. And this is something that apparently happens alllll the time to them. (I hate to drudge up old memes like this, but)

3- this person has recently made a tick tock and a youtube channel. And like, the content isssss questionable? And that's not necessarily a crime or anything. But they give updates about it on social media as if they are speaking to a mass of adoring fans and like...you can see how many subs and views a person has. We know he dosn't have a big fan base. And I know that sounds harsh. But like, some more gullible people have asked him for advise on how to be "successful" and "gain a following", and he answers them with authority. Like he has the answers even though he clearly dosn't? And that feels really... disingenuous at best?

4- along the same vein as 3. They recently made a post on twitter about how they are "overwhelmed by the amount of love and support they have found on the site" and how they get "some many heartfelt messages." Annnd again. I clicked the account. They literally have 5 followers. And not a SINGLE person has EVER liked, retweeted, or commented on a SINGLE tweet of theirs. Not one. Soooo like not only are you pretending to have a huge fan base that dosn't exist your also making up there engagement with you? Which this alone I feel brings validate to my doubts about the other things. Clearly they arn't above blatant lying and extreme over exaggeration. And also they either don't realize we can all seeeee these facts. Or they don't think anyone will actually check and call them on it ?????

Now there's a lot of other examples I could give. But my point isn't to put this ONE person on blast. I'm not trying to start beef or cause damage to their reputation or anything. Which is why I won't say their name or what there books are. The only way you'd know who I'm talking is if you also knew them in real life. In which case you either already know all this, or you should, so you don't fall victim to their lies.

The reason I'm saying any of this at all is because I think I know why they are doing it. And why so many indie authors or would be media mogels feel the need to do this.

The issue with trying to "build an audience" and "self market" yourself, is that you really only have 2 ways of guaranteed sucess.

You either need to have a pre established audience based on success you've already had in the past. (IE youtubers and movie stars writing successful books cause there fans will buy anything of there's reguardless.)

Or you need to buy your way in. Be it by quitting your day job to make social media your full time job, buying ads, hiring a social media person,or hiring a team of people with their own audiences (audio book narrators, cover artists, managers, ect)

And if you don't ALREADY have an audience, and you don't have the funds to BUY your way in, then your just gonna have to get real lucky.

You can be lucky for knowing somebody with an "in". They work in publishing, or advertising, or they're your rich uncle. Just someone who you can go to to get that boost one way or another to get one of the first two methods going for you.

You can get lucky by commenting the right thing on the right post and gaining followers that way. Or by being in the right place at the right time to meet somebody important.

You can be lucky by having lots of supportive friends and family who will promote you and your work FOR you.

Or lastly (and this is in the realm of being a one in a million case here. So it basically never happens without one of the other things I mentioned also being true.)

You can be lucky by working REALLY hard, and being REALLY talented, and having the world actually NOTICE YOU somehow? Just one person with influence who can find you in your dark hole of insignificance and shine a light on you so now the world can actually seee you.

And that sucks.

You could write the greatest book in the whole world. Truly a masterpiece. But if nobody buys it or reads it because they don't know who you are??? Then it dosen't matter does it?

It sucks Soooo hard.

Because untill you get those people with influence to shine a light on you, theres nothing you can do. And the market is soooooo drenched in new indie authors that the odds of the right people finding and liking your book are slim to none.

Its super unfair.

The people who have the influence arn't gonna buy a book with 0 reviews and no social media following.

Why? Because THEIR brand depends on only recommending the good shit. And they need to find that good shit NOW. If they read every book written by nobody's online, they'd have to wade through ALOT of garbage. wasting all their valuable time and money till they found something worthy. And honestly, from a business stand point, you cant really fault them for that

This is where the lies come from.

So basically no matter how you look at it, or what your strategy is, In order to get fans, you need to ALREADY HAVE THEM.

When your just starting out. And I mean truly at square one. It really feels like the only way to "make it" is to "fake it"

If you PRETEND to have a big following. And you PRETEND your books are selling really well already. And you PRETEND that people care deeply about you and your work... Then there is a chance that nobody will do the homework to find out its all a lie.

And if they think your successful already, then it sends a message to the consumers brains of "well they must be good. Everybody loves it/them".

It sucks that so many people who have found real success did so with lies, cash, and being already well connected.

And then they buy it, and they follow you, and the confirmation bias sets in, and eventually you'll dupe enough people into liking you that you don't HAVE to lie anymore.

Those of us with no cash and too high a conscious to lie our way to the top are left with virtually no chance of succeeding no matter how hard we work or how good our content is.

And I'm not claiming to be "better than" or "more worthy" than anyone else. I wanna make it clear that of your in the portion of having it fake it so you can follow your dreams then more power to you. Its a valid strategy. I hate that it works and I hate that its the only option sometimes. But I don't hate the people as creators for "doing what it takes." I get it. Really I do.

And it suckks major ass that so many people feel like this is the only way.

My whole point here. Is that we have slowly built a system where this is our reality. And honestly? End of the day? There's not a damn thing we can do to change it at this point.

In a perfect world made of unicorns and puppies. I could say "hey lets all go ready books by completely unknown authors. Be the change you wanna see in the world." But at the end of the day, especially in the unfiltered world of self publishing, It would be a complete shot in the dark to spend your resources on something completely unknown. We rely on word of mouth, and "best sellers" and high following to do the work of filtering out the bad stuff for us and it would be unrealistic if not impossible to go back on it now. Even if we wanted to there algorithms and shit built into the code. You'll never find the books that Amazon dosnt want you to find unless you search for it directly.

Now comes the confession/inspirational bit

I know all of the above to be true...But I'm choosing not to care

I'm not gonna lie my way to the top. I'm not gonna hide my struggles out of fear of seeming inferior. So here goes

I struggle a lot with depression and anxiety. I've been working on it, and I've gotten so much better in recent years. But there are always gonna be times when I slip up and my mental illnesses take over

When I was writing my first book I felt really empowered and good about myself for finally getting past all my own barriers and following my dreams.

And then once I was done writting and editing and I was ready to show the world and get feedback. I flopped.

I couldn't find anyone willing to beta read. Those who said they would do it (even people who claimed they "couldn't wait") ghosted me after I actually sent it to them

I was hoping to get 20 people. I really wanted it to be the best it could be. Only 11 actully signed up. Of that 11, 5 people actually read it: My spouse, my brother, my best friend, and 2 others. Those two others read the first bit I sent them, took a few weeks to get back to me, said they loved it, but then Neeeeeeeeever got back to me when I sent them the next chunk.

Now you can look at all that and come to the conclusion that it sucks. I know I sure did.

The struggles at each step made me doubt myself more and more to the point that I almost gave up writing all together.

And I didn't want to take about it or how it was making me feel, even though it was having a serious impact on me. I wanted to bottle it all up and let it consume me. Allllll because I didn't want people online to write me off as a failure before even giving me the chance.

I wasn't lying about being successful. I was just trying to hide the fact that I wasn't.

And that's almost as bad. Because then all the new authors just feel worse about themselves and their journey because they think they are the only ones.

Your not alone.

Everyone is struggling.

We just aren't talking about it.

I haven't written a word in over a week because I've been so afraid my second book will be dead on arrival like my first.

And I KNOW somewhere out there is someone just like me whose thinking of giving up.

Don't.

Just keep going.

Do your best. And then come find another struggling writer and share with each other. The world outside might not understand your struggle. But another author might.

We can't change the market. We can't change the way social media works, or how people decide if they will buy things

But what we CAN change, is whether those of us within the community want to be honest about our struggles and frustrations. Or if we want to hide them away and lie about them for the sake of making more sales

I think by being honest with one another we can create a better network.

That way the next time you feel like garbage for not being an "instant celebrity" like everyone else. you can look at the community and realize that you were never the problem

If we just keep making new writing friends our collective reach will eventually take hold in the outside world. Don't wait for a random influencer to notice you. Just make one friend at a time. Be known amongst your peers and maybe the rest will follow

And if your a writer desperate for feedback, or just a friend to share your troubles with. Hit me up. My inbox is always open.

[inkhallucination]

On the morals of artist integrity or: What consist as theft within thieves.

I'll start this with a disclaimer.

I dont get involved in fandom drama. Not publicly at least. Least of all in a fandom I'm no longer part of. However. I'm feeling angry and indignated today, reason why  you'll have to bear this mouthful or rage today. I apologize in advance.

That said. Lets start.

As some of you in the yoi fandom might or not know , there's been a recent, lets call it witch hunt, or “call out” if you want to soften it. A certain fandom project (and numerous others over the last hours) decided to remove a certain fandom artist from their list of participants after discovering this artist traced other peoples art. This was followed by the mods of said original project DMing the mods of other fandom projects this artist took part of to inform them of the tracing incident and share the "evidence". As of now I've been informed the artist has erased all their accounts in social media as well as left any server community, and only accepts messages from friends they trust.

While analyzing this subject a question arised between me and some mutuals that discussed this incident.

What consists as artist theft?

Art theft, as many artists whose lead precense is on social media are well aware of, is a serious problem. It's not okay to take another persons work without their permision and repost it with or without credit. There's a fair share of content creators who depend on their online presence to make a living and redistributing their work affects this. That's something we all agree on. However, what happens when an artist "steals" from another artists? 

This might be a little confusing so I'll clarify by explaning the incident further. As the former mod of a fandom zine (former being the part they were not aware of) a mod from the original project contacted me to foward a link to a google drive with the “evidence”. Said images I will not share here cause in case you don’t know the identity of the artist I’d rather not contribute in slandering their name. If you already know who they are and would like the images you can DM me. In any case, the images showed the following: multiple cases of similar or near identical facial expressions, the imitation of pose and shading from one piece to another; and one case of redrawing an art piece keeping the poses and color schemes but replacing the originally used characters with YOI ones. 

Based on this we can come to the following conclusion: The definition of art theft (in this case, between artists) may be defined as the copy or use of partial or complete concepts and structural composition of an art piece. 

And by this definition, every artist is an art thief. 

Now, don’t cross your arms and give me the stink eye. If you’ve ever taken a  pencil and remotedly tried to create something, be it writing, illustration, music, esculpture, whatever your choosen medium is, you know you have copied a concept. There’s no piece of content in the world that is entirely original. 

But Orange, you may say; yes, there’s no original piece of content in the world, but there’s a stretch between taking inspiration from something and reproducing it to the perfect angle and shading! And I’ll say to you: Little Timmy, there’s a secret we content creators hord like evil dragons, a shameful secret we hold on tightly in fear of retaliation. The right pose, angle and shading does not come to us in a holy ray of knowdlege. It just does not happen. Your favorite artist, has, is, and will use reference pictures to copy the exact goddamn pose, to know how to work that lightening, and to know how to draw your favorite character in a way that doesn’t make them look like mashed potatoes. 

We are content creators, not magicians. 

The definition of artist, by the Cambridge Dictionary is: someone who paints, draws, or makes sculptures. Which alright, excludes lots of other types of art but moving on.  

That artist might have copied poses, yes, expresions, ways of shading and concepts. But here’s a newsflash. So has every other artist in their lives. More so, every artist who ever redrew a caption, a character, they’re copying concepts, ideas, sometimes down to every little detail. And you know what makes that art theirs? They did not copy paste the original piece and slapped their signature on it. They took a work already existing, transformed it into something else and made it their own by doing every brushstroke, by adding their own style and visión to the piece. That’s art. 

Art and skill don’t come from some magical “talent” or “genious”. It comes from years of practice and hardwork. And a great deal of that hardwork comes from copying other people’s work, analyzing it, coping the feel of it. You watch, learn, and integrate, that’s how art styles and skill are born, that’s how they continue to grow. 

And here’s the final piece of thought. That artist took a long time to develop their style, they had the bravery to go online and present their work. And maybe they copied some parts, maybe they redrew others. They did not take another artists work and say it was theirs. Their crime if you really want to accuse them of something, was using their references too accurately. And now they have been accused on every fandom circle. Their name has been slandered, I’ve seen actual people say that they’re gonna rip off the pages with work they produced to “not support theft”.  There’s no going back from that. All the work they put on making an online presence is gone. If they ever try to show up under a different name all it would take to ruin them again will be to connect them with this incident. Even if the original mods who started this recognized all they’ve done to them for something that is literally common practice among artists, there’s no going back. And here’s why: no one took the time to question this. No one decided to look beyond de accusations. We all trusted the judgament from the original posters without making critical thinking of our own, or deciding to further investigate to know exactly what was going on and make a decision of our own. I’m not saying the original posters had bad intentions, they took their own decision on what they thought. But everyone else decided to take it in strike, no eyebrows raised or questions asked. In another time I would have been one of this people. 

Someone screamed witch and the fandom ran for the wood, tied the accused to the pole and lighted the flame. 

And I don’t know about you, but in a community created to support and share our mutual appreciation of a series, to have fun without being judged; that’s something scary to see. 

[tvserieshub]

History Channel’s original show SIX came out swinging last year, delivering fantastic action and emotional content hand in hand. SIX grabbed audiences in the first episode and delivered through the entire first season. With season 2 premiering Monday, May 28th we wanted to take this opportunity to remind you why you should be watching this military-themed show.

10. Olivia Munn

Olivia Munn is joining SIX as a shady CIA Operative…need I say more? Ok, maybe just a bit more. Munn is great in everything she does and from what I’ve seen this is no exception. The addition of Munn throws an already ticking time clock of a team into near meltdown. Going into season 2 look for her to be both help and foil to our team.

photo credit @SIXonHistory

9. Troop Support

Even in real life, the cast of SIX has taken their military connection seriously. The actors participated in a Tough Mudder Run as a team to fundraise for the charity Student Veterans of America in 2016 and 2017. They also recently participated in the Flag and Flower challenge created by Preston Sharp. The challenge asks people to visit the grave’s of veterans, leaving flags and flowers to honor them, in particular NOT on holidays. Even as I write this, some of the cast are preparing to participate in The Murph (a physical challenge meant to honor LT. Michael Murphy, a SEAL who was killed in combat). Whether it’s in interviews, or on social media, you’ll find this cast expressing a constant respect for the warriors they portray.

Flags and Flowers event @SIXonHistory

@BarrySloane

@Jaylen_Moore

8. Locations

SIX uses it’s time wisely. It’s no cookie-cutter action show with all the fights taking place in dingy lighting, creeping through underground tunnels. Instead, you’ll see this team on land, in the air, on the water. You’ll see them at home (some of the hardest hitting scenes), trekking through the forest and busting down doors. I love never knowing where the team is going to end up next, there isn’t any sense of repetitiveness.

7. Complex Villains

Forget blah, zero backstory villains. SIX allows it’s bad guys to be every bit as interesting and dynamic as it’s heroes. Tell me, how many other military shows can say that? Dominic Adams spent last season playing Michael Nasry, the American-born terrorist who’s out for revenge. Although we loved to hate Michael and the tortures he planned for Rip (Walter Goggins), you never impatiently wished him off the screen. In fact, I’m happy to say that Adams is back for season 2, although we’ll find Michael in a very different set of circumstances this time around. SIX is also introducing “The Prince” (Nikolai Nikolaeff) as the big bad of the season. Nikolai spent months preparing himself for the role, diving deep in background so that he could best honor the role. I guarantee you won’t be disappointed.

6. Diversity

When the U.S. military is 40% PoC it’s completely unrealistic to have a military show with no (or a single token) non-white person on the team. Unfortunately, for some networks that continues to be the trend. SIX threw that nonsense out the window, showing a true picture of what a SEAL team would be. We have an African American member, Hispanic member and, my personal favorite, an Afghani American. Yes, that’s right. The first Muslim SEAL portrayed on American television. If that alone isn’t cause for celebration I don’t know what is. And yes, if you’re keeping track – that’s 50% PoC. Thank you SIX.

photo credit @SIXonHistory

5. The Action

The cast of SIX brings it full force physically. Training with former Navy Seals helped the actors hone their physicality and bring realism to their fight scenes. SIX doesn’t have the big budget of network shows and instead relies on the details instead of huge explosions. Although, no fear, you do get your fair share of those as well. The precise shots and killer hand-to-hand combat are impressive in every episode. Whether it’s taking down terrorists or rescuing school girls, you’ll believe every minute. I’d highly recommend checking out the Instagram accounts of the actors, there are lots of BTS videos detailing the grueling preparation they went through to get ready for these roles.

4. Characters

You can tell from episode one that these characters have been fully fleshed out, loved and thought about. Whether you’re watching Bear mourning his daughter, Buddha struggling with a changing family dynamic or Caulder being forced into parental responsibility, each of these men has some serious backstory. One of my favorites from last season was Fishbait, portrayed by Jaylen Moore. Even without the screen time to explore his family life, Fishbait never felt 1 dimensional and Moore was able to grab some of the spotlight. I’m happy to say we’ll be getting more Fishbait this time around! Bill and David Broyles as the writers/creators clearly love their show and it shines through. They’ve lovingly crafted complex 3D people that you will be captivated by.

Jaylen Moore @sixonhistory

Eric Laden @sixonhistory

Juan Pablo Raba @SIXonHistory

3. The Families

This military drama spends a significant amount of time on the effect that this job has on the home life of our SEAL team. These men go through hell and back on a constant basis and that takes a serious toll. SIX addresses this with respect and honesty. Seeing the inner turmoil of the team and the families around them connects you to the show in a way you might not feel if the focus was all on the action side. I’m partial to a good shoot ’em up show, but SIX is an action show I can recommend to everyone. The issues of home life for these warriors are addressed with a frank simplicity that’s stunning.

Brianne Davis as Lena Graves, and Nadine Velazquez as Jackie Ortiz, bring a warmth and personal touch to the show. As a Navy wife, I couldn’t ever watch dramatized shows like Army Wives. It felt nothing like my own experience since it was essentially Desperate Housewives on a base. SIX, however, shows the good and bad of being a military family in a way that I could immediately connect with.

2. The Cast in General

There are some serious heavy hitters here. Juan Pablo Raba plays Ricky “Buddha” Ortiz. Buddha is one of the most compelling characters to me personally because of the strain he feels between his work and home life. Raba brings his experience and acting chops to show that push/pull of warrior/husband powerfully. Walter Goggins is good in everything he does and SIX is a compelling argument for him as one of the best actors out there. Jaylen Moore has been in a lot – but hasn’t had a lead role in a hit tv series. I predict great things coming out of SIX for him, we didn’t have a chance to see a whole lot of background for Fishbait last year, but that will be changing in season 2.

Brianne Davis adds a level of heart and connection to this show that just blew my mind. She was one of the first cast members I wanted to interview because I felt that honest connection from the start. Kyle Schmidt is charming, funny and still manages to break your heart. Edwin Hodge brings a gravity and intelligence to his role and I look forward to seeing where that takes him in this much darker season 2. There isn’t a miscast actor in the bunch, and to honest, I could have written a paragraph for each one and why we love them. From interviews we’ve done we’ve learned that several of the characters were created AFTER meeting the actors who would play them. Juan Pablo Raba and Jaylen Moore in particular. The writers saw potential and they know exactly how to make their stars shine.

1. Barry Sloane

I’ve been a fan of Sloane’s for years, but in SIX he’s a totally different actor. From the bad boy romantic on Revenge to the deputy on Longmire, Sloane has always been good on screen. But in this? In this he’s great. As Joe “Bear” Graves, Sloane brings a power and complexity that shows what a truly phenomenal actor he’s become. Bear is ripped apart, suffering PTSD and struggling to balance home and work. He’s following the path of his mentor Rip (Walter Goggins) in all the worst ways, something the audience hopes and prays he can pull away from. He’s a leader on and off screen, the rest of the cast referencing him in every interview we did. To be honest, I’m really amazed Sloane hasn’t been nominated for an Emmy for his work in this series. Here’s hoping it happens in the future

Interviews

I’ve been fortunate enough to interview several of the hard-working actors from SIX. Check out what they have to say about the upcoming season:

Barry Sloane Interview

Joshua Gage Interview

Brianne Davis Interview

Eric Ladin Interview

Jaylen Moore Interview

Nikolai Nikolaeff Interview

Juan Pablo Raba Interview

  We have more interviews coming, check back soon!!

Get Watching!

All told, SIX is a standout series worth your time. If you haven’t seen Season 1, get binging! Season 2 premieres Monday, May 28th at 10/9c and then moves to its regular time on Wednesday, May 30th at 10/9c. This season promises to be darker, more emotional and explore new sides of our team. It’s going to be great!

I’ll be live tweeting from @tvserieshub all season, check back after the episode for my reviews. Hit me up anytime @nolenag03 to chat about SIX

  10 Reasons You Should be Watching #SIXonHistory +Cast Interviews @BarrySloane @EricLadin @TheBrianneDavis @JuanPabloRaba @Jaylen_Moore @EdwinHodge @NNikolaeff @iamKyleSchmid History Channel's original show SIX came out swinging last year, delivering fantastic action and emotional content hand in hand.

[charlierejouis]

My Incredibly Unpopular Thoughts on: Criticism and Art

I know what some of you are thinking: Wouldn’t that be a better thing to talk about on that other blog you run? Isn’t this a series from there?

Well, while I do think that my followers on @natsubeatsrock could definitely benefit from reading this, I think that this is an issue that extends farther than the Fairy Tail fandom. So while I’m going to use Fairy Tail as an example, this can go for a lot of things.

By the way, if you want to hear more about this idea, go to this really long essay about anti-snark, which was a partial inspiration for this post.

Stop me if any of these statements sound familiar. (You can't because this is text, but bear with me.)

“If you think that it's so bad, I'd like to see you try to do a better job.”

“If you have negative things to say about Fairy Tail, you should keep them to yourself.”

“Mashima works hard to bring us new chapters every week. How dare you bring down his work?”

“If you don't like this series so much, why don't you just read something else?”

“Kill yourself.”

Yeah, that last one was kinda extreme. I should stay off Youtube...

Otherwise, I see comments like this all the time.

Usually, someone who tries to defend Mashima from the “haters” will say something along those lines and get more notes than this post will probably get. And every time someone does, I cringe. Usually more because of the people going “Preach!” in the notes for the post than anything in the actual post.

Eww…

Of course, that’s not to say these are good arguments. Hence the rest of this post.

I don't normally do this, but let me say why some people might think that I shouldn't be arguing these points. Everyone has a bias behind their arguments. However, with this argument, there may seem to be a conflict of interest that I feel is necessary to address.

I am an art creator. More specifically, I am a musical composer. If you don't know what that means, I write music. I do a lot of other musical stuff, but I enjoy writing music the most. In fact, you might find a few pieces that I've posted here if you look hard enough on my blogs.

From the perspective of a composer, I totally understand the appeal of this arguments. I don't want someone who doesn't know the functional difference between an A sharp and a B flat (or, at the very least, that they sound the same) to try and devalue the hard work I've put into my work. Especially considering that, whenever I put notes on a page, I put a piece of myself on the page.

It's even worse when people don't know the struggle. It's been said that it takes minutes to consume art but hours to create art. I've spent weeks, months even, working on single songs. It's a combination of things that are hard to explain without going into too much detail.

So, why can I still say these arguments still fail?

Because they’re not about content being criticized. They’re about the critic. The problem is that the person making these arguments are essentially saying that the person who is criticizing something is unqualified to do so.

Think about the first one. It's impossible to say anything bad about a series if you're unable to create something as good or better?

How is it possible to have taste for anything if you can't have problems with something without being able to make something like it but better? Simply by having taste for something, you are saying that “I think this is better than that.” You may never vocalize or understand that you are doing so, but that's what's happening nonetheless.

Also, why does this always only apply to people who are saying bad things about the series? Why is it that I only can't say anything bad about Fairy Tail unless I've made my own manga series? Shouldn't it also work the other way around?

No one goes around and says “Stop saying good things about a series unless you can make your own.” Heck, imagine if someone said, “Stop saying anything about anything you can't make.” Again, how would we be able to have any taste for anything if we can only say things about things we can make?

As for the third argument, it honestly doesn't matter if there was a lot of hard work put into something if it isn't good. There are many instances where something that wasn't well made becomes popular and stuff with more thought put into it.

And often, as any honest arts creator will tell you, you'll work hard on something and realize how bad it is. Then, you'll show it to someone who isn't an art creator and they'll love it. The fun is usually figuring out who's right.

Now here's where it gets interesting. As an art creator, I value criticism differently than you'd probably think. I appreciate compliments from anyone and constructive criticism is always good. However, the criticism of the unintelligent means little to me. And often, I ignore criticism that is meant to be critical.

For example, I play electric guitar. I won't listen to people who don't like how loud I play a certain heavy rock piece. That's the point. However, if I'm told to put down my volume down because I'm causing audio issues, I definitely will. 

What is tricky is hearing what is meant to be constructive criticism that is not constructive at all. For example, one person I play with had the nerve to tell me that I was not creative enough with the intention of being helpful.

What?

I did appreciate one of my jazz instructors telling me that my own original solo skill needs to be developed. He explained that I sound like I'm searching for notes to play instead of playing a cohesive line. That hurt to hear, but I appreciate that more than “you’re not creative”, even if that was what the first person meant. 

And, as an art creator, I don’t even have to listen to any kind of feedback. As shocking as it may sound, I don’t necessarily have to listen to people regardless of their opinions of my work. While the internet allows for more connections, it also allows people to distance themselves from people they don’t like. 

Say I decide to take my music to the public. If I post music videos on Youtube, I can turn off comments. If I have a social media account, I can block people I don’t want to hear from. I can even swear off social media. If I sell my music online, I can ignore any and all reviews entirely.

Even if you want to argue that doesn’t stop criticism because people can send me their complaints through newspaper reviews, fan letters or in-person, I can still ignore criticism. I don’t have to read newspapers. I don’t have to share my address or have a PO Box. I don’t need to interact with anyone who only knows me through my music. With the advent of self-publishing and self-production, especially considering music, I don’t even need to have anyone help me with the creative process.

Now, what I’ve just described probably sounds depressing to some of you. Not being able to listen to any input on your work is probably disturbing. Sure, you get rid of the “haters”. But doesn’t your art suffer as a result? 

That’s the point. I will admit that this is an extreme set of examples and that not listening to any criticism ever can cause an art creator never to grow. But, as an art creator, an important skill is being able to weigh out criticism. It is important to recognize when criticism is meant to encourage your style/work and when criticism is trying to discourage on your style/work.

Mind you, I say this as someone who took writing music seriously about 4 years ago. Hiro Mashima’s been making manga for longer than many of the fans in his core demographic have probably been alive. This guy has a Twitter account and gets messages from fans over all kinds of stuff on tweets about games (I know because I follow him). I’m pretty sure that by this point, anything bad that I have to say about Fairy Tail means very little him.

As a side note, some of you might be wondering why I’ve been using the term “art creator” instead of “artist”. Maybe this is just me, but the term “artist” implies visual arts of some form. I feel that the term “art creator” is more inclusive to other forms of arts. It includes people who make music, like me, others who film and edit videos and those who write stories or poems.

Now to that fourth comment. I feel like this defense is misguided. I don't think you should waste your time with something that you don't enjoy. There's plenty of great anime and manga out there. I'm taking my time reading three series, but I read each new chapter about three times each week and I often have to go back and remind myself of events from past chapters.

But let me ask you a question: Do you honestly think I would still be here if I didn't want to be?

Many people criticizing Fairy Tail are fans who have realized that this series is not as good as once thought. Heck, you can go through my posts in chronological order and see me be more cynical of Mashima. While some are here just to rag on the series, many of us criticize Fairy Tail because we want the series to be better than it is.

And honestly, at this point, is it even worth it to go? Fairy Tail is only a few months away from ending at this point. What would be the point of dropping the series now?

I think the worst thing about these arguments is that the people using them have a great opportunity to argue for the series but argue against the critics. If you genuinely think the series doesn't deserve this much flack, it's probably better that you prove why then stop all criticism of it.

In my last edition of this series, I mentioned that there is a similar problem with Sword Art Online and its fandom. Digibro, one of my favorite anime YouTubers (which probably says a lot about me), has gained a lot of fame by ragging on the series. In fact, I linked a few of his videos in that last post and he expressed similar qualms with the phrase “Why can’t you turn your brain off?” that I have with the first phrase. (read: I said almost the same thing)

Recently, he’s made the point that his popularity doesn’t come from being negative about the series, but by talking about the series. In fact, it would be better for him to say good things about SAO than to say bad things. The problem is that no big Youtuber has proven the “merits” of SAO.

The same is true about Fairy Tail. There are tons of people ripping Fairy Tail online. However, there is not a whole lot of people making a defense of the series. The biggest person on the Internet I know that might (Glass Reflection) has yet to finish the series and I don’t know if he still would. 

Instead of less negative opinions about it, the Fairy Tail fandom needs more people to give good reasons to like the series and/or give a good defense for the problems people have for it. And as weird as it may sound, I actually want people to prove that Fairy Tail is really good. I want someone to justify following this series for years. 

But I’ve seen plenty of arguments supporting different things about Fairy Tail and almost all of them range from just off to illogical to “Why is this an argument people use and believe?”. About the only things that don’t are for unpopular ships and some characters. But no one I’ve seen has made a great case for this series. A lot of the people that I think could are too busy telling people with negative opinions to shut up.

See the problem here?

In Conclusion:

If you think that we're wrong for not praising this series, then, instead of asking for less discussion about its flaws, create more discussion about its merits. Make good arguments that the series is better than me and other folks think.

[hoothootcatdaddy]

On Pewdiepie, who has raised a lot of money for charity:

I enjoyed Pewdiepie videos for a long time, and I only stopped watching about half a year ago because I thought he was pretty mean for making fun of kids (not his hater, just random kids being kids online). So in case I get slammed for being an “SJW mainstream follower” just getting offended at his using the n-word recently and this whole shebang that’s been happening these few days, I’ve actually stopped watching his videos for a long time now. 

He says that one must understand his brand of humour to get his “jokes” but it’s all too well to cast them aside and explain them away as jokes (even though I believe they were truly meant to be funny) and ignore the fact that actual neo-nazis are empowered by his using of nazi references and hail him as their ticket to mainstreamhood, whether Pewdiepie himself meant for it or not. It’d be nice if he, on top of making these jokes, criticised the views to which he’s giving a voice when he’s making these videos, but he doesn’t (nice disclaimer in your explanation video - should’ve done it sooner when you were actually making the jokes). You could argue that he thought making light of nazi references was completely justified because he thought it would be common sense to denounce nazi views and he need not have gone the extra step to do so, but that sort of thinking reflects the privilege that Pewdiepie has in his lack of understanding that actual nazis actually exist in modern times and do not read his “jokes” in a common sense way. These groups are gaining traction, and they dehumanise people partially with the empowerment of mainstream comedians who do not at least have the sense to disclaim. (btw, Pewdiepie’s disclaimer reflected a sort of confused understanding to the nazi empowerment argument by acknowledging it at first, and then denouncing it by saying that 53 million people who are subscribed to him are not all nazis, which is true but it misses the point)

None of the news articles called him an anti-Semite, though ignorant leftist-liberals (whom I agree do exist) did not hesitate to do so. His explanation video talking about humour and “taking stuff out of context” is, therefore, a strawman argument against the media, which they rightfully did not concede. So what if there is a context? His using nazi symbols as a “punchline” without qualification is inherently normalising jokes of this sort at best, and hatred at worst (we have seen actual neo-nazis use his jokes and that is not a coincidence - this I will establish later); his weak arguments about using the n-word as a joke rings vaguely and confusedly in my mind everytime I hear him talk about context or clickbait (which he himself “ironically” practices quite frequently). 

Also, it’s no wonder that neo-nazis feel empowered by Pewdiepie; his practicing of “apolitics” in his video-making while consistency using nazi references as an unqualified joke makes his political views “ambiguous” and free for nazis to interpret, his constant use of “triggered” in turn empower self-righteous reddit gamer trump-supporter edgelords who also use it as an uninspired slogan against “SJWs”, which can range from feminists to the BLM movement. His recent videos about the US elections showed that his friend was a trump supporter (who seemed quite proud about his views actually) while Pewdiepie himself remained notably silent on the subject, and there was practically zero Hillary supporters who used the platform in the same manner. No wonder neo-nazis support him and take the “jokes” like they are Pewdiepie’s own views. His political neutrality backfires splendidly when he frequently gives a platform to right-leaning political views.

And yet Pewdiepie lambasts the mainstream media for allegedly practising “hate” and ignoring important social justice issues when they focus on him. Is he talking about the Wall Street Journal and the Huffingtonpost, who regularly discuss issues on politics while he remains silent despite having a huge fanbase? He talks about “being honest” and pretends to keep it real, but the only time he stands up to oppression is when he perceives that Youtube content creators are being treated unfairly. A great cause to be sure, but it sounds a lot like a “fuck the big guy up there it makes me sound like IDGAF and cool but I’m afraid to lose my anti-sjw edgelord viewers if I speak my mind about deleterious pussy-grabbing” (alternatively, I do not want to speak my mind and lose my feminist/BLM followers but lbr we are not his fanbase). TO BE FAIR HE HAS RAISED A LOT OF MONEY FOR CHARITY, a fact that he has brought up many times in this recent video and other ones when he’s complaining about how the media is unfair (which is, like, sure, I supported you when you complained then, but does it have a relevance here?). Also, is it not an important issue for mainstream media that a content creator who has millions of views each video he posts potentially normalises hate against Jewish people? 

To be quite fair to Pewdiepie, there is an important topic of discussion that underlies this whole issue and it is something that, if you agree with Pewdiepie on, will render my entire argument above quite moot. That is, is it okay to joke about everything? I do hope that my previous arguments about normalising hatred sufficiently convinces you that no, it is not okay to give a platform to extreme views by making offensive jokes. But if you do not agree, I hope that you at least think the jokes ought to be qualified with a disclaimer, so that hate views will not be normalised. 

(BTW i just find it really funny how right-leaning content creators are actually using this incident to support trump’s views about the fake liberal media simply because they made the same sorry excuse, though Pewdiepie is AT LEAST better than Trump in that he apologised - albeit he spent more time criticising the media and trivialising the views of those who were offended than he did apologising - for making the jokes that he did.)

[ladystylestores]

Black-Owned Wellness Brands Gain Traction – WWD

https://pmcwwd.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/blkgrn_branding_photography_jungle_by_the_falls_erika_layne-2477.jpg?w=640&h=415&crop=1

“Tragedy had to happen for people to pay attention to us,” said Dr. Kristian Edwards, of the public’s recent efforts to support Black-owned businesses, a campaign sparked by the Black Lives Matter movement and largely spread on social media. “It’s frustrating.”

She’s the founder of BLK + GRN, an online retailer offering all-natural, Black-owned products ranging from beauty to household goods.

“It’s not a trend to me,” she continued. “We don’t want this to be something that you do one time. Make it a part of your habit….The individual person has to make a personal choice. They have to have that self-talk, ‘Hey, is this something I think is important, and I’m going to commit to keep doing it? Or am I going to do it one time, just to say I did?’”

While she’s seen growth in sales that she attributes to the cause, she’s also facing the domino effect of the pandemic. Along with having to meet higher demand, Black-owned brands — as with all beauty companies in the new climate — are confronted with disruption in the supply chain. Manufacturers are operating below capacity in order to meet new health protocols, which is slowing down production rate and creating shortages. In turn, brands are out of stock, especially those seeing sudden demand.

“They can’t fulfill our orders,” Edwards said. “A product that used to be able to be made in a week is now [taking] three, four weeks. It’s been very difficult.”

BLK + GRN founder Dr. Kristian Edwards  Courtesy

Some brands are unable to source their raw ingredients, she added. Looking ahead, she plans to possibly become a supplier herself. “We have to get adjusted to the new normal and figure out what that new normal is,” she said.

Based in Maryland, she began the business in 2017 after learning that “products targeted to Black women are more toxic than those marketed to anyone else.” According to a study published that year by the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, women of color are disproportionately exposed to harmful chemicals compared to white women. Personal-care products, like skin-lightening creams and hair straightening treatments, may be propelling the disparities, it noted.

Since then, Edwards — who’s a professor of public health — has turned her attention to all-natural products, while focusing on Black creators both in the U.S. and abroad. Her team of six, which includes an aesthetician, tests the products themselves after inspecting the ingredients.

“What Kristian is doing with BLK + GRN is pretty incredible,” said Trinity Mouzon Wofford, whose brand Golde can be found on the site.

“I think it’s so important to not just share the scary stuff [with the statistics] but to offer alternatives, especially when those alternatives mean buying into and elevating the Black economy,” continued Wofford, who cofounded Golde with her business partner and fiancé, Issey Kobori. “It’s a really powerful thing.”

She, too, began her business in 2017. Started in Brooklyn, Golde is an all-natural, superfood company creating goods like powder blends of turmeric lattes (with cacao or matcha) and face masks made with chlorella, spirulina and mango juice or lucuma, papaya and sea buckthorn berry.

Golde’s first product was the original turmeric latte blend.  Courtesy/Issey Kobori

The brand was born after Wofford watched as her mother, who has a “debilitating” autoimmune disease, improved immensely following a visit with a “more holistic-minded” physician. Incorporating turmeric in her diet, for example, greatly helped her mother with inflammation. But when her mother could no longer afford the doctor, Wofford began her mission to make wellness more accessible. Golde’s turmeric blends offer 30 servings at $29, while face masks cost $34. Now a team of six, the brand is found at about 120 retailers, including Urban Outfitters, Goop and Sephora. Wofford was 25 years old when the latter took the brand on, making her one of the youngest Black women to launch at the global beauty chain.

“We pivoted toward an increased focus on direct-to-consumer as we saw so many retail partners, both enterprise and indie, having to slow or shut down operations,” said Wofford, who studied marketing at New York University. “What was interesting is, because we’re sort of in this at-home, self-care space, we saw a market uptake in interest and demand for our products. Folks couldn’t go to their local café to get their iced matcha lattes, so they wanted to be able to make it at home.”

The growth in sales has been significant, particularly following the Black Lives Matter movement. In the month of June alone, Golde exceeded its entire revenue of 2019, she said. And the brand went from 20,000 Instagram followers to more than 80,000 in a few weeks.

“When this moment hit with the situation with George Floyd, we quickly made a decision to donate 100 percent of our profits for a weekend to the NAACP,” Wofford continued. “From that immediate initiative, we were able to donate over $10,000 from weekend sales. But what we were really surprised to find was that following that, with this movement to support Black-owned businesses, our visibility and our sales kept going up….At this point, we’re still operating at three to five times of what we were doing before this moment. And that’s with more than half of our sku’s sold out and on back order.”

COVID-19 hadn’t been too much of a factor, she noted. “Most of our products and raw materials are being manufactured in the United States….It’s more so that we’re now just starting a production run that we thought we wouldn’t have to do until September. We put most of our products on preorder and folks are still placing orders. And for the most part, they’re very understanding of the fact that it’s going to take a few weeks for their product to come in.”

From customers to retailers, “everybody has been extremely patient,” said Amanda Johnson of her experience at Mented Cosmetics. “Because it’s a global pandemic, everybody understands the dynamics.”

She and KJ Miller, two Harvard Business School graduates, launched the brand in 2017 as well. They started with the aim to create the “perfect nude” lipstick and now offer various cosmetic items. All are nontoxic, vegan, paraben-free and cruelty-free. Headquartered in New York City, the makeup is U.S.-made and found in retailers that include Macy’s, QVC and HSN, where “business soared this year” partially due to the network’s understanding of the “holistic aspect of shopping,” the duo said.

KJ Miller and Amanda Johnson of Mented Cosmetics.  Courtesy

“COVID-19 has certainly impacted our supply chain,” Johnson continued. “But because demand is so high, we’re still able to order in quantities that help us keep the overall cost down.”

Even in a pandemic, consumers are relying on beauty goods for their day-to-day routines, she said. And since Black Lives Matter, “there’s been an outpouring of support” on their social channels, added Miller. “We have seen that come through in terms of revenue as well. People are really putting their money where their mouths are, and we certainly appreciate that.”

Dr. Mia Chae of Dehiya Beauty experienced similar circumstances: “In the beginning I was like, ‘OK, you’re getting a lot of people following on social media, but is that going to translate into actual dollars?’ And it absolutely did.” In her case, the brand went from having 3,000 Instagram followers to 10,000 in a month.

She started Dehiya Beauty — named after a North African, Amazigh warrior — in March 2019 with Jacalyn Harvard after a trip to Morocco. The brand offers all-natural skin care, ranging from $28 for a 2-oz. argan face oil (hand extracted outside of Marrakech) to $58 for a 2-oz. antioxidant mask, and tools that include a traditional exfoliator from the region known as mihakka for $16. It’s currently in 27 retailers, including Urban Outfitters, and plans to open a three-month pop-up at Nordstrom in August.

Dehiya Beauty is inspired by the traditions of North Africa.  Courtesy

“We beat last year’s goal,” said Chae, who holds a doctorate in American studies. After receiving some press, 2020 started out strong for the brand, which has roots in California and Wisconsin. “Then when everything happened with George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, that added to it as well. Sales were going crazy. But then, you don’t know. Is it going to be the new normal? How much are you supposed to scale?”

Wofford asked herself that question, too: “We had to suddenly flex up to a completely new scale of business that we did not have prior to this movement….We feel that, ultimately, where the brand is today is where it really always should have been had we had access to capital and resources that a white-owned business typically has from Day One.”

“What you’re seeing now is a lot of non-Black people getting excited about Black-owned brands,” Miller said. “But the Black community has been super excited about Black-owned brands for a long time and has been the backbone of our company for a long time….Blacks, Indians and Hispanics are the core demographic for us. Now, a lot more white people in the community come to the site and purchase from our brand. And I think it’s because this moment looks different in a lot of ways. We’re in the middle of a global pandemic. Because of that, people have more time to look up and outside of themselves and recognize that if we don’t act collectively, we don’t stand a chance.”

The brand founders all shared that this time is an opportunity to attract new consumers.

“Whether this is a trend or the new normal — it will die down for sure and even out — if people are trying the brand and they love the products, they will return,” Chae said.

“Even if a consumer buys my product once because they need to assuage themselves of the guilt around the long and terrible history of Black people in this country, I, as a Black entrepreneur, still now have that revenue that I can use to further my business, my agenda,” shared Wofford. “And so, even if an act in its initiation is somewhat superficial, it can lead to meaningful change.”

Source link

قالب وردپرس

from World Wide News https://ift.tt/3gVqWN6

[theconservativebrief]

In the pre-social media era, “never feed the trolls” was a primary rule for navigating the internet. But in the more populated era of social media, the “trolls” have evolved in the extreme: Now they can be “fed” not only by your reactions to them, but by years-old tweets, collective performed outrage, hashtag movements, and ironic memes.

More crucially, the “trolls” are increasingly likely to be a mix of alt-right white supremacists interacting with you in very bad faith, and bots or fake accounts created by foreign organizations for nefarious political purposes.

But even though the ways and means of trolling are vastly more complicated than they used to be, most of us still don’t really have tactics to deal with or combat a troll attack when it hits. Sci-fi writer and noted Twitter user Chuck Wendig found this out the hard way recently, when he was fired from his prominent gig as a writer for Marvel’s Star Wars comic Shadow of Vader and a forthcoming Star Wars book.

Wendig was ostensibly fired because of the controversy his tweets were generating. But then a bot-savvy supporter of Wendig’s looked closer. What she found suggests that increasingly, we’re encountering situations where the appearance of controversy is being driven, or at the very least amplified, by bots, automated outrage, and an angry fringe mob.

In these cases, cooler heads and even colder hard data might be used to clarify what’s actually happening, and how many people are actually mad.

Wendig, well-known for his outspoken, stridently progressive social media stance, was never writing his Star Wars comics for alt-right fans, but for a more diverse, liberal readership. But he ran into heavy backlash from alt-right Twitter users anyway, after a viral tweet thread earlier this month in which he lambasted the call for “civility” from right-wing extremists, arguing, “Civility is for normalcy. When things are normal and working as intended, civility is part of maintaining balance. But when that balance is gone … your civility gives them cover for evil.”

Wendig’s tweets generated considerable outrage from the alt-right on social media, especially after former DC Comics artist and conservative Star Wars fan Ethan Van Sciver made a YouTube video denouncing Wendig. Van Sciver is a prominent voice the Gamergate offshoot movement known as “Comicsgate,” a campaign to fight the spread of diversity in comics that has a history of harassing leftist and progressive comics creators. His video garnered more than 20,000 views and seemed to drive angry onlookers to Wendig’s Twitter.

According to Wendig in a blog post following his firing, he was subsequently dropped from his Marvel projects without warning by an editor who appeared to have abruptly grown tired of “the negativity and vulgarity that my tweets bring. Seriously, that’s what Mark, the editor said,” wrote Wendig. “It was too much politics, too much vulgarity, too much negativity on my part.”

On the surface, this incident appears to be part of the recent trend of prominent progressives being targeted for harassment from the alt-right based on their social media content — and in some cases, suffering severe consequences. In other words, it was an unfortunate consequence for Wendig caused by the fact that his tweets made people mad.

But to Bethany Lacina, an associate professor of political science at the University of Rochester who researches civil conflicts, the trolling that got Wendig fired was suspicious.

Lacina suspected that Wendig’s case wasn’t a traditional incident where a lot of people got mad at his words and reacted with anger, but rather an example of a relatively minor dust-up that was escalated by automated bots and anonymous accounts performing synthesized outrage.

Lacina’s instincts were backed by plenty of data that bots are manipulating more of our social media behavior than we might realize. A recent Pew study found that bots generate two-thirds of all links on Twitter, while a recent data dump of 10 million bot-generated tweets showed the bot accounts doing everything from stoking political fears to tweeting about pop culture and circulating memes.

Lacina decided to analyze Wendig’s Twitter backlash using Botometer, an algorithm developed by scientists at Indiana University that closely examines Twitter accounts to determine the likelihood that they are automated accounts. She had previously used the Botometer to analyze the makeup of mobs of angry Star Wars fans.

Using the information provided by the Botometer, Lacina broke Wendig’s tweetstorms down into four categories: responses from accounts that most likely belonged to real people, those from fully automated accounts (classified as bot accounts), those from partially automated accounts (classified as sockpuppets), and those from accounts that couldn’t be confirmed because very little information could be gleaned about them, i.e., anonymous accounts that were likely to be bots.

Lacina’s analysis, which she shared with Vox, charted the activity levels around Wendig’s “controversial” tweets before, during, and after his firing. She found that the metrics showed very little backlash around Wendig’s tweet thread until his account was linked from Van Sciver’s YouTube video. Once Van Sciver’s alt-right followers picked up the scent of Wendig’s “civility” tweet, the “outrage” suddenly increased dramatically — as indicated by the second vertical blue line in the timeline analysis below.

Lacina’s analysis reveals that very few people — fewer than 250, and far fewer than that when you subtract automated accounts — replied directly to Wendig’s tweets for the first 24 hours the thread was up between October 6 and 7. That changed dramatically directly after Van Sciver tweeted a link to his YouTube video in which he called out Wendig.

As the next two charts reveal, once that happened, the number of tweets from real people spiked — and so did the number of bots, substantially in comparison to the relatively inactive period before.

In the half-hour or so following Van Sciver’s tweet to his video denouncing Wendig, Wendig received about 600 tweets from normal accounts, i.e., real people — and about 400 from automated and anonymous accounts.

In other words, the backlash was most likely coming from alt-right followers of Van Sciver’s social media who had descended upon Wendig as a target, rather than Wendig’s normal audience and Marvel readership; and roughly one-third of that perceived outrage wasn’t even real — rather, it was being generated by alt-right bots and sockpuppets.

The horizontal black line in the following graph shows the average amount of overall tweet activity from the “bad actors” in this equation — the bots and anons.

Bethany Lacina; used with permission

The contrast is immediately noticeable when compared to the response to Wendig’s tweet-thread about his firing on October 12. That thread drew nearly 1,500 responses, most of them supportive, from real people — and the overall amount of activity around those tweets far outweighs the amount of activity around the “controversial” tweets.

In essence, Lacina’s analysis revealed that far more real people turned out to support Wendig than to revile him — and also highlighted the unexpected element of YouTube as a driver of alt-right mob mentality.

It’s arguable that if Wendig’s editor had seen an analysis like Lacina’s, it might have quelled his anxiety over the backlash and saved Wendig’s job. And even if not, it’s possible that this approach to diagramming the anatomy of a Twitter mob can be helpful to many more potential troll targets in the future.

I sat down with Lacina to walk through how all of this fits together and what it says about how we interact with bots and trolls on social media. Our interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Aja Romano

Was this about what you expected when you were doing your analysis?

Bethany Lacina

No. There are two things. One thing that really surprised me was how distinct the group of tweets around Van Sciver is. It’s just like a wall in the data. I did not think it would be that sharp.

Aja Romano

But Van Sciver himself only got like 22 retweets. That seems like such a small amount. And he doesn’t even link Wendig’s Twitter in there, so how can we be sure—

Bethany Lacina

So he links to his YouTube video and that gets more attention.

Aja Romano

Yeah, that got like 24,000 views.

Bethany Lacina

YouTube is a much more right-wing platform. So I think it’s the activity on YouTube that is the real driver of action for both the real and not real things that follow [Van Sciver’s tweet].

Aja Romano

I don’t think that people understand how politically driven certain subsets of YouTube are, like what an impact YouTube had on Gamergate and has had on spreading the alt-right within all these corners of geekdom.

Bethany Lacina

I guess I’ve been sort of blind to YouTube. Who watches a video? A whole video? Yeah, it’s incredible. I guess it’s just a platform that a lot of these guys feel works best for them.

Aja Romano

This is a tradition that has been going on in this community since before Gamergate. There were all these vloggers — the Amazing Atheist springs to mind — who would just rant and rant about Anita Sarkeesian.

And because she was on YouTube, I think maybe that was seen as a natural counterpoint? Like a way to have a counter-voice on that platform. And gaming bloggers are already prone to be in this community because gamers are already huge on YouTube.

I think there’s a lot of natural growth that happened on that platform that you wouldn’t really be aware of if you were only following Twitter and so forth. But as we can see, obviously it’s driving this sort of reaction.

Bethany Lacina

Yeah, I mean other people have mentioned Van Sciver doesn’t have that many followers. How can his Twitter matter that much? And I think the secret is YouTube.

And again, [these subgroups of Twitter users] are never the majority. From 20 percent to 30 percent, and that’s what I was going to say the second surprise in all this for me is. I [wrote an article] about the [Star Wars] character Rose Tico, and true bots, fully automated accounts, were just not that big a part of the story. They were something like 3 percent of all activity. So I produced this initial figure, sort of thinking, “Okay, once I add the true bots it’s not going to look that different, because a real bot is rare.”

I expected the bot category would be essentially invisible because most [automated] accounts are in this semi-human category, not in the fully automated category. So I am shocked how many bots were on Chuck Wendig’s Twitter.

Aja Romano

Can you walk me through how you analyze the difference between semi-automated and fully automated?

Bethany Lacina

I used the same tool pretty much everybody uses, which is called Botometer. It has a graphical user interface version so you can go in and find your own Twitter account if you want.

And the gist of what these studies do is, there’s certain features computer scientists have flagged as somewhat bot-like, and then bots tend to follow each other, so the program looks at both the way the account posts and who follows the account, and who does the account follow, because bots kind of cluster.

All of the things we know about the characteristics of bots basically come from periodically data sets get released of known bot accounts. There was a new one just released by Twitter of Russian and Iranian automated and semi-automated accounts.

The difference between fully automated and semi-automated is not a gray area. There’s a fully automated program that is reading their Twitter at all times to pick ads for you. For example, you could easily write a bot that would just read Twitter at all times and “like” every time your name came up.

What semi-automated accounts offer is that a person at a farm for these things can step into the account and make its behavior a little more life-like when it actually wants to, say, engage with something.

If I was an entrepreneurial young thing, I may set up a bot network of hundreds of thousands of accounts that do only totally automated tasks. But I might, at some point, convert some of those to semi-automated because I have something I want them to appear more lifelike for.

Like the studies of Brexit suggest that the puppet accounts were much more nuanced and proactive in that last couple of days before the referendum, and before that it just wasn’t worth the time to be in there every day and making sure they—

Aja Romano

—looked life-like?

Bethany Lacina

Yeah. Basically, you’re distinguishing puppets as semi-automated and bots as fully automated. An anonymous account could be a puppet, but it’s a weaker test, so I see it as two different levels of sketchiness.

Anonymous in this case means someone who has no information in their user description, so it’s not about whether you’re using your real name or your real picture. It’s that gray text underneath somebody’s egg. An anonymous account hasn’t put anything in there. And so if you were a bot farmer and just needed hundreds of thousands of accounts, that’s a kind of personalization that you probably skipped.

Anonymous is an accepted word for it, but it’s not somebody who’s going incognito. It’s that this account is so generic that I don’t think anybody’s actually using it except when they need to troll. So it’s probably part of a bot farm, but you can’t really tell because there’s so few characteristics.

The puppet accounts are accounts that aren’t verified and tweet more than 70 times a day, which is another characteristic that was flagged by researchers as something sockpuppets tend to do. Although when I mentioned this on Twitter, I had people respond to me and say, “I tweet that much in a day.”

Aja Romano

Well, the people talking to you could be sockpuppets, so—

Bethany Lacina

Exactly. Although I tend not to assume that. The majority of people on Twitter are, in fact, people. People whip out that accusation so quickly. People over-correct for it, yet don’t over-correct for it the right way.

Aja Romano

But in this case, it seems like they didn’t over-correct enough, because in Wendig’s characterization, his editor firing him for “the negativity and vulgarity that my tweets bring” seems to presume that these were all real people.

Bethany Lacina

Right. I mean, as you already noted, we only know the reasons Chuck Wendig says he was fired.

Aja Romano

Well, if we take Wendig at his word, it seemed like his editor was really mad. And editors do release freelancers all the time.

Bethany Lacina

The distinction that I see is that there have been multiple people who’ve been fired because they’re supposedly in this public face of the company role and something about them becomes a scandal in the media in general. And so the ax falls.

What seems more localized, to me, about Wendig’s case is even if all the fighting on Twitter were real, which I don’t think it was, it never jumped off Twitter. And he’s also not that famous. It wasn’t that much attention being paid to it. If they hadn’t fired him, it wouldn’t have been a story in the New York Times week after week. He’s much closer to just a normal person than James Gunn or Roseanne Barr.

Aja Romano

Right, but also I feel like the comics industry itself is really small and really niche. Do you think these trolls are primarily related to comics or to Star Wars fandom, or both?

Bethany Lacina

One of the lessons of my research is that it’s really hard to make any inferences about the people who follow prominent accounts. Van Sciver’s thing is Comicsgate plus his hatred of Rose Tico.

There’s this other set of people who Chuck Wendig got into a dustup with a while back with a group called Rebel Force Radio, and their brand is very much about Star Wars. They worked symbiotically [with Van Sciver] after they closed their Twitter account; they announced that via Van Sciver’s Twitter. There’s cooperation to amplify each other’s messages.

So they’re clearly all tied, in the sense that these guys have linked their careers and livelihoods to each other. But it is really hard to know which of the people in that pond are actually people who would be consuming comics and Star Wars.

Aja Romano

But also if you’re in Star Wars fandom, there’s a good chance that you’re in other corners of geek culture just by the nature of being a sci-fi nerd.

Bethany Lacina

Sure. And certainly at this time of year in the Star Wars cycle, the people following Star Wars a year and a half out from the next movie really are a pretty select group. So probably everybody who follows Comicsgate follows Star Wars. The reverse is not at all true because Stars Wars is just so, so much bigger. The hardcore Star Wars people, yeah, I bet there’s a lot of overlap.

Aja Romano

But the casual Star Wars fan might have no idea any of this is going on.

Bethany Lacina

I mean, I don’t know. Star Wars-gate, such as it is, has been making a lot of headlines this year. There’s been a lot of massive backlash that I think is larger than all this, but also I think is driven by all this.

Aja Romano

So I guess my question then is: What do you think can be done? What do you think we can do in terms of remedy, or just making people aware of how these mobs are working?

Bethany Lacina

Well, in principle, Twitter could be doing more to solve this. It would be totally possible for Twitter to be telling you in real time what kind of accounts were arriving in your mentions. Something like Botometer, so you can tweet them, the name of the account, and they will tweet back the [bot] scores of the account to you.

You could imagine a little widget that you’d have installed on your Twitter page that would tell you the bot score of accounts just like it right next to that blue check mark. I think Twitter is reluctant to go down that road and understandably reluctant to antagonize people by calling them bots erroneously.

Aja Romano

When you talk about Twitter taking action and being able to identify bots, you’re talking about the individual level. I think when you have what looks like a mass mob of people descending upon an account, unless you have somebody like you actually taking the time to run analysis on every single tweet and do a mass plotted analysis of all these tweets at once, you’re not going to be able to really see how much of it is bot-generated noise and how much of it is sincere.

Bethany Lacina

Well, if they wanted to, Twitter could build a little thing that was a graph that was just continuously updating. “These are the kind of accounts that have visited you in the last week.”

A graph like I did could be just sitting on your page being updated continuously. The information you need to calculate that graph is really small relative to the information they’re already using to, say, target ads to you.

Aja Romano

That’s true. And they did that sort of thing when they developed their shadow-banning algorithm.

Bethany Lacina

Right, yes. You can definitely see why they might decide they wouldn’t want people knowing that.

Aja Romano

Well, I think even in the aggregate, that data would be more useful. Even if you don’t go out and pinpoint specific Twitter accounts that are identified as bots—

Bethany Lacina

No, that’s right. Right. If they gave it to you in aggregate, they wouldn’t necessarily be telling you who are the bad people that you could go block or whatever.

Aja Romano

Right. To jump back to the shadow-banning idea, I think it would be really good for a lot of lawmakers to actually be able to see in the aggregate how many bots are following them and how many Russian trolls are following them. But the way that Twitter went about that became an issue.

Bethany Lacina

But I think there’s a lesson for employers. We need to have a policy about this, and if Chuck Wendig is correct that no one had never mentioned this to him, that’s incredible. He gets into it with Star Wars fans on Twitter periodically.

Aja Romano

It’s such a known part of his online persona.

Bethany Lacina

Right, that’s exactly right. This is part of what you’re buying when you’re buying Chuck Wendig.

And the Comicsgate guys aren’t wrong to say that a bunch of normal people found Chuck Wendig via Van Sciver and went in there and gave him a piece of their mind, but just look at the normal people for a second. A lot more people freaked out after he was fired.

And I think the real question for companies is: How do you [rate] people who surf on over to Chuck Wendig’s Twitter because they want to get in a fight? How many of them didn’t have an opinion about Chuck Wendig before? Twitter skews super activist-y.

Aja Romano

And how many Comicsgate supporters were actually buying Wendig’s comics before?

Bethany Lacina

Certainly they weren’t buying Chuck Wendig’s comics. He’s been on the outs with that group for a long time. … The idea that this dustup revealed that he’s pissing off people who would have otherwise have been [Marvel] customers seems unlikely to me.

Aja Romano

Yeah, I think that’s a really good point, especially for people who know Chuck Wendig and know the subject matter that he writes about. I mean, he introduced queer characters into the Star Wars canon. He’s not going to be the type of person that Comicsgate people are reading, but he is going to be the type of person Comicsgate people would want to get fired.

So was this basically just a giant win for Comicsgate? Was this just a giant win for the alt-right?

Bethany Lacina

Yeah, I guess. Troll farms can take cues from what the Comicsgate guys are doing without their permission or help. I have no idea if any them, Comicsgate people, actually do any work with bots themselves. But they don’t have to do anything extra for a bot to take cues about who to troll from their feed. So it’s possible that it was kind of a passive win for them, but it definitely was a win.

Original Source -> The new troll: how bots and puppets make internet outrage seem louder than it is

via The Conservative Brief