#Spectrum Of Ashes Articles

[spectrum-of-ashes]

Opinion: Internet censorship is irresponsible

A Commentary by Ash Spectrum

In recent years conversations about censorship have become more mainstream than ever. In December 2018 Tumblr banned sexually explicit content,  in January 2020 Twitter restricted sensitive content, including excessive gore and explicit content, and once again there has been a growing number of people who want Archive Of Our Own (AO3) to more heavily moderate the content being posted to the site. AO3s current content policy is dictated by the laws of New York, and AO3s Terms Of Service focus on how users interact with the site rather than restricting any content from being posted. I believe that trying to increase censorship on the site is irresponsible and misunderstands or ignores the history of other websites that have tried to ban similar content. This vocal group has been focused on the site's allowance of content that many consider questionable or illegal, and on the many works of “Trauma-Fiction” on the site. The focus on these works is based on a lack of understanding of how the website functions, and banning this content will have a much different effect than expected.

“The Archive of Our Own is a place for fanworks, including fan fiction based on books, TV, movies, comics, other media, and real-person fiction (RPF).” - Archiveofourown Terms Of Service Agreement

The current systems that AO3 has in place allow users to both include and exclude tags from the search results, allowing users control over what content they want to see. Banning genres of content from being published at all takes this control away from the user. Historically these bans do not work, as users will find ways to publish restricted content regardless, but without the content being tagged. This can cause many readers to be shown works that make them uncomfortable, and that they otherwise would have avoided with the current filtering system. The restrictions that are being proposed would also heavily censor “Trauma-Fiction”, which are works written with the purpose of helping the writer to process or cope with a traumatic experience. Some of these works contain graphic depictions of violence, gore, self-harm, abuse, and other topics that many find uncomfortable to read about. These works are not meant to be read the same way as other forms of fiction, and banning this content is a fundamental misunderstanding of why these works are created in the first place.

Now, onto the biggest issue within this debate. With AO3s current Terms Of Service, as long as the content is not breaking New York State law, it is permitted to be published on the site. Under this law written depictions of sexual content involving minors is not illegal, and thus, this content is allowed to be published on AO3. Many arguments to increase content restrictions focus on explicitly banning the publication of sexual content that involves minors on the site, alongside other written forms of sexual content that many believe should be illegal, such as bestiality, sexual abuse and assault, and depictions of non-consent. Many of the works in these categories are incredibly uncomfortable and upsetting, but outright banning any content that falls under these umbrellas will not solve any of the issues that are often brought up. Users on other platforms have found ways around similar content restrictions in the past, and AO3s current tagging and filtering system is very effective at removing unwanted content from search results. The ban of this content would also not take into consideration the complexity of the situation. There is a large gray area of content with no agreement on if it is acceptable, and removing these works without considering the context they were written in is irresponsible.

Censorship requires a set morality of what content should be allowed, but morality can never be broken down into a list of “good” content and “bad” content. For many people “bad” content includes any group that they don't think is “socially acceptable”, whether that be queer identities, racial minorities, religious minorities, kink, furries, or any of the many other groups that are often not included in mainstream media. Allowing the censorship of any content opens the door for groups to censor any media they don’t find acceptable to society. For many users AO3 is a form of escapism, and to try and censor any aspect of the website is a fundamental misunderstanding of why it was created in the first place.

“Practically any attempt to sort works of fiction into tidy piles of acceptable and unacceptable material, of course, is likely to invite controversy.” - Declan McCullagh, CNET, May 31st 2007

To prove that censorship is an ineffective solution, we need to go back to 2007 and look at a website called LiveJournal. First started in 1999 LiveJournal is a social networking website that allows users to create diaries, blogs, and of course, journals. In 2005 the company was purchased by Six Apart, and in 2007 over 500 groups were deleted from the site in the hopes of protecting children. Many of these groups were created with no ill intentions, such as support groups for victims of sexual assault and abuse, fan-fiction groups that included darker topics such as rape, and role-playing groups that included discussions of illegal activities that were being done by fictional characters. Many users responded to these bans by creating petitions, creating new groups to replace the ones lost, and trying to contact support and get the groups restored. Many others left the site entirely, having been discouraged by their months or years worth of work being deleted for a reason that they felt was completely wrong. LiveJournal was a website that was home to many LGBT+ users and the decision to remove content because it "encouraged illegal activities" pushed users away from the site because in many places their identities were illegal. The site deleted their content, and so they left to find places they felt more safe expressing themselves in such as Tumblr, Twitter, and AO3.

Historically no website can set a hard boundary on what content is acceptable and what content is restricted. Groups will use these restrictions to try and remove content that they do not like, and others will publish content regardless by using euphemisms and acronyms to bypass the moderation on the site. The only way for the website to keep running as intended is to allow the community to self-regulate content on the site and allow people to write what they want to write. Some of the content on the website may be harmful, but attempting to restrict and censor the works that the community fought so hard to publish will not solve any problems, it will only hurt the users who helped to create the website in the first place.