#and then often monetizing the result

[necro-hamster]

ppl defending ai art by completely ignoring the genuine major issues that people have with it and pretending like ppl r just mad because they're Art Elitists and think that art should only be made through Suffering instead of being easy are some of the most embarrassing ppl tumblr has been recommending to me lately

[traumasurvivors]

I am finally putting together a FAQ for easy access for people new to my blog since a lot of these posts I think are helpful are buried. Some of these links link to posts on my blog, but some link to my personal website. My website is not monetized in any way, so there should be no ads or anything intrusive.

About Coping

How can I make a self-care box?

Here's some instructions I wrote!

How can I make a safe space?

Here are some ideas!

What are some ways I can ground myself?

Here is an article with a bunch of examples, but there are so many more that aren't listed here!

I'm struggling with trauma around the holidays and/or a traumaversary.

Here's an article I wrote on trauma around the holidays!

Here's an article I wrote with advice for traumaversaries.

General Trauma FAQ

Do I have to forgive them in order to heal?

The short answer is "no." What everyone needs differs. While someone may need to forgive as a part of their healing journey, this isn't necessarily true for everyone. Here's a post I wrote about this.

What about myself? Should I forgive myself?

That's up to you. For some of us, healing is realizing we never needed forgiveness all along. And for others, it can mean that we can't get to a place where we feel we did nothing wrong, and therefore, forgiving ourselves is the best way to move forward. Here's an article I wrote on self-forgiveness.

What is trauma bonding?

This term is often used in a colloquial sense when two people who have suffered trauma bond together over their trauma. This article talks about the technical definition and is about how someone going through trauma forms an emotional bond with the one who is traumatizing or abusing them.

Was it bad enough?

The short answer is yes. But you can read a longer blog post for why here.

I'm struggling with anger after trauma.

That's a really valid way to feel. Here is some more info on it.

What is hypersexuality and/or sex repulsion?

See this article here.

What is Trauma Imposter Syndrome?

This is when a survivor invalidates themselves by saying something like “my trauma isn’t so bad, other people have it worse than me.” Here's my post on it.

How do I talk about my trauma?

First, remember that you do not have to talk about anything you don't want to. But if you do, here are some tips I have.

How do I listen to someone talk about their trauma?

The first thing I want you to remember, when someone tells you that they want to talk to you about their trauma, is that their needs do not negate your own needs. Here's my post on it.

Is Healing Linear?

No. Healing is a rollercoaster. Here's a post on it.

About Abuse and Specific Forms of Trauma

What are some different types of abuse?

Physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, financial abuse, cultural abuse. You can read more about these here.

What is Medical Trauma?

It is a vast term that includes many different things, mostly linked to major emotional distress that occurs as a result of hospital stays, illness, or treatment (so yes, therapy trauma is valid.) You can see my longer article here.

What is Parentification?

Parentification is a form of abuse where a child is forced to take on the role of a parent. You can see my longer article here.

Why do I love and/or miss my abuser?

Nothing is wrong with you if you love and/or miss your abuser. There are any number of reasons why you could be feeling this way, and I will share some examples with you. You can see my article on this here!

Other

Are they trying to manipulate me?

While there isn't a clear cut guide, some of the points in this article might help you in getting more information about one of your relationships.

What is consent?

Consent is a freely-given yes. See this post here.

How can I be prepared for sex?

See this post here.

I also wrote this article that covers the same points as the first post, but focuses from a trauma perspective. A lot of the info is the same.

Why is it important to validate my feelings?

See this post here.

I'm struggling with self-harm/What is self-harm?

Here's a post on this.

[foone]

Speaking as someone who has written web crawlers for non-evil reasons...

I like how all the platforms (twitter, reddit) are destroying their APIs to kill "bots" but the fun thing about APIs is that only the good guys use them. They're like door locks: they only keep out honest people. Someone wanting to steal your TV will just put a brick through your window.

Similarly, people wanting to flood a platform with spam and pornbots will often just not use the API, because it makes it too easy to track them down. They'll instead write a program that pretends to be a browser, and clicks on links just like a human does.

Fun fact: that's an "API" that exists for every website, and for a long while it was the only API that any sites ever had. So when you're trying to automate using a site (for good or evil), the "api-zero" of just doing web scraping and user-agent-impersonation is always there. That's what the bad guys will use, and that's what the good guys are sometimes forced to use.

Anyway the end result of this sort of API monetization/destruction nonsense is that you're only killing the bots that were written with good intentions. You're killing the haikubots and that "THERE ARE FIVE LIGHTS" twitter bot. you're killing the reddit bots that help moderate submissions by automatically applying flair or timing out replies after too long has passed.

But the bots that are just there to send you crytypocurrentsea scams and entice you in with stolen porn? They don't use the APIs. They won't be affected. They'll keep on working. The people scraping your site for AI research? they won't even register an account, they'll just request the plain HTML contents of your pages.

So once you know that, locking out users from your APIs seems like a real bad idea, doesn't it?

[oddmawd]

IMO: people's willingness to endanger the entire fanfiction ecosystem for their own personal gain is a direct result of capitalism being a dick

first it makes us think of EVERYTHING in terms of economics, "productivity" and money, money, money

then it makes us desperate to make ends meet (#eattherich)

and then side-hustle culture convinces us that our hobbies are worthless unless they're monetized

so the math adds up and desperate people look at their empty pantries and then at their time-consuming hobbies that pay them nothing, and it's no fucking wonder they start asking "hey, can i perhaps make a buck off of that hobby to soothe the misery of this financial hellscape somewhat?"

and i get the impulse, truly i do, but the problem with fanfic is that YOU CAN'T DO THAT

fic is a labor of love and i'm sorry but it's not the answer to our monetary problems, because those problems will get a lot worse for you if you wind up fined into oblivion over copyright infringement

enough people start turning fanfic into a black market instead of a grey one and we'll get chased back underground and then your nice little side-hustle goes up in smoke along with the entire fanfiction community as a whole

allow me to remind us that capitalism is a goddamn liar, side-hustle culture is a trap, and:

you are allowed to have a hobby that isn't profitable

hobbies are not worthless if they don't generate cash flow

turning your hobby into a side hustle often saps the joy out of it

try finding joy through the act of creating, not through the money you might make doing it

good luck out there

[warningsine]

Living online means never quite understanding what’s happening to you at a given moment. Why these search results? Why this product recommendation? There is a feeling—often warranted, sometimes conspiracy-minded—that we are constantly manipulated by platforms and websites.

So-called dark patterns, deceptive bits of web design that can trick people into certain choices online, make it harder to unsubscribe from a scammy or unwanted newsletter; they nudge us into purchases. Algorithms optimized for engagement shape what we see on social media and can goad us into participation by showing us things that are likely to provoke strong emotional responses. But although we know that all of this is happening in aggregate, it’s hard to know specifically how large technology companies exert their influence over our lives.

This week, Wired published a story by the former FTC attorney Megan Gray that illustrates the dynamic in a nutshell. The op-ed argued that Google alters user searches to include more lucrative keywords. For example, Google is said to surreptitiously replace a query for “children’s clothing” with “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear” on the back end in order to direct users to lucrative shopping links on the results page. It’s an alarming allegation, and Ned Adriance, a spokesperson for Google, told me that it’s “flat-out false.” Gray, who is also a former vice president of the Google Search competitor DuckDuckGo, had seemingly misinterpreted a chart that was briefly presented during the company’s ongoing U.S. et al v. Google trial, in which the company is defending itself against charges that it violated federal antitrust law. (That chart, according to Adriance, represents a “phrase match” feature that the company uses for its ads product; “Google does not delete queries and replace them with ones that monetize better as the opinion piece suggests, and the organic results you see in Search are not affected by our ads systems,” he said.)

Gray told me, “I stand by my larger point—the Google Search team and Google ad team worked together to secretly boost commercial queries, which triggered more ads and thus revenue. Google isn’t contesting this, as far as I know.” In a statement, Chelsea Russo, another Google spokesperson, reiterated that the company’s products do not work this way and cited testimony from Google VP Jerry Dischler that “the organic team does not take data from the ads team in order to affect its ranking and affect its result.” Wired did not respond to a request for comment. Last night, the publication removed the story from its website, noting that it does not meet Wired’s editorial standards.

It’s hard to know what to make of these competing statements. Gray’s specific facts may be wrong, but the broader concerns about Google’s business—that it makes monetization decisions that could lead the product to feel less useful or enjoyable—form the heart of the government’s case against the company. None of this is easy to untangle in plain English—in fact, that’s the whole point of the trial. For most of us, evidence about Big Tech’s products tends to be anecdotal or fuzzy—more vibes-based than factual. Google may not be altering billions of queries in the manner that the Wired story suggests, but the company is constantly tweaking and ranking what we see, while injecting ads and proprietary widgets into our feed, thereby altering our experience. And so we end up saying that Google Search is less useful now or that shopping on Amazon has gotten worse. These tools are so embedded in our lives that we feel acutely that something is off, even if we can’t put our finger on the technical problem.

That’s changing. In the past month, thanks to a series of antitrust actions on behalf of the federal government, hard evidence of the ways that Silicon Valley’s biggest companies are wielding their influence is trickling out. Google’s trial is under way, and while the tech giant is trying to keep testimony locked down, the past four weeks have helped illustrate—via internal company documents and slide decks like the one cited by Wired—how Google has used its war chest to broker deals and dominate the search market. Perhaps the specifics of Gray’s essay were off, but we have learned, for instance, how company executives considered adjusting Google’s products to lead to more “monetizable queries.” And just last week, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against Amazon alleging anticompetitive practices. (Amazon has called the suit “misguided.”)

Filings related to that suit have delivered a staggering revelation concerning a secretive Amazon algorithm code-named Project Nessie. The particulars of Nessie were heavily redacted in the public complaint, but this week The Wall Street Journal revealed details of the program. According to the unredacted complaint, a copy of which I have also viewed, Nessie—which is no longer in use—monitored industry prices of specific goods to determine whether competitors were algorithmically matching Amazon’s prices. In the event that competitors were, Nessie would exploit this by systematically raising prices on goods across Amazon, encouraging its competitors to follow suit. Amazon, via the algorithm, knew that it would be able to charge more on its own site, because it didn’t have to worry about being undercut elsewhere, thereby making the broader online shopping experience worse for everyone. An Amazon spokesperson told the Journal that the FTC is mischaracterizing the tool, and suggested that Nessie was a way to monitor competitor pricing and keep price-matching algorithms from dropping prices to unsustainable levels (the company did not respond to my request for comment).

In the FTC’s telling, Project Nessie demonstrates the sheer scope of Amazon’s power in online markets. The project arguably amounted to a form of unilateral price fixing, where Amazon essentially goaded its competitors into acting like cartel members without even knowing they’d done so—all while raising prices on consumers. It’s an astonishing form of influence, powered by behind-the-scenes technology.

The government will need to prove whether this type of algorithmic influence is illegal. But even putting legality aside, Project Nessie is a sterling example of the way that Big Tech has supercharged capitalistic tendencies and manipulated markets in unnatural and opaque ways. It demonstrates the muscle that a company can throw around when it has consolidated its position in a given sector. The complaint alleges that Amazon’s reach and logistics capabilities force third-party sellers to offer products on Amazon and for lower prices than other retailers. Once it captured a significant share of the retail market, Amazon was allegedly able to use algorithmic tools such as Nessie to drive prices up for specific products, boosting revenues and manipulating competitors.

Reading about Project Nessie, I was surprised to feel a sense of relief. In recent years, customer-satisfaction ratings have dipped among Amazon shoppers who have cited delivery disruptions, an explosion of third-party sellers, and poor-quality products as reasons for frustration. In my own life and among friends and relatives, there has been a growing feeling that shopping on the platform has become a slog, with fewer deals and far more junk to sift through. Again, these feelings tend to occupy vibe territory: Amazon’s bigness seems stifling or grating in ways that aren’t always easy to explain. But Nessie offers a partial explanation for this frustration, as do revelations about Google’s various product adjustments. We have the sense that we’re being manipulated because, well, we are. It’s a bit like feeling vaguely sick, going to the doctor, and receiving a blood-test result confirming that, yes, the malaise you experienced is actually an iron deficiency. It is the catharsis of, at long last, receiving a diagnosis.

This is the true power of the surge in anti-monopoly litigation. (According to experts in the field, September was “the most extraordinary month they have ever seen in antitrust.”) Whether or not any of these lawsuits results in corporate breakups or lasting change, they are, effectively, an MRI of our sprawling digital economy—a forensic look at what these larger-than-life technology companies are really doing, and how they are exerting their influence and causing damage. It is confirmation that what so many of us have felt—that the platforms dictating our online experiences are behaving unnaturally and manipulatively—is not merely a paranoid delusion, but the effect of an asymmetrical relationship between the giants of scale and us, the users.

In recent years, it’s been harder to love the internet, a miracle of connectivity that feels ever more bloated, stagnant, commercialized, and junkified. We are just now starting to understand the specifics of this transformation—the true influence of Silicon Valley’s vise grip on our lives. It turns out that the slow rot we might feel isn’t just in our heads, after all.

[melonteee]

Zoro’s “she’s a woman” is also very funny to me, but after re-reading Skypeia I *think* I understand the vision behind it, even if the execution might’ve been clumsy.

Back in Jaya when Robin and Zoro are searching for the South Bird, there’s a brief scene where Robin criticizes Zoro for indiscriminately cutting down random critters, to which Zoro retorts that it’s the critters’ fault for getting in his way before reiterating his distrust for her. Despite this distrust, however, Zoro does seem to take Robin’s criticisms to heart as he stops uses the bladed end of his sword on critters in Jaya and mostly avoids using his swords on animals in Skypeia.

Which also creates an interesting parallel to Enel, who shares a very similar opinion to the one Zoro held in Jaya. Hell, some translations of Zoro’s response to Robin have it along the lines of “it’s their fault for challenging me” which is almost verbatim what Enel says in the arc about his “lambs.” And despite Enel insisting that he is an Equal Opportunity Vengeful God, there are scenes before the ones with Robin where Enel’s treatment of women is framed as predatory, in a way that also parallels how the Celestial Dragons are portrayed as treating women later, which also colors the way that Enel specifically attacks Robin also being predatory and motivated by misogyny. So I *think* Oda’s intent for Zoro was seeing his past attitude in Jaya reflected back at him and ultimately realizing that just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you *should* while also using the scene to comment on how god complex’s are often used as covers for bigotry.

But, even so, Zoro’s line is a clumsy summary if that’s the case. The Doylist explanation is that Oda has always struggled when it comes to threading the needle that is “how to convey female fighters are as strong and capable as the male fighters without also inadvertently endorsing real life gender-based violence” and sometimes this results in clumsy lines like Zoro’s. But my personal Watsonian head-canon is that the Plinko Horse in Zoro’s brain didn’t fire up fast enough to coherently summarize 45 chapters of character development, which results in him spitting out what sounds like a complete non-sequitur.

I respect this but my interpretation of it was Zoro does have an internalised misogyny, which is proven to us in Punk Hazard. He admits he doesn't like to nor wants to fight women to Tashigi, and Monet backs him against a wall because of it. He thinks it's dishonourable to target women as a man, and considering his dojo dad was from Wano, and he was raised with Wano ideals, AND he was raised in an all male dojo, it makes tons of sense.

I know a lot of people are confused about this because of Kuina, but his mentor said TO HIS FACE "I am a woman, you are a man. You will be stronger than me." How in the world would Zoro, at his baby age, not internalise that in some twisted way? Especially coming from the person he looked up to. It feels like it's commentary on the fact misogyny is taught, it's not just a natural born thing, and it ruins ones own perception of self and lives around them.

Zoro was quite literally raised in a male dominated space, where ONLY men were trained and told they were the strongest - it has been programmed into him. The thing is, this is written to be a NEGATIVE thing. This isn't me pointing at Zoro and calling him a piece of shit, this is me saying it's a FLAW Zoro has, and it's clearly one he must get over. The strongest swordsman in the world can literally not afford to look down on women as weaker, because I HIGHLY doubt Mihawk does that. Tashigi calls him out for it, and it's very obvious this is an internalised issue Zoro doesn't LIKE that he has.

Why in the world would Oda make Wano openly sexist towards its women, refusing to let them fight, and THEN reveal Kuina's family is quite literally FROM this country - hence WHY Kuina's dad was so insanely sexist. Of course this is going to become commentary on Zoro having to overcome taught beliefs, especially considering Zoro is one of the few Strawhats who has never actually fought a woman. Not only did he not actually touch nor fight Monet (he just scared the shit out of her), but he also took zero shots at Big Mum on the rooftop lmao. He fought her homies but not her, physically - not even once. There's clearly something going on there, and it's Zoro (and Sanji) specific, cause literally NO other male strawhat has a problem fighting women or seeing women on the battlefield (once again, apart from Sanji, and that's possibly a parallel).

I say that last part because yes Oda has sexism in his writing, but every time I hear Zoro's 'woman' line is just Oda being Oda, I want to tear my hair out. Otherwise EVERY male character would act like Zoro towards women, and they quite literally do not LMAO

I don't know why this is the hot take it seems to be, because I LOVE Zoro, but it's clear there's something going on with him in regards to internal prejudice. I think it's because, as a Sanji fan, there's an irony to saying all this lmao. But of course, I do not mean for any of this to be negative, because I am excited to see if this side of Zoro actually gets explored. Ie Zoro defeats misogyny and sexism HAHA

[nikonladyz4]

The Illusion of Truth - The World of Shipping

The illusion of Truth - repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. That is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Gobl. Among psychologists something like this is known as the illusion of truth effect. The idea is repetition! 

We see this so often in the world of shipping. Especially with our neighbors and their perceived relationship status between Jungkook and Taehyung.

If you reinforce something over and over again you start to believe it even if goes against the most fundamental truth. This strategy was actually reinforced by hitler himself in his 1925 autobiographical manifesto. He observed that most people are only comfortable telling small lies because of this Hitler believes that when something big is claimed we tend to believe it because we ourselves can’t imagine that someone would be telling such a big lie. 

In the manifesto Hitler said that it would never come into our heads to fabricate colossal untruths and we would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.  

Even though facts which prove the actual truth may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.  This is clearly seen in the case of Jikook. Facts are clearly out there, but the neighbors discount each and every one of them. They can’t fathom there is a close and personal bond between Jimin and Jungkook. They think any and every interaction must be fanservice, because they have been sold that bill of goods, opps I mean that illusion of reality. They even think enlisting together is fanservice. Again, there has to be some explanation to explain the bond of Jimin and Jungkook. There is no way they are in a relationship, in their minds it means if jikook is real, their ship of Taehyung and Jungkook are not in a relationship, but just friends. Jikook destroys what they have believed all these years.

The illusion of reality convinces people that the truth that we see, hear, feel or touch are NOT TRUE by just repeating and saying something so ridiculously UNTRUE that it’s so hard to believe anyone would even dare say it. 

Back to shipping, we know all shippers put forth theories, evidence, and proof of their supposed ship. Many keep it surface level and fun. However, some take it so far that they hurt the subject(s) of their ships or those they feel threaten that ship. We see this with some of the fans of Taehyung, Jimin and Jungkook. We see hate campaigns based on edited videos, false narratives, and outright lies. Then these lies are repeated so often that many believe them in part because it supports their belief and because people don’t or won’t take the time to verify or validate such lie(s). This process is nothing but the use of propaganda which can result in cult like behavior. 

Unfortunately, we have twitter accounts and YouTubers who promulgate these lies and narratives for views and monetization of their channels. Others promote these lies with the expressed intent upon hurting and threatening people such as Jimin and to a lesser extent Jungkook.  We saw this last year with the hate campaign towards Jimin and Jungkook when they traveled to Japan along with the hate letters to the Defense Ministry of SK.

The YouTube channel “Asian Entertainment and Culture” posted an excellent video today called “Dirty PR & Marketing Tricks Used to Destroy JHope & Other Idols”. the bulk of my comments above as it relates to the Illusion of Reality came directly from her video. She was not addressing shipping, but the smear campaign against JHope and Jungkook because a group of fans want Scooter Braun removed from Hybe and also to smear Jungkook’s collaboration with Usher who they say has supported Israel. However, everything she addressed in her video also applies to the world of shipping and we so clearly see what she is talking about in this world. 

After all these paragraphs of words above, if you don’t get anything out of what I said, try and recognize when you see “The Illusion of Reality”.  Validate and verify the best you can what you are being fed or consuming. Watch full content and not just edited clips, read reputable articles from reputable sources. Watch various YouTubers and look at how they present information. Are they using reputable sources? Are they presenting facts or opinions? Are they serving up their own narrative to support their channel? Is the analysis based on facts or innuendos, half truths or outright lies? Be a critical thinker and not just parrot the illusion of reality.

[drdemonprince]

This is prompted by your most recent substack about fame, because my point is extremely tangential, I'm putting it here.

It's interesting to have seen the internet go through many stages. From the newsgroups/BBS era, to internet forums, to blogs, to social media, and how the respective environments shaped things.

In the early days, it's very much a group thing, some people became Big Name posters, pseudonymous, but still a group thing. The blog era was more personal, but still something made by someone who's just a person, even if not literally pseudonymous. Also, still text based, a lot of it even often. Social media changed that, with it's focus on follower counts on one hand and to snippets of text (twitter) or images (insta), and even though it's social media-ness is debatable, video (insta, youtube). The semi-anonymous nature however, was completely lost by now.

The doing it because you enjoyed it, or whatever, also recedes into the background because this is where monetization really takes off. The deleterious effects of the interaction between monetization and follower counts (notability) need no introduction, but painting with broad strokes, make something appeal as broad as possible deepens the flattening effect a medium like video already has, the visual aspects often being more important than the messages. It also has a much higher barrier to entry. Spinning up your own blog is cheap, text takes only a tiny amount data. Video is not. It's expensive to make (especially if you want slick videos), expensive to serve, so it's predisposed to big, single platforms that can leverage economies of scale.

The natural result is that you have a few people with big audiences, instead of many people with small audiences. If audiences is even the right word for that. If I'm talking about say, some TV show on my blog, and someone responds, it's a fairly equal conversation. More between peers, of sorts, just two people talking about something they share. As opposed to a Youtuber who makes a video about it with 100,000s of viewers. Because there are so many fewer voices, you lose the breadth of conversation too, narrowing to a small range of popular topics, and the distinction between You, and You as Your Brand gets eroded.

It's kinda notable in the autism sphere. Blogs where people talk about their experiences, how they dealt or didn't deal with things, have fallen off. Twitter came and went, and now there's Youtube and insta, where everything gets simplified down to a few slides or a 10 minute video about only the most basic aspects. Which is just... sad. I wouldn't have known that autistic burnout is a Thing many people struggle with if not for a blog post a friend came across and shared one day.

There was a comment from someone, a while ago, about how they used to have ASMR videos on, until they were able to get out into nature, and their desire for those videos completely disappeared. We're all very deprived. Of social contact, foremost. The pandemic poured gasoline on an already smoldering fire I feel. Latching onto someone 'famous' in a surrogate of social contact & context, like that person with their ASMR videos, feels like an understandable (though not good) outcome of that, which brings with it very regrettable excesses.

I think this is all pretty much a correct analysis, thank you! Though I would qualify that we have shifted away from the period of the Youtube mega content creator a social media ecosystem of intimate-seeming connections with smaller influencers, these days. Think of your Twitch streamers with a dedicated base of like 50-200 viewers per stream (and a Discord and a Patreon that supports them), the fitness Instagrams that sell meal plans online, the tarot witches and activist influencers offering one on one sessions, etc. Those communities can be more niche, but they still offer the illusion of a connection -- and if anything, that illusion is more strong because the creator is a "micro" famous person, and can take time to interact closely with fans here and there. We might already be heading out of that period of social media, though, especially with the disintegration of Twitter and the slow death of Meta's apps, too. I don't know what comes next but I hope we are due for a reappraisal of all of this, and the norms surrounding it.

[mariacallous]

In the hours after Iran announced its drone and missile attack on Israel on April 13, fake and misleading posts went viral almost immediately on X. The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a nonprofit think tank, found a number of posts that claimed to reveal the strikes and their impact, but that instead used AI-generated videos, photos, and repurposed footage from other conflicts which showed rockets launching into the night, explosions, and even President Joe Biden in military fatigues.

Just 34 of these misleading posts received more than 37 million views, according to ISD. Many of the accounts posting the misinformation were also verified, meaning they have paid X $8 per month for the “blue tick” and that their content is amplified by the platform’s algorithm. ISD also found that several of the accounts claimed to be open source intelligence (OSINT) experts, which has, in recent years, become another way of lending legitimacy to their posts.

One X post claimed that “WW3 has officially started,” and included a video seeming to show rockets being shot into the night—except the video was actually from a YouTube video posted in 2021. Another post claimed to show the use of the Iron Dome, Israel's missile defense system, during the attack, but the video was actually from October 2023. Both these posts garnered hundreds of thousands of views in the hours after the strike was announced, and both originated from verified accounts. Iranian media also shared a video of the wildfires in Chile earlier this year, claiming it showed the aftermath of the attacks. This, too, began to circulate on X.

“The fact that so much mis- and disinformation is being spread by accounts looking for clout or financial benefit is giving cover to even more nefarious actors, including Iranian state media outlets who are passing off footage from the Chilean wildfires as damage from Iranian strikes on Israel to claim the operation as a military success,” says Isabelle Frances-Wright, director of technology and society at ISD. “The corrosion of the information landscape is undermining the ability of audiences to distinguish truth from falsehood on a terrible scale.”

X did not respond to a request for comment by time of publication.

Though misinformation around conflict and crises has long found a home on social media, X is often also used for vital real-time information. But under Elon Musk’s leadership, the company cut back on content moderation, and disinformation has thrived. In the days following the October 7 Hamas attack, X was flooded with disinformation, making it difficult for legitimate OSINT researchers to surface information. Under Musk, X has promoted a crowdsourced community notes function as a way to combat misinformation on the platform to varying results. Some of the content identified by ISD has since received community notes, though only two posts had by the time the organization published its findings.

“During times of crisis it seems to be a repeating pattern on platforms such as X where premium accounts are inherently tainting the information ecosystem with half-truths as well as falsehoods, either through misidentified media or blatantly false imagery suggesting that an event has been caused by a certain actor or state,” says Moustafa Ayad, ISD executive director for Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. “This continues to happen and will continue to happen in the future, making it even more difficult to know what is real and what is not.”

And for those that are part of X’s subscription model and ad revenue sharing model, going viral could potentially mean making money.

Though it’s not clear that any of the users spreading fake or misleading information identified by ISD were monetizing their content, a separate report released by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) earlier this month found that between October 7 and February 7, 10 influencers, including far-right influencer Jackson Hinkle, were able to grow their followings by posting antisemitic and Islamophobic content about the conflict. Six of the accounts CCDH examined were part of X’s subscription program, and all 10 were verified users. The high-profile influencers who are part of X’s ad revenue sharing program receive a cut of advertising revenue based on ”organic impressions of ads displayed in replies” to their content, according to the company.

[another-lost-mc]

is it bad that as much as i like your ocs (theyre amazing, i love them!), i really miss seeing you write for the canon characters

You know, that’s valid. The proportion of Canon and OC content here lately has been way off. It’s sort of the elephant in the room I ignore every time I think about Obey Me and my inspiration automatically focuses on the world building or OC potential instead.

There’s a few reasons why I’ve been less interested in writing canon lately.

1. Disappointment with Nightbringer. I’ll be honest, I’m not sure why this game exists (except to overhaul the franchise’s monetization structure). The premise and lore payoff hasn’t been that great for me personally - it feels more like an AU rather than a canon addition/continuation of the OG game. It feels like we still end up with more loose ends and questions that we don’t have (and may never get) answers for. I’m still waiting for Raphael and Mephisto to be dateable, by the way. As a result, my focus when writing OM content has been using the OG story/characterization using the odd piece from NB that makes sense, and that leads into…

2. My favourite parts of Obey Me are under-developed in canon. I enjoy most of the canon cast, I really do. But I want more Celestial Realm lore, I want more Michael (and not NB HM Lesson 20 Michael), I want more angels in general. They’ve mentioned Uriel a couple times now, give me that angel please and thank you! (No longer relevant, I wrote a version of him myself.)

The world feels so empty at times but there’s so much potential. Parts of the Devildom are more fleshed out with NB adding to it, but what about the other realms? What’s going on with the Sorcerer’s Society and the reapers? I never know if the interesting hints of lore we get are truly relevant or if it’s just something the game decided was convenient for a plot point and never gets mentioned again. NB has been great for Solomon fans since it’s practically a Solomon x MC fanfic written with a forced roommates trope, and that might be the best thing about it from a lore perspective.

My OCs were originally meant to explore gaps in the world and give the canon characters room to grow beyond the one or two defining traits the game keeps repeating over and over. I like writing Mammon when I can have him interact with Karasu, I like imagining the types of angels other exchange students might meet in the Celestial Realm, I like giving a name and personality to the mysterious owner of The Fall where so many events and Devilgram stories take place. Admittedly, it was refreshing to see that other people enjoyed reading about them or imagining them paired with their own MCs/OCs too. I call them the OC Fan Club with genuine affection.

3. It’s not something I talk about often but before I began writing fanfiction, I was mostly focused on concepts or outlines for original stories. Writing supernatural and horror themes always been my interest as a writer so anything with demons/angels/other monstrous races automatically catches my eye.

It’s a little mean to say, but half-baked worlds like the Devildom are a lot of fun to use as a foundation for expanding my own ideas. The OC story I’ve been working on is one way for me to write longer and more complex pieces which is the type I like most. Granted, it includes nearly the entire game cast and it explores the Devildom and Celestial Realm in ways that tie together some of my favourite personal headcanons and characterization. It focuses on angel characters and the history/culture of the Celestial Realm which are two of my main interests for this game. It’s a huge project - the outline is nearly 20k words on its own, it’s practically a novel divided into four sections with 30+ chapters and an epilogue. I can’t even express how excited I am when I get to work on this.

That being said, I do like writing canon content and I’ve been missing it more lately. I got burnt out when it felt like I was losing interest in NB and was pushing myself to keep writing anyway which isn’t great.

Today someone left a nice comment on something I wrote a while back, an angst piece for the demon brothers. I haven’t read it in a while and after going back and re-reading it, I was like, “Huh, I don’t remember liking this as much as I do.” And then I remembered something in my drafts that’s been rotting away, half-edited and ignored, and realized that I wanted to finish it. So, I’ve been slowly tinkering with things while I work on my angels’ story. Some of my plans are ambitious and real life distractions (mostly health related, like my recent bout of COVID) haven’t helped.

If I learned anything about my writing since starting this blog, it’s that:

writing what you’re passionate about is more fulfilling than writing what seems trendy or popular

giving and receiving feedback and fostering friendships/supporting each other keeps the community thriving

self care self care self care

Anyway. My goal has always been to write about the things I love about the game world and the things I create that are inspired by it. It’s a delicate balancing act that I’m still working on.

[ivanttakethis]

Alien Stage OC

I don’t have a portrait for her yet, but meet my ALNST OC Tov!

TOV (she/her)

Birth Date: 0606 (Gemini)

Age: ~24

ID: 020547

Body: 150cm/40kg

Affiliation: Anakt Garden

Likes: Stars, music, reading, writing

Dislikes: Bright lights, nature, loud noises

Personality: Introverted, respectful, intelligent, calm

Special Talent: Memorizing song lyrics by ear

Voice/Singer claim: Victoria Monet (smooth, good breath control, same vocal range)

More info under the cut!

————————————————————

Anakt Garden File Notes & Observations of Subject 020547:

- Subject suffers from elevated heart rate, migraines, and an unknown chronic illness (see: Addendum-001 for more information).

- Subject’s collar is rarely green, though she does not outwardly appear to be in any sort of distress.

[Note: Subject’s guardian has requested that the collar be removed indefinitely]

- Subject is polite to classmates and Anakt Garden staff.

- Subject does not like to be picked up (see: AG Incident Report 9-223).

- Subject has sharp canine teeth (see: AG Incident Report 9-223).

- Subject displays no signs of rebellious tendencies.

- Subject’s physical condition is too fragile for experimentation.

Overall Threat Level: Low

————————————————————

• Tov is from a breeder that specializes in smaller pet-humans, assuring buyers that their pets will remain small even fully grown (think like a mini version of some dog breeds).

• Her age is roughly estimated because her breeder did not keep good records.

• Despite being one of the older contestants, Tov looks very young for her age (another attribute of her breeding) and is often mistaken for a teenager.

• Her stature and quiet demeanor leads to others underestimating her, both aliens and humans, which works to her advantage.

• She has a strong voice, but much prefers to listen to music rather than sing.

• While her writing abilities are good, she struggles with musical composition.

• Her guardian, Cassio, treats her like a purse dog, dressing her up and carting her around to events to show off to other aliens. But aside from that, they don’t interact with Tov much. Their relationship is amicably neutral.

• Tov views Cassio more like a caretaker than a parental figure or owner/master.

• As a result of this dynamic, Tov is well cared for, but not very well socialized.

• Had she not attended Anakt Garden, Tov likely would not have learned how to speak human language. Even still, she usually only speaks when spoken to.

• Tov spent much of her time as a child in her own little world, reading and writing.

• She enjoys learning new things and is always listening to those around her.

• She can only speak one human language, but understands bits and pieces of different alien languages, including Cassio’s native language.

• Tov is fascinated by space and the stars. If she didn’t have to compete in Alien Stage, she would study astronomy.

• Tov didn’t wear a collar while in Anakt Garden because her constantly orange collar disturbed the other students.

And yes, she did bite an Anakt Garden staff member who picked her up without permission :p

————————————————————

Guardian Cassio

• Cassio is a younger alien, compared to other Anakt Garden pet owners.

• Tov is their first pet, which they got in part because of the novelty. But they don’t really know what to… do with her (similar to first time parents with a newborn baby).

• Cassio is a fashion designer for both aliens and their pet-humans, with Tov often acting as the model for their pet-human designs.

• They are part of the outfit design team for Alien Stage contestants.

• Cassio views Tov as somewhere between a cute little pet and a living dress up doll.

• They are quite fond of humans, but don’t necessarily see them as equals (like the relationship between humans and animals).

• Cassio’s native language sounds a little like a human language if you hear it in the background. But the more you focus on it, the more un-Earthly it becomes.

————————————————————

The top info format is inspired by @shakingparadigm’s format for their ALNST OC Solei! Some of this stuff might change in the future, but for now that’s all I’ve got. Sorry this is pretty long 😅

[songbird-at-the-fireside-chat]

Browsing the World Wide Web

Browsing the World Wide Web

One of my favorite passions is creating/finding ways to navigate the web that are healthy, authentic, and fun! Here are some resources I use to guide my internet usage. Some language has been slightly adapted for tone and accessibility. For more in-depth reading, follow the links! (taken with permission from https://yair.garden/browsing). Shared Ideals

MelonKing has an excellent list of shared ideals which I try to keep in mind as I browse the web. It's a great starting point!

Creativity is First: We see the ability to design, decorate, and graffiti digital spaces as essential and powerful.

The Internet is Fun: We want the Web to be a playground that's free to explore and enjoy.

Corporations are Boring: We are tired of the monetization, data abuse, and endless breaches of trust in corporate culture.

The Web is Friendly: We believe the Web should be friendly and supportive; caring is a radical act.

Right to Repair: We value the freedom to make, break, and repair our stuff - tinkering is a form of debate and protest.

One World Wide Web: We want free open knowledge and global connectivity, without paywalls, bubbles, or borders.

Chaotic Effort: We believe that value comes from the time and effort put into projects they love for no reason other than love.

No to Web3: In many (but not all) situations, cryptocurrencies, NFTs, unfairly trained AIs, and buzzword tech are unwelcome and uncool.

Manifesto for a New Web

The YesterWeb is an organization seeking to progressively transform internet culture and beyond. After two years, they created three core commitments and three social behavior guidelines to benefit everyone.

A commitment to social responsibility and partisanship.

A commitment to collective well-being and personal growth.

A commitment to rehumanizing social relations and reversing social alienation.

50 additional manifestos can be found here Social Etiquette

Engage in good faith.

Engage in constructive conflict.

Be mindful of participating in a shared, public space.

Why say no to Web 3.0?

One of the shared ideas of our community of web surfers is to push back against "Web 3.0". Here's why:

It's driven by predatory marketing tactics.

It requires complex technological and financial knowledge to fully understand.

It is actively harming the environment.

It caters to early adopters and whales.

It profits off artificial scarcity.

Investors are banking on Web3, and they really don't want to be wrong.

Personalized Web Surfing Guide

Make your web surfing personal and adventurous, away from corporate influences. Here's a simple guide for a unique browsing experience.

Configure your browser

Remove Ads and Clean up Privacy:

Ublock Origin for removing ads

ClearURLs for removing tracking elements from URLs

SponsorBlock for skipping sponsorships on YouTube

Make it a Safer Space:

ShinigamiEyes for highlighting transphobic/anti-LGBTQ sites

TriggerRemover for removing trigger-inducing content from pages

Clean up UI for Beauty and Minimalism:

CleanerReads for a muted Goodreads experience

Minimal; for a minimal and less attention-grabbing internet

Bonuses for a Cool Experience:

Library Extension: Check book availability at local libraries

Translate Web Pages: Translate pages in real-time

Return YouTube Dislike: Bring back the YouTube dislike feature

How to Browse and Surf the Web

Explore Beyond Corporate Sites: While the internet is vast, the majority of users only see a small fraction dominated by large corporate sites. These sites often prioritize shock value and extreme content, overshadowing the richness of the wider web. Explore alternative avenues to discover the internet's diversity.

Search Engines: Avoid corporate search engines like Google. Instead, consider using alternatives like Kagi, which focuses on privacy and doesn't sell your data. While it costs around $10/month, Kagi offers a diverse mix of web content, making it a worthwhile investment for varied search results. Other niche or non-commercial search engines can also provide unique content. While they may not be sustainable for daily use, they're great for discovering new sites. Find them here.

Webrings: Webrings are collections of websites united by a common theme or topic. They offer a unique way to explore sites created by real people, spanning a wide range of interests. Here are some of my favorite webrings:

Hotline Webring

Retro Webring

Low Tech Webring

Geek Webring

Soft Heart Clinic Mental Health Circle ...and here are some list of webring databases to explore!

Curated List of 64 Webrings

Neocities Webrings

Curated List of Active Webrings

Comprehensive List of 210 Webrings

Cliques/Fanlistings Web Cliques/Cliques are groups which you can join usually if you fulfill a certain task such as choosing an animal or listing your astrological sign. Fanlistings do the same for fans of various topics! You can then be linked on the clique's/fan group's site for further website discovery! Here are some web clique directories:

Project Clique

Cliqued

Fanlistings Network

5. Link Directories

Many sites have smaller link directories of buttons where you can find sites that they are "mutuals" (both creators follow each other) and "friends/neighbors" — sites they follow. It's a great way to build community. There are also larger link directories of sites which someone finds cool, and it's a great way to intentionally explore the web. Here are some of my favorites:

SadGrl Links

Melonland Surf Club

Neocities Sites

Onio.Cafe

Though there are many more! 6. Random Site Generators

Finally, there are random site generators which allow you to randomly stumble upon websites. While not very practical, they are a lot of fun and offer a unique way to discover new corners of the web.

A list can be found here

What now?

The next question you have is probably how can you become an active member/contribute in this world of the underground web? I unfortunately don't have the energy to write a guide right now but it will come soon! In broad strokes, consider making a site on Neocities. If you do make a site, remember to include a robots.txt file to get AI and bots out of there and don't forget to rate your site so we can know who it's for. If you'd like to transition off social media I recommend an RSS Reader such as the one at 32bit.cafe or on Fraidycat (guide on this to come soon as well!). For your twitter-fix you can always post a status at Status Cafe and your mood at imood. There is a whole world out there full of passionate and friendly people who are ready to reclaim the web. Excited to see you there!

[milijanakomad]

Product design and psychology: The Role of Grinding in Video Game Design

Keywords: Grinding, Video Gaming, Game Design, Player Engagement, Psychological Manipulation

Abstract:

This paper scrutinizes the utilization of "grinding" as a technique in video game design, particularly as a method of psychological manipulation that affects player engagement and behaviour. Case studies are explored to deliver a comprehensive understanding of the practical application of grinding and its implications, all from a product design viewpoint.

Introduction:

The design principles governing video games frequently incorporate mechanisms intended to stimulate player engagement and prolong interaction time. One such prevalent mechanism is "grinding," defined as the practice of executing repetitive tasks within the game environment to achieve specific objectives. While grinding can evoke a sense of achievement, it also carries the potential to induce exhaustion and frustration among players. This study endeavours to explore the intricacies of grinding, its role in game design, and its influence on player experience.

Explanation:

Coined from the concept of persistently "grinding away" at a task, the term "grinding" in the gaming context implies the undertaking of repetitive actions by a player to attain certain results or to advance within the game. In numerous instances, such actions may not directly correlate with the game's primary storyline or objectives but are aimed at accumulating experience points, in-game currency, or specialized items.

Grinding is an omnipresent component across a vast array of game genres, with its prominence notably manifested in Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs). In these games, the player's progression and performance are often gauged based on their character's level, skills, and available equipment.

From the standpoint of game design, grinding assumes several roles. It serves to extend the game's lifespan by instituting goals that necessitate substantial time investment. Additionally, it fosters a sense of accomplishment and progression and can encourage social interaction in multiplayer environments. Despite these advantages, critics contend that grinding can lead to monotonous and ungratifying gameplay experiences. The considerable time commitment required by grinding may propel some players towards purchasing in-game enhancements using real-world money, thereby generating additional revenue for game developers.

Further, there is an ongoing discourse concerning the psychological implications of grinding. Its repetitive and rewarding nature might precipitate addictive behaviours and excessive consumption of time, mirroring the effects typically associated with gambling disorders. Through the exploration of these aspects, we aim to shed light on the complex dynamics of grinding in the context of modern video gaming.

Grinding in Gaming: Conceptualization and Design

Grinding typically refers to the act of performing repetitive actions in a game to attain a specific goal, often associated with levelling up, obtaining items, or advancing in-game skills. Although it can give players a sense of progression, it can also serve as a roadblock, encouraging players to consider alternative paths to progress, such as microtransactions.

Case Study: World of Warcraft

Blizzard Entertainment's World of Warcraft (WoW) extensively employs grinding. Players often engage in repetitive tasks like fighting the same enemies, repeatedly battling against non-player characters (NPCs), or completing the same quests to increase their character's level, to gain experience points, in-game currency, or rare items. This grind contributes to a sense of achievement but has also been criticized for sometimes leading to a tedious gameplay experience.

Case Study: Candy Crush Saga

King's Candy Crush Saga uses grinding as a monetization strategy. As players progress and levels become harder, the option to grind through the game becomes more attractive. Alternatively, players can buy power-ups and boosters to surpass the grind, effectively translating grinding mechanics into revenue for the game developers.

Case Study: Destiny 2

This game provides an example of a 'loot grind.' Players repeatedly complete activities like strikes, raids, or public events to earn 'engrams' – randomized gear drops. The goal is often to collect more powerful gear to increase a character's power level.

Case Study: Old School RuneScape 

In this MMORPG, players might grind by repetitively performing tasks like mining, fishing, or woodcutting. These actions, though monotonous, boost the player's skill levels, enabling them to perform new tasks, quests, or create new items.

Implications for Game Design

Grinding, while a tool to extend game playtime and potentially drive monetization, must be thoughtfully implemented to avoid player fatigue or burnout. Game designers should strike a balance between meaningful progression and repetitive grind, ensuring the game remains engaging and satisfying.

Conclusion

Grinding, as a mechanism of psychological manipulation in video game design, can greatly impact player behaviour and engagement. Striking a balance between challenge, satisfaction, and repetition is vital to ensure a rewarding gameplay experience. As the video game industry advances, it will be intriguing to observe the evolution and refinement of grinding mechanisms and their psychological impact on players.

References:

Sicart, M. (2013). Grinding in Games: Understanding the Appeal. Philosophy of Computer Games Conference, 8-11.

Hamari, J., Alha, K., Järvelä, S., Kivikangas, J. M., Koivisto, J., & Paavilainen, J. (2017). Why do players buy in-game content? An empirical study on concrete purchase motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 538-546. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.045

Blizzard Entertainment. (2004). World of Warcraft [Video Game]. Blizzard Entertainment.

King. (2012). Candy Crush Saga [Video Game]. King.

Bungie. (2017). Destiny 2 [Video Game]. Activision.

Jagex. (2013). Old School RuneScape [Video Game]. Jagex.

Yee, N. (2006). Motivations of play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772-775. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772

Johnson, M. R., & Woodcock, J. (2019). The impacts of live streaming and Twitch.tv on the video game industry. Media, Culture & Society, 41(5), 670-688. doi:10.1177/0163443718818363

King, D., Delfabbro, P., & Griffiths, M. (2010). Video game structural characteristics: A new psychological taxonomy. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8(1), 90-106. doi:10.1007/s11469-009-9206-4

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011). From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". MindTrek '11: Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9-15. doi:10.1145/2181037.2181040

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Ingram at NBC News:

Elon Musk’s X is a thriving hub for Nazi support and propaganda, with paid subscribers sharing speeches by Adolf Hitler or content praising his genocidal regime.  NBC News found that at least 150 paid “Premium” subscriber X accounts and thousands of unpaid accounts have posted or amplified pro-Nazi content on X in recent months, often in apparent violation of X’s rules. The paid accounts posting the content all consistently posted antisemitic or pro-Nazi material. Examples included praise of Nazi soldiers, sharing of Nazi symbols and denials of the Holocaust.  The pro-Nazi content is not confined to the fringes of the platform. During one seven-day period in March, seven of the most widely shared pro-Nazi posts on X accrued 4.5 million views in total. One post with 1.9 million views promoted a false and long-debunked conspiracy theory that 6 million Jews did not die in the Holocaust. More than 5,300 verified and unverified accounts reshared that post, and other popular posts were reshared hundreds of times apiece. 

X’s policies ban glorifying violence — a broad prohibition that X has sometimes used to take down pro-Nazi content and accounts. The rules also ban “praising violent entities” and say the platform will apply labels to hate imagery like swastikas. But NBC News found that X does not appear to be enforcing those policies consistently.  The findings are the latest evidence of a flourishing Nazi network on X under Musk’s ownership. Previous investigations by news organizations and anti-hate watchdogs have documented many examples of antisemitism, white supremacy and support for Nazism on X. 

NBC News found the Nazi propaganda posts by browsing the platform: scrolling through replies, clicking on user profiles and looking through the engagements on viral posts. NBC News conducted its review during one week in late March. The number of verified subscribers posting pro-Nazi material may be significantly more than 150. When NBC News conducted its review, Premium subscribers had the option to hide their verification check marks from the public. The verified users sharing the pro-Nazi content have entered into a mutually beneficial relationship with Musk’s X, paying $8 a month or more for premium services that are available to all premium subscribers. In exchange, they get “prioritization” when they reply to posts and the opportunity to monetize their content through ads, according to the subscription terms.  The result is that X is bringing Nazi sympathizers in from the dark corners of the internet to a massive platform where they can pay to amplify their content. X had 174 million daily active users worldwide on its mobile app in February, according to the research firm Sensor Tower. X claims to have many more than that. 

NBC News conducted its research in March, before X implemented a change to provide free premium subscriptions to accounts with more than 2,500 verified followers. That move has made it more difficult to determine who is a paid subscriber.  A welcoming social media environment can make Nazi sympathizers feel validated in their views and recruit others to their cause, said Patrick Riccards, executive director of Life After Hate, a Milwaukee-based organization that helps people disengage from violent extremist groups.  “For those who are already driven by hate, it is a big warm hug,” he said.  Online hatred can also contribute to violence offline, he said, citing the racist massacre at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, where 10 Black people died in 2022. The gunman wrote in a document that he supported neo-Nazism. He later said in court that he “believed what I read online and acted out the hate.”  “They’re wanting to find individuals to take physical action when the time comes,” Riccards said. 

In most cases, Nazi material on X is about spreading hate, said Megan Squire, deputy director for data analytics at the Southern Poverty Law Center, an anti-hate group founded in 1971. “It’s not like historians are on there talking about Hitler’s speeches,” she said.  Squire said that in her research she has found that accounts posting Nazi material are run by “known white supremacist groups that are attempting to normalize their ideas, gain followers and shuffle those followers into platforms” elsewhere online where their organizing work continues.  By failing to act against many pro-Nazi accounts, X continues to earn income from their activity in at least two ways: by collecting monthly subscription fees from those posting pro-Nazi content and by running advertisements on those accounts or adjacent to the pro-Nazi content.

[...] Many of the 150 premium accounts have put links on their X profiles directing people to their websites, books and other media, where they sometimes push Nazi sympathy and antisemitism. One such account, using the name The Impartial Truth, posts recycled and remixed Nazi propaganda content, and its X profile links out to a donation site. The account did not respond to an emailed request for comment.  One of the premium accounts belongs to Stew Peters, a Florida-based host of an internet talk show who has praised Nazi book-burning in 1930s Germany. Last month, a post of his denying the Holocaust went viral on X with 1.9 million views. Peters has more than 574,000 followers on X, where his posts often include antisemitism, and his account links to his website charging $10 a month for videos. In response to a request for comment, Peters said NBC News was using “ad hominem arguments to create narratives out of whole cloth.” 

Some of the accounts posting Nazi propaganda are unabashed in their praise of the Nazis. At least two verified X subscribers recently praised Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister. One said it used artificial intelligence to generate fake audio of Goebbels reading his writing aloud, bringing in more than 23,000 views.  X’s policies require a “sensitive media” label for “hateful imagery,” which includes “symbols historically associated with hate groups, e.g., the Nazi swastika.” Musk cited a related “incitement to violence” policy when he suspended the rapper Ye, formerly Kanye West, after Ye praised Hitler in an interview and posted an image resembling a swastika. 

Some viral Nazi content stops short of praise and instead drives engagement to accounts with no clear ideology. Two examples came in March from the account @dom_lucre, a conspiracy theorist. It posted two Hitler speeches that together received more than 15 million views. The speeches were translated with artificial intelligence, Lucre said. He, unlike others, included a warning that the speech was graphic and antisemitic, though he did not express disapproval.  “I am simply sharing what is news as I always do,” he wrote in a post. Lucre, who also goes by Dominick McGee, according to his Facebook page, did not respond to an emailed request for comment.  Lucre and other similar posters who stopped short of praising Nazis were not included in the NBC News count of the 150 premium subscribers posting pro-Nazi content. Those 150 accounts were more explicit in their pro-Nazi ideologies. 

NBC News has a report on the explosive growth of antisemitism and Neo-Nazi content on X (formerly Twitter) from X Premium accounts.

[felassan]

An interview video with Mark Darrah called "An Interview With Mark Darrah - Creativity, BioWare, and the Industry!": [source and watch link]

Video description: "I was fortunate enough to speak with Mark Darrah, former BioWare vetran, about his time at BioWare, his success, his challenges, and the role of video games in the art world. Thank you again for this chance, Mark!"

Some notes from it under the cut:

There was a question around the topic of games today taking a longer time to come out, getting restarted/rebooted along the way, ideas being scrapped, constant iteration etc. It was asked whether this is unique to BioWare or is it a common issue in the industry more generally. Mark: “So, Dragon Age: Dreadwolf had some particular things involved, some of which are externalities coming from EA, but yeah, video game development, the complexity has been going up exponentially. Games these days, and not just BioWare – five years is probably a good average for games coming out now. That was not the case even five, six years ago. Things have gotten incredibly expensive and much slower.

DA:O was originally conceived as being a spiritual successor to BG. It was a lot of different parts being developed unfortunately independently of each other, and then basically being glued together into something. For example, the darkspawn in DA:O as a faction don’t have very good or sensical visual coherency (they don’t really make sense as a group of things caused by the same thing). Since then there has been a lot more care taken towards the DA IP and making sure it at least has rules that it doesn’t violate, or ones it violates on purpose as opposed to accidentally. The IP has some strong core ideas about characters first (though it wasn’t always saying this out loud), people, power comes at a cost, everyone thinks they are the hero of their own story, etc. Those sorts of things inform most of its development more than anything. You should in most cases be able to look at the villain of the game and go, oh yeah, I get what they’re going for. (In DA:O this is Loghain). “Like, ‘yeah, I get it, I might even agree with you, but I’m not going to let you destroy the world because of what you believe."

EA, like most public companies, is reluctant to spend money to various degrees because the more they spend, the worse it makes their profitability look. One of the reasons why BioWare ended up being bought in the first place was because they had basically run out of money. They ran out of money in the pursuit of quality ahead of everything. But the problem with this strategy is that, if quality is ahead of everything then you’re probably going out of business. On the flipside, in a big public company you often have the opposite problem arising, where it’s profitability ahead of everything. This results in constraints and more constraints on people, and also in more pressure to do more profitable features that might not be quality features. Microtransactions and other monetization models that have arisen in games more recently are sometimes attempted to be rationalized as ‘for the player’, but they’re really money-making features. If you’re putting quality first you’re probably not putting those kinds of features in. If you’re putting money first, then you probably are.

Horses exist in DA:I because at the time it was being made in, a fantasy RPG needed to have horses in it (a ‘table stakes feature’; a feature that needs to be in the game just for it even to have a seat at the table, otherwise people aren’t going to take it seriously). Open world in DA:I was similar. Unfortunately, with open world it needs to be an A or B feature in terms of quality, not a C feature, in order to be good enough for the player. With horses, you do them (at that time) because you have to. With open world, it takes over your entire game unfortunately and modifies the structure of the game as a whole.

Collaboration at BioWare got better over time as the culture matured but also as the structure and systems matured. BG1 had a team of around 65 people, a size which is pretty easy to collaborate at. On DAI the team was well above 400 people when outsourcers are included in the figure. That team size is much bigger, to the point that it wasn't possible to interact with everyone on the team. In the early days of BioWare, disciplines like design and art were considered to be very separate things that didn’t need to interact with each other very much. By the time Mark was leading at BioWare, this had really changed - teams like design and art were working together much more collaboratively, in order to build a better experience. You see this in the games, the more recent ones now have levels that make more sense for the gameplay (now not designed by one discipline in isolation from the other).

By the time BioWare was bought by EA, EA wasn’t buying ‘not-franchises’. DA:O was envisioned as a standalone game. This is why it has lots of weird bits of lore in it still that are kind of timebombs. They largely moved beyond and patched over these, but there are still lots of weird things in it that aren’t fully taken into account. DA:O should never have been a standalone game, it should have always been envisioned as a franchise of some sort as opposed to being retroactively envisioned as one. “So that was a mistake from the beginning.”

On Frostbite as the engine for DA:I: at the time, the political climate [in EA/BioWare] was such that the options were to keep trying to make the game with Eclipse, which was not practical, or Frostbite. There just wasn’t an appetite for anything other than that. DA:I, out of DA:I, ME:A and Anthem, is actually the game that approached Frostbite correctly. It was then followed by the other two games which didn’t do that. “Frostbite is scapegoated and blamed for a lot of BioWare’s woes. On ME:A and Anthem there’s some truth to that, but a DA:I built on Unreal isn’t a radically different or better game.”

ME1 made the engine mistake of trying to force Unreal to be an Eclipse. This essentially meant that the engine was constantly fighting back against the devs.

If Mark had a time machine, he would make some changes to the Hinterlands in DA:I and shave some of the worst edges off of DAII, like moving that one spot in the repeating caves, having Varric lampshade the repeating caves in dialogue, and making it so that you don’t have to fight Orsino. “Anthem’s launch would require more than a time machine.”

ME:A is at least partially a victim of circumstance. It came out with a few particular bugs in it that it didn’t need to. These bugs had been fixed, they just didn’t make it into the release build. The game then landed on top of Zelda and Horizon Zero Dawn, in a climate that was really paying attention and was very critical.

There was a decision during ME:A development to change its tone to a lighter, younger tone than the tone of the MET. The PC of the MET is a Generation X PC, like someone from action movies in the 80s. The PC of ME:A is more like a PC from action movies in the 2000s. This change in tone was controversial. A lot of the pushback ME:A received was more about this tone change. Mark said that he was against it at the time but that he thinks that ME:A probably made the right decision.

“I’m not convinced that BioWare should have been making Anthem. It was conceived by Casey Hudson as something very different than what launched, some sort’ve multiplayer, storytelling. I don’t believe that those problems were actually truly solved. He left in 2014. Whatever he was imagining wasn’t communicated to the team clearly enough for them to execute on his vision. Anthem was basically Destiny, but it was envisioned before Destiny existed. After 2014 they weren’t really acknowledging that they were making Destiny.”

[source and watch link]

[gattmammon]

Mildly hot to lukewarm take here but I think part of the problem with cryptobros and the like is the obsession with monetizing every single instant of their life.

Like there are a whole series of activities out there that exist entirely to give you a sense of accomplishment even if technically you are not accomplishing anything. Completing a card solitaire. Cheering on a sports team. Playing videogames is a huge one. Hell, this is how most people practice their creative hobbies. You don't make a crochet afghan because you NEED a crochet afghan, you do it because you want to feel the satisfaction of doing something.

When you are actually trying to achieve something that you need there's the possibility of failure, which reflects badly on your own self-perception. Those kind of activities give you the chance to feel accomplished when things go well but lose nothing when they go bad. It's zero stakes, it's only to fulfill the human wish to see Number Go Up. It's understood that's how those things work. We enjoy partecipating in making things exist that weren't there before. Be it art or virtual cookies. It's not about the product, it's the process.

These finance/crypto/investor types are also obsessed with Number Go Up, except the number HAS to be their bank account. The problem is. Everyone needs money. That's why so often monetising your hobby ruins it for you - suddenly your livelihood depends on something that was zero stakes. That's why they keep falling for the same scam over and over. They keep searching for that holy grail Number Go Up activity that will make them money AND give them that sense of realisation both, without realising that what makes the Number Go Up activity function is the fact that it doesn't make money. Thats why they also got obsessed with AI art. They have lost the ability to enjoy a process, be it an actual creative process or just the press of a button in a cookie clicker. They think we are ALL trying to accomplish ACTUALLY making the number go up, instead of the result being just incidental to the process. If the point is having one more image of a big tiddy anime girl then sure prompting an AI is the same as drawing. But like. That's only part of why people practice art. Most of it do it because they enjoy the process of drawing the big tiddy anime girl.

Basically what I'm trying to get at is if we switched the entire stock market with a cookie clicker type game in the night nobody would notice until like a year in