#the poll will be posted anonymously unless you say you want to be credited

[bg3smash-or-pass]

[dark-night-star-light]

Thinking about running a best character, best ship, or best quote bracket. Here's how each would hypothetically work (and vote in the poll at the bottom, please!):

The issue with characters would be that I’d have to go through all eighteen and a half books to find all the characters, or the other option is I only take characters that get submitted by the seven of us chilling here together in this hot tub (because like for Conor against Tepin, who the hell’s gonna vote for Tepin, right?). I would also allow you to submit propaganda to get your fav as far as possible and anti-paganda if you want a certain character to lose (as long as you keep it light-hearted and don't try to bash anyone that actually votes for that character etc. etc. etc.).

For ships, I will definitely only take submitted ships, because there are an infinite amount of ships that could happen otherwise. But I'll take anything no matter how crackship-y or rarepair-y it is (within limits, obviously no pedo/incest ships). Tentatively saying I will again allow propaganda and (light-hearted) anti-paganda, since I'm hoping we as a fandom are mature enough to let this be a chill experience and not devolve into ship bashing (I'm pretty sure we are, we're not the a/t/l/a fandom, so).

And for quotes, again, I'd only make a bracket out of quotes that get submitted. I'm not sure if I will allow propaganda for this one, because it seems kind of self-explanatory. But maybe, if people want it. If you submit a quote, you'd have to be able to tell me which book it was from, the page or chapter number, and who said it for it to be allowed into the bracket, although if you're not sure of one of those things, you could just tell me and I'd try to find it (I own all the books, so it wouldn't be a problem). I may or may not allow you to submit context or background for the quote (in some cases that can ruin the quote, or give it an unfair advantage). Quotes would be allowed to be as unserious or serious as you want, there will be no restrictions on it whatsoever (just don't make your quote, like, a single word or something).

In any case, you’d be allowed to submit as many characters/ships/quotes as you want. I would not reveal who submitted what character/ship/quote if that's something you choose to reveal to me, unless you want me to. I’m not sure how submissions will work, either through my ask box (don't worry, anon asks would be on) or through an anonymous Google form. Of course, my DMs are always open, too, if you want to submit something through there.

Your propaganda would be allowed to be anonymous or not (if you want the credit). It would also be allowed to be as short or as long as you want, and as unserious or serious as you want (you could literally submit, like, "Vote for Rollan, he's so funny and he needs a hug" as propaganda and I would accept it, or you can go deep and start talking about his parallels and arc and motifs and backstory and personality and hardcore analysis stuff, and that would also be fine). If multiple people submit propaganda for the same character/ship/quote, I’ll keep them all, and you are allowed to submit propaganda or anti-propaganda for as many characters/ships/quotes as you would like. When we're approaching the start of the bracket, I'll also say how many pieces of propaganda and anti-poganda were submitted for each character/ship/quote. That way, if a character/ship/quote has no propaganda or anti-paganda, it would be giving everyone a warning that that's the case and that it's the last chance to submit for them. Your propaganda also doesn't have to have any basis in canon. You could make up headcanons about a character and submit them as propaganda and that would be entirely fair game. You would not be allowed to submit links to analysis posts as propaganda, though, even if it's yours. Everything submitted needs to be something you wrote specifically for the bracket.

I would be the judge of whether the anti-propaganda crosses the line into bashing (no hard feelings, sometimes tone can be weird over text), and if it does I'd delete it but let whoever submitted it know that I did, so that they could try to submit something milder. Also, keep in mind that propaganda is subjective. Something you submit as anti-propaganda might actually resonate as propaganda with other people (like saying "Meilin was a racist and a classist" as anti-propaganda might just register as "Oh, she had such fantastic character development!" with some people, completely ruining what you were trying to do). Seems counterproductive, but if you have mixed feelings, I'd allow you to submit propaganda and anti-propaganda for the same character/ship/quote (I don't think anyone will actually do this, but it's an option).

If you have something else you want to add, put it in the tags. I’m also going to open up my ask box soon, so if you want to yell at me anonymously, that’ll be the place to go.

Hate to be that person, but reblog for sample size, please.

[trekkie-polls]

About

Hello! This is a new blog. I’m still figuring out the details.

I’ve been a star trek fan my whole life - it started with getting in trouble in kindergarten for staying up to watch late night tos reruns, and I watched all of tos, ds9, and voy as they aired. I tried ent when it first aired and didn’t care for it. Later as part of a project to watch all episodes in in-world chronology, I did watch all of ent. Still didn’t care for it. But it is trek. I watch all new trek, and for the most part I love it (pauses to side-eye Picard season three), but don’t have the same knowledge base with it because I haven’t rewatched it as many times. I’ve seen all of the movies but I honestly just tend to forget them when I’m thinking about what’s happened in cannon. I think they live in a separate part of my brain? I haven’t read the books or comics yet but I do spend a lot of time on Memory Beta.

Right now I’m rewatching lower decks & tos and that’s what I have on my mind.

Anyway, this is all to say that I plan to be inclusive with all star trek media on this blog, but not everything will get equal attention. There are just some things I know more about or am more interested in.

In particular, there are a limited number of options in tumblr polls, and there is a lot of star trek media out there. I make sure to put “other in tags”, or combine titles in a choice, in cases where every item can’t have its own little box. Yes sometimes my personal opinions influence how I break that up, and that’s ok, because this is something I do in my free time for fun.

You are very welcome to submit polls & posts. If you do, and I repost them, I’ll credit you unless you prefer to stay anonymous. Btw - this is how you can get more content around your favorite series if you’re not seeing as much as you’d like.

Right now I don’t have any rules about submissions. It’s possible I won’t post something that’s clearly prejudiced, malicious etc… but I haven’t figured out exactly where I draw that line yet. I don’t plan to gatekeep what is and isn’t trek. I have personal opinions about what I enjoy and what I don’t enjoy, but star trek belongs to everyone and it’s illogical to try to draw lines around what is “legitimate” trek for everyone.

I haven’t really figured out what to say about trigger warnings, spoilers, and nsfw. I don’t plan for this to be especially nsfw, but I do plan to cuss and touch on adult concepts sometimes (I mean how can we not talk about the many forehead vaginas). I also plan to add content/ trigger warnings that are obvious to me but I’m far from an expert about what the most important ones to include are. And finally spoilers are hard because most star trek media has been around forever and the fandom is here to talk about what happened in it, but some is brand new and it can be hard to stay completely caught up, and even the oldest series are new to someone. So I’m making an effort to consider triggering content, spoilers, and nsfw but can’t responsibly make promises on any of them.

And last but not least, I’m happy to block people who call me names. I’m here on my free time for fun.

Tldr:

This blog will be a mixture of:

Polls I make

Other star trek posts I find interesting

Polls & posts you submit

If I see a star trek poll I find interesting I may write the author and ask for permission to reblog here

This blog will not:

Gatekeep what is & isn’t star trek

Be completely impartial to my interest

Be completely sfw or spoiler free, or include all important trigger & content warnings

P.S. I’m in this for the tags. I absolutely love reading through everyone’s theories, favorites, stories, etc…. So if you want to tip this blog please do it by adding your star trek thoughts :)

[kattaloop]

Lexa IS More Than A Symbol

I came to Tumblr for the Clexa GIFs and stayed for the very occasional long-form contribution. So I don’t know what’s being talked about and how, but a few friends asked me to comment on this. A week ago, @rivertalesien offered a lengthy reply to an anonymous question:

“Why is Lexa the one that people want to fight for but seems to be the only one kept dead? Not that ODAAT and WE had dead lesbians but they were cancelled and fan efforts brought them back like why is Lexa the only one who can't? She has to be more than a symbol though?“

I have my own thoughts on this issue, some of which I can’t publicly elaborate on. Let me just say that you’re right, Lexa absolutely is more than a symbol and should be treated as such. But what did River have to say about it all?

“First of all, the situations with ODAAT and WE are completely different: those involve complex negotiations with advertisers in order to cover the costs and where the show will be hosted. I know it’s fun to believe that fan campaigns had anything to do with it, but it is always, ultimately down to negotiations with advertisers and studios. It makes the producers and all look good to praise their audience for the “hard work” trying to save the series, but they all know better.“

It’s right to say that money is a driving force in any decisions the networks make. But you can’t isolate a show from the broader programing strategy, and, as far as I know, advertising deals are  bundled. As with any business, money isn’t the only deciding factor, either. Power and prestige have important roles in this game of film and television, and personal preference absolutely exists. As for fan campaigns, they add a voice, one that may have, and has, in the past, convinced executives to revisit the  issue in the first place. Would they have done the same thing without that little nudge from viewers? Maybe, but probably not.

“And Lexa is “kept dead” because, and this is only inference, but I think it’s a strong one: Jason Rothenberg lost a huge business/development deal as a result of the Lexa/Clexa fan drama.“

You did your research, I’ll give you that. But I’m unsure how well you understand the reality of this business. Considering that failed pilots are more common than green-lit ones. Considering that any pilot is a collaborative process with too many components in play than for an outsider to pinpoint exactly one reason as to why it failed. Considering that this industry, for all its rigid hierarchy and rules books, can also be one of the most unpredictable - one person leaves and the whole house of cards can crumble. Considering that you refuse to entertain the pros that would accompany Lexa’s return, pros that someone with Jason’s disposition might be equally interested in as in the more petty revenge fantasies.

“Jason Rothenberg spent the days, weeks and months after Lexa’s death cutting himself off from those fans who were hurt by his actions and no doubt working behind the scenes to make sure he didn’t lose his job over his unethical, unprofessional behavior. His supporters in the cast were openly derisive of Clexa fans who spoke out and a tone of trying to ignore or undermine the fan fallout was the given order. Showing real empathy and offering to work with the audience in order to heal the divide might have gone a long way for improving his image and the show’s. Rothenberg decided to hide instead.“

Yes to everything but the last sentence. You’re assuming - sorry, inferring. I happen to know that it was not his decision. Once again, isolating one aspect from its context and environment usually leads to wrong or, at least, incomplete conclusions.

“One very clear consequence of his queerbaiting is that Greg Berlanti, the very successful (and openly gay) producer of many DC shows including Supergirl, stepped out of a development deal for a new series tentatively titled The Searchers. The project was likely mostly Rothenberg’s, but without Berlanti’s backing, it was dropped. Story was that it was too “expensive” to produce, yet Berlanti went on to get a huge deal with the CW, producing Riverdale as well as the upcoming Batwoman. Would Berlanti want to be associated with Rothenberg after the Lexa debacle? Probably not and that’s probably closer to the real reason the deal went south.“

Except the queerbaiting isn’t even fully acknowledged, still. That’s a lot to base on “likely” and "probably.” Berlanti was already getting these deals. He also had his own issues to deal with. If the production was deemed too expensive, it doesn’t mean that there’s a conspiracy beyond the normal industry processes.

“Outside of The 100, he has no produced credits to his name and how he got the job of showrunner when he had no previous experience in any capacity in a writer’s room or on a production staff is certainly baffling. He very quickly proved he didn’t have the professionalism for the job and anyone else would have been dismissed.“

But he wasn’t dismissed, and that should tell you enough to not be baffled by the fact that they hired him, even without knowing the industry from within.

“The 100 went from 16 episodes to 13 because the order for renewal had already been given and the WB/CW put out feelers in the form of polls asking the audience directly: will Lexa’s death affect if you watch the show? Who does that unless they are seeking to reassure the advertisers that Lexa’s death wouldn’t be a big issue for long and spoil their investment?”

In conjunction with a noticeable drop in ratings and other measurable factors, this is probably a reasonable conclusion. They were hoping for a surge and were slammed, instead. There were a lot of whispers, but nothing I’d consider to be confirmed. What does this have to do with why they wouldn’t bring Lexa back? If anything, it suggests they know of her value.

“Fans are capable of all sorts of interpretations of a text (oh boy are we), but one thing that I think is generally considered across the board is that with season 4, the tone toward Lexa was more than a little OTT and a tad spiteful.”

I’m glad you acknowledge that much of this is based on interpretation. In summary, the praise Lexa received in S4 felt unauthentic, the Flame and Lexa were used as an emotional device, and Clarke’s actions were problematic. How’s that any different than post-307, when nobody seemed too bothered about losing their beloved Heda, when the Flame and Lexa were used as an emotional device, and when Clarke had sex as a coping mechanism and even questioned Lexa’s humanity? The latter were all written before the backlash. It mostly speaks to the show’s persistent issues with continuity, character development, and representation.

“This is just my interpretation, but with fans crying out for her return, pleading for a spin-off and so on, and generally being the most out-spoken fandom for LGBTQ rights and better representation in media (and a never-ending drag of Rothenberg’s name), is it likely that a production that never did anything to try and make amends ever going to give in to such pleas?”

As likely as any other production, to be honest. Allow me to go back to your earlier assessment. “They don’t care about fans’ pleas.” Would they bring Lexa back for the fans? Doubtful. “They care about their own benefit.” Would they bring Lexa back if it benefited them? Now we’re talking.

But they can’t just do it any odd way. As you also said previously, they know better. They may ignore us, but they watch us. They would’ve assessed the different scenarios. From a business point of view, they’d want to avoid another backlash. Then you have a diva showrunner to consider, and a guest star who is in work and, hopefully, wouldn’t return for a guest stint if it didn’t benefit her and Lexa. It’s a tricky balance, made even more difficult by a fandom that likes to tear itself apart over conflicting opinions every 3 months or so.

Considering all of those circumstances, I can’t think of a reasonable way to bring Lexa back other than at the very end. Which would benefit the production, but more importantly, a large number of fans, the tiny matter of representation, and ADC - if done right, which I give her enough credit to make sure before agreeing to anything. I’m not saying that it will happen or that it won’t happen. I’m saying that there’s a strong case for it happen, to balance out your rather one-dimensional approach.

“There is a cruelty to this because almost any other kind of story of this kind would involve a moment of catharsis, but that moment is constantly suspended, always dangled, but never in touch.”

Personally, I’d agree with that, but I can also think of writers who’d be into it. We’ve already established that Jason and his immediate team are lacking awareness and empathy. It makes little sense, therefore, to expect them to act differently, especially if they’re leading up to another shock twist. My guess is as good as yours on whether that’s something good or bad.

“They know what fans want and it’s arguable too that Rothenberg has twisted what the fans want for his own benefit: a spin-off of The 100, but one entirely about something decidedly unrelated to Lexa. Showing online fan interest might be one way of telling advertisers: see, there’s a demand for his work.”

No offense, but this makes no sense and it’s probably the most contradicting and subjective thing you’ve said thus far. If they know what fans want, then there’s nothing to twist. It’s actually part of the reason why the Lexa spinoff campaign started while the show’s still on air: to get the word out, to make sure they know exactly what and who we want, and what and who we don’t want. Jason started talking about a spinoff before 307, so there’s literally no ground for this argument, which also has no bearing on the question. So why bring it up?

“Unless advertisers demand it, is it likely that this unprofessional queerbaiting producer would do anything except the most spiteful of nods? That’s all he’s done at this point and the story this season looks more and more like they are going to finally close the book on any Lexa mentions ever again.”

Unless advertisers become involved in the creative process, this argument is also invalid. Thankfully, there are regulations in place to avoid that. And unless you know what motivates a person, you can’t speak to what they will or won’t do. Even if you did, you can’t be certain. Once again, this is a collaborative process even under the worst of circumstances. Things could go either way.

“Fight for Lexa, there is nothing wrong with her being a “symbol” of a fight for better representation.”

It feels wrong when you reduce her to a symbol, when you put her in the past, when you tell others to seek out other representation, when you dismiss her implied humanity. Our emotions in relation to Lexa are real, and that makes her real in all the ways that matter. What happened to “she’s more than just a character?” Well, she’s also more than a movement. Let’s not use their excuses when they kill of one LGBT character and put another on their place against ourselves.

“Keep using her light, but never forget where it really comes from, something Rothenberg will never understand: it comes from you.”

Now see, this is a great statement. I, too, believe that Lexa is a part of us. Her light guided me out of the complete darkness I had lost myself in, and it became part of my own light. I’ve never come across a character like that, or person, for that matter. A sentiment that still reverberates through the fandom and beyond. I believe that her light can help so many more people whom she wasn’t able to reach in the short time she was given. And so, part of my fight for better representation, better storytelling, will always be to let Lexa’s light shine again. She deserves to live. She deserves to have her story told!

[aruskin]

How to Fix Facebook—Before It Fixes Us

From an article by Roger McNamee in Washington Monthly:

“We still don’t know the exact degree of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. But the debate over collusion, while important, risks missing what should be an obvious point: Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other platforms were manipulated by the Russians to shift outcomes in Brexit and the U.S. presidential election, and unless major changes are made, they will be manipulated again. Next time, there is no telling who the manipulators will be.

Awareness of the role of Facebook, Google, and others in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election has increased dramatically in recent months, thanks in large part to congressional hearings on October 31 and November 1. This has led to calls for regulation, starting with the introduction of the Honest Ads Act, sponsored by Senators Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar, and John McCain, which attempts to extend current regulation of political ads on networks to online platforms. Facebook and Google responded by reiterating their opposition to government regulation, insisting that it would kill innovation and hurt the country’s global competitiveness, and that self-regulation would produce better results.

But we’ve seen where self-regulation leads, and it isn’t pretty. Unfortunately, there is no regulatory silver bullet. The scope of the problem requires a multi-pronged approach.

First, we must address the resistance to facts created by filter bubbles. Polls suggest that about a third of Americans believe that Russian interference is fake news, despite unanimous agreement to the contrary by the country’s intelligence agencies. Helping those people accept the truth is a priority. I recommend that Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others be required to contact each person touched by Russian content with a personal message that says, “You, and we, were manipulated by the Russians. This really happened, and here is the evidence.” The message would include every Russian message the user received.

This idea, which originated with my colleague Tristan Harris, is based on experience with cults. When you want to deprogram a cult member, it is really important that the call to action come from another member of the cult, ideally the leader. The platforms will claim this is too onerous. Facebook has indicated that up to 126 million Americans were touched by the Russian manipulation on its core platform and another twenty million on Instagram, which it owns. [...] There’s no doubt that the platforms have the technological capacity to reach out to every affected person. No matter the cost, platform companies must absorb it as the price for their carelessness in allowing the manipulation.

Second, the chief executive officers of Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others—not just their lawyers—must testify before congressional committees in open session. As Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, demonstrated in the October 31 Senate Judiciary hearing, the general counsel of Facebook in particular did not provide satisfactory answers. This is important not just for the public, but also for another crucial constituency: the employees who keep the tech giants running. While many of the folks who run Silicon Valley are extreme libertarians, the people who work there tend to be idealists. They want to believe what they’re doing is good. Forcing tech CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg to justify the unjustifiable, in public—without the shield of spokespeople or PR spin—would go a long way to puncturing their carefully preserved cults of personality in the eyes of their employees.

These two remedies would only be a first step, of course. We also need regulatory fixes. Here are a few ideas.

First, it’s essential to ban digital bots that impersonate humans. They distort the “public square” in a way that was never possible in history, no matter how many anonymous leaflets you printed. At a minimum, the law could require explicit labeling of all bots, the ability for users to block them, and liability on the part of platform vendors for the harm bots cause.

Second, the platforms should not be allowed to make any acquisitions until they have addressed the damage caused to date, taken steps to prevent harm in the future, and demonstrated that such acquisitions will not result in diminished competition. An underappreciated aspect of the platforms’ growth is their pattern of gobbling up smaller firms—in Facebook’s case, that includes Instagram and WhatsApp; in Google’s, it includes YouTube, Google Maps, AdSense, and many others—and using them to extend their monopoly power.

[...] Third, the platforms must be transparent about who is behind political and issues-based communication. The Honest Ads Act is a good start, but does not go far enough for two reasons: advertising was a relatively small part of the Russian manipulation; and issues-based advertising played a much larger role than candidate-oriented ads. Transparency with respect to those who sponsor political advertising of all kinds is a step toward rebuilding trust in our political institutions.

Fourth, the platforms must be more transparent about their algorithms. Users deserve to know why they see what they see in their news feeds and search results. [...] Allowing third parties to audit the algorithms would go even further toward maintaining transparency. Facebook and Google make millions of editorial choices every hour and must accept responsibility for the consequences of those choices. Consumers should also be able to see what attributes are causing advertisers to target them.

Fifth, the platforms should be required to have a more equitable contractual relationship with users. Facebook, Google, and others have asserted unprecedented rights with respect to end-user license agreements (EULAs), the contracts that specify the relationship between platform and user. When you load a new operating system or PC application, you’re confronted with a contract—the EULA—and the requirement that you accept its terms before completing installation. If you don’t want to upgrade, you can continue to use the old version for some time, often years. Not so with internet platforms like Facebook or Google. There, your use of the product comes with implicit acceptance of the latest EULA, which can change at any time. If there are terms you choose not to accept, your only alternative is to abandon use of the product. For Facebook, where users have contributed 100 percent of the content, this non-option is particularly problematic.

[...] Sixth, we need a limit on the commercial exploitation of consumer data by internet platforms. Customers understand that their “free” use of platforms like Facebook and Google gives the platforms license to exploit personal data. The problem is that platforms are using that data in ways consumers do not understand, and might not accept if they did. For example, Google bought a huge trove of credit card data earlier this year. Facebook uses image-recognition software and third-party tags to identify users in contexts without their involvement and where they might prefer to be anonymous. Not only do the platforms use your data on their own sites, but they also lease it to third parties to use all over the internet. And they will use that data forever, unless someone tells them to stop.

There should be a statute of limitations on the use of consumer data by a platform and its customers. Perhaps that limit should be ninety days, perhaps a year. But at some point, users must have the right to renegotiate the terms of how their data is used.

Seventh, consumers, not the platforms, should own their own data. In the case of Facebook, this includes posts, friends, and events—in short, the entire social graph. Users created this data, so they should have the right to export it to other social networks. Given inertia and the convenience of Facebook, I wouldn’t expect this reform to trigger a mass flight of users. Instead, the likely outcome would be an explosion of innovation and entrepreneurship. Facebook is so powerful that most new entrants would avoid head-on competition in favor of creating sustainable differentiation. Start-ups and established players would build new products that incorporate people’s existing social graphs, forcing Facebook to compete again. It would be analogous to the regulation of the AT&T monopoly’s long-distance business, which led to lower prices and better service for consumers.

Eighth, and finally, we should consider that the time has come to revive the country’s traditional approach to monopoly. Since the Reagan era, antitrust law has operated under the principle that monopoly is not a problem so long as it doesn’t result in higher prices for consumers. Under that framework, Facebook and Google have been allowed to dominate several industries—not just search and social media but also email, video, photos, and digital ad sales, among others—increasing their monopolies by buying potential rivals like YouTube and Instagram. While superficially appealing, this approach ignores costs that don’t show up in a price tag. Addiction to Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms has a cost. Election manipulation has a cost. Reduced innovation and shrinkage of the entrepreneurial economy has a cost. All of these costs are evident today. We can quantify them well enough to appreciate that the costs to consumers of concentration on the internet are unacceptably high.”