OTW Candidates and the Threat of Censorship in Power
Per my policy with this blog, I am creating this post as a centralized information point for the last two cycles of pro-censorship candidates running for @transformativeworks board positions. This is for us, voting members of OTW to have an centralized factual archive of these candidates, which allows us to hold OTW responsible for better screening candidates for views antithetical to the central mission of the organization.
As we know, censorship is on the rise across parts of the internet. These places include geographical territories that OTW's servers sit on. With the resignation of three sitting OTW board members, including one with a history of racist comments, the current election cycle for OTW board became an uncontested cycle that would have been dangerously close to allow an uncontested slot-in for a pro-censorship candidate. With this, I am hoping to increase the amount of transparency and responsibility OTW owes to its voting (and contributing) members.
We as voting members of OTW have the right to choose candidates that will advance the mission of the organization -- we should not, multiple years in a row -- be forced to organize around preventing a pro-censorship candidate from advancing to the Board or accept that such a candidate was could have possibility of being promoted in an uncontested election to the Board.
2022 Election - Tiffany G
Tiffany G's interview statement from her candidacy response. It appears that this text is no longer part of the transcript, but a screencap was preserved by twitter user muzhiyou on August 11 2022. Please click the link to their tweet thread for more context about AO3's banned status in China.
Given that the text transcripts' comments reference in various parts "adult content" but this section is now removed from the chat archive and only contain references to "pedophilic content and other illegal content" the transparency of candidates' views and the the permanency of their archival by OTW are also now in question.
For further nuance and discussion about Tiffany G's candidacy, please review this [non-neutral] thread/discussion about Tiffany's position on censorship with regard to AO3 and the Chinese government.
Upon reviewing candidates for the 2023 election cycle, twitter user mozaikmage noticed that candidate Audrey R was Audrey Richards, an registered Republican who ran for election to the U.S. House to represent Missouri's 7th Congressional District in 2022. (source: Ballotpedia / archive.today version ) Her affiliation for OTW was listed on her Ballotpedia biography.
For additional [non-neutral] discussion of Audrey R's candidacy, please review twitter user fairestcat's breakdown of Audrey's responses and their contention. Fairestcat's views are not representative of my own, the creator of this post. I am merely trying to offer voter perspectives to Audrey's lack of qualification.
Upon further research, twitter user Taenith_Rain was able to unveil more about Audrey R's work with Children and Screens, an organization that advances moral panic around minors' media consumption which has an ultimate goal of censorship. Twitter user Taenith_Rain gave me express permission to archive their research and also asked not to be further engaged on this topic.
Note in her own webpage, her qualification listed as follows:
POLICY LEAD, Institute of Digital Media and Child Development - Create and lead the policy department at a nonprofit research institute dedicated to understanding the impact of digital media use on child development. Create a nonpartisan reputation on Capitol Hill as a scientific resource.
(archive.today link) Please note that the twitter user's comments do not reflect my own opinions about the Republican voters, Republican women, or Audrey R as a person.
I do want to highlight again the dog-whistle pro-censorship description used for this webinar.
"media w/romanticized abuse and sexual content lacking partner communication may be impacting teens' attitudes and behaviors".
I am glad that twice in a row OTW has avoided having a pro-censorship candidate elected to its Board, and that the Stop OTW Racism campaign has led to the successful removal of a sitting board member who has made racist comments.
However, it is unconscionable that two years in a row OTW voting members were forced to reconcile with the fact that there was a pro-censorship candidate running, and had to do extensive research and advocacy to make sure that voters were aware of this risk.
With this archived in one place, I am hoping to hold OTW accountable to better screen candidates to advance the organization's goal of fighting censorship.
Reblogs for knowledge sharing and transparency appreciated.
