#author:bobbyd

[fans-users-gamers-blog]

Fans and Gamers react to change

Gender politics is always a very touchy topic, whether you’re talking with a group of self-proclaimed feminists that believe that men are poison or a bunch of equalitarians who just want all the labels to disappear, there will be disagreements from person to person on the topic of gender rights, biases, and inequality. The atmosphere within the fan fiction forums for Fifty Shades of Gray was very different than the negativity revolving the Ji Firepaw debate.

Andrea Braithwaite discusses this issue in her article "'Seriously, Get out': Feminists on the Forums and the War(craft) on Women" and explains her viewpoint on the gender-biased debate about a particular character named Ji Firepaw and lines he has during the game. The character was edited after a large amount of comments from forum users, and this was met with enormous uproar and backlash from the gaming community.

On the fan fiction forums for Fifty Shades of Gray, a different story is being typed and posted. Fans create original material which is then reworked and republished by different users of the forums. Fans are very particular about what they believe to be legitimate "fanfic" compared to just compiled stories and unoriginal ideas. When work is compiled and a story is created, there is always backlash from within the fan community about the credit given and work cited, and no fandom is more familiar with this concept than that of Fifty Shades of Gray.

While these are two different situations, it is possible to look at the different reactions looking at the cause. Both situations are about content editing. Whether it is creation or causation that prompts the edit, in each situation a user or moderator changes something within the community and elicits a massive response. Even though the cause of the reaction was very different, it prompted the same type of response from a lot of users. These two responses are easy to look as similar due to this similarity in response, however in reality these situations are caused by very different ideas. The Fifty Shades of Gray fandom was based on the way a group of people expressed their creativity. They had become accustomed to a particular way things worked and they did not want that to change. The nature of the gender biasing towards women during the Ji Firepaw debate was a very different story.

These cases outline an important point in the ever changing environment of the internet and the overall fandom community. They show how change can be resisted heavily for all sorts of reasons, regardless of the cause or source. It is always important to remember how even though change is thought of as negative, it can often open doors to progressive ideas and new levels of equality. While things like gaming stereotyping genders or "real fan fiction" may begin to disappear, new concepts lacking gender biases or author prejudice may emerge.

Braithwaite, Andrea. 2014. “‘Seriously, Get Out’: Feminists on the Forums and the War(craft) on Women.” New Media & Society 16 (5): 703–18. doi:10.1177/1461444813489503.

[fans-users-gamers-blog]

Ad-blocking debate stems from Privacy Policies

For most consumers consenting to, reading, and understanding privacy policies really means checking a small box and hitting accept.  This is true an overwhelming amount of instances, and as mentioned by Moretti and Naughton “This ambiguity surrounding “consent” becomes disconcerting when one considers what one is “consenting” to, namely widespread data collection by third party companies.” This is shown by the constant debates between ad-blocking companies and data collection agencies. Meyer talks about how there was an uproar when data collection began being limited by ad-blocker applications that were widely available (and often free).  Both of the sides of this argument show the partition between consumers and the policies that they agree to; people are unaware that they have consented to have their data collected, ad-blockers are unconcerned with whether they cause customers to break terms of service agreements, and the data collection agencies are angry because they lose revenue due to these ad-blockers.  

The debates over ad-blockers stems mostly from the origin that if customers aren't aware they have consented, and websites know that the typical user will seldom read the privacy policies, has the consumer really consented?  Legally, of course they have.  They checked a box signing away their rights and putting them at liability.  This doesn’t necessarily mean they actually consent to having their information taken, sold, compiled, resold, and then marketed across the global advertisement space.  This is yet another example of how ad-blocking debates end up back at the question of whether or not privacy policies are actually enforceable.  

From the viewpoint of the data collection agencies, they feel cheated out of contracts they had with each website that gives them information.  The website has provided them with specific metrics from each user to accesses the site, and this has been made legal through the “consent” given by the consumer while accessing the website.  The data collection agencies expect this information from each consumer, however the ad-blocker software gives many consumers the option to opt out of specific parts of the terms of service, by not making that information publicly available and in addition stopping the advertising companies from using that information to market a specific ad back at the consumer.  This situation is made increasingly difficult to manage due to the fact that enforcing any particular rules regarding allowed software is extremely difficult.  The best that can be done is force mobile developers (Apple, Android) to make specific ad-blockers against their terms of service.  However the legality behind this is not sound, there is no current litigation that makes hiding your information or hiding your identity illegal, and it is unlikely there ever will be due to the physical nature of the internet.  

All things considered, the debate is a very complicated one that has many different viewpoints all with sound reasoning behind their problems.  In order to solve this problem, a fundamental change will have to be made in how our society views data collection, ad marketing, and digital freedom.  With our current rules and regulations there is no one solution to solve all of these different issues.  

Marcus Moretti and Michael Naughton: Why Privacy Policies Are So Inscrutable

Robinson Meyer: Are the Mobile Ad-Blocking Wars Already Over?