Non-Monetized Together #svalien

Tired of Internet drama and fakeness? This community can help with that. Articles and comments may contain sensitive content.


You can also view this article at

One of the biggest blows to the battle for social justice is that all the “-ism” and “-phobic” words have become insults. You can’t have a serious discussion about racism, sexism, classism, or homophobia anymore because so many people will feel personally attacked if anybody suggests to them ways they could work towards a fairer society. These used to be movements focused on equity and transformative conflict, yet they are now often used to spread moral superiority and petty conflict.

It’s important to instead discuss inequity as what it truly is, a social issue caused when people express viewpoints that accidentally contain logical gaps which overlook human rights. As a socially conscious provider of information, I can’t be sparking public fear by accusing all these statements of having malicious intent. Instead, I will have to acknowledge the possibility that the person may have simply forgotten to consider what their viewpoint means for other demographic groups.

In this article, I will demonstrate how I approach the topic of inequality. I will do this by presenting an example where the discrimination is easy to miss if you aren’t paying close attention. I will explain how it’s discriminatory, speaking for the benefit of the people who may fall for it and the people who are targeted by it. I will describe these examples as logical fallacies, not as rage bait.

I’ll discuss the comments on this r/worstof thread shaming a person who asked r/TrueChristian how to explain Christian reasoning against same-sex relationships to a Christian coworker who was already in one. I can see how at first glance, the comments can seem like fair criticism directed to someone behaving petty, unnecessary, and judgemental. So while I’ll assume the r/worstof commenters had good intentions, they failed to recognize an important piece of context, which resulted in their comments actually being discriminatory against Christians. (By the way, attacks against people for their faith do not have an “-ism” or “-phobic” word associated with them, at least not to my knowledge, but as long as they attack the people and not the religion, they can be placed in the same category).

What the commenters missed out on was the fact that Christians, like anyone else, have the responsibility to love and respect people they disagree with. The r/TrueChristian user never actually said anything judgemental, but since they view same-sex relationships as a sin, the commenters jumped to the accusation that the Christian was filled with resentment for this person, despite the fact that the Christian even says, “I’ll be praying and keep treating her the best I was already treating: with love and kindness.” Maybe they could have been a kind, supportive, empathetic friend with their coworker. But by that point, the commenters dismissed any such possibilities on the grounds of their religious views.

Some commenters also assumed that these comments would hurt their friendship. These users have forgotten that respectfully sharing advice is a common attribute of relationships among all people, Christians included. Now, it’s fine to disagree with Christian advice or to even be offended by the advice itself, and if a respectful Christian encounters that response from someone, they will know not to bring it up to that person anymore. The difference is that the r/worstof commenters aren’t personally involved in the Christian’s situation, so the commenters are saying that they don’t have to know the coworker to know that the Christian’s suggestions would poison the relationship. By assuming that nobody would take Christian advice well, the perhaps unintentional effect of their comments is that Christians should not share advice with anybody, even if they’re respectful about it, which is a double standard because that’s what everybody else does.

Now I’m not trying to get anybody outraged by a “Christian hate panic” or whatever — this is only one Reddit post after all. I’m instead here to show an example of where inequity can come from, how it can easily go unspotted, and what you can do to prevent it from happening. Christians such as I believe that intolerance against Christians is inevitable and that it will never go away completely. Instead of creating rage bait, we are supposed to consider these obstacles to be like puzzles to navigate. How we handle these puzzles will reveal our level of faith.


What doesn’t solve the problem is when you insult people. This is the problem when words that should be used to describe unfairness become insults. It doesn’t people to the knowledge they need to treat people equitably. Instead, people believe that when they are called racist or homophobic or ableist or whatever, then the other person must hate them, and that they must respond not by considering the impact of their words, but by repairing their bruised ego.

Every time inequality is viewed in this way, the opportunity for resolution goes out the window, adding up to a staggering amount of lost potential over the years. Millions of missed opportunities. That’s the problem right there.

And Internet discussions are our big ticket to solving it.

Now you can give it a try in the comment section below. Feel free to use this new method of describing examples of discrimination.

#Inequity #SocialJustice #Religion #Reddit #ConflictResolution


Image from DALL-E 2

I know the world doesn’t revolve around me, but if you want my honest feedback about doing a presentation, here it is: don’t begin with an overview of the sections of the presentation.

Overviews set a dull, unimportant tone that often lasts for the rest of the presentation. They contain no real content, so the audience is just left waiting for you to move on to the next slide. By placing something like that at the beginning of your talk, it impacts how I experience the entirety of the presentation, putting me in the mindset where I’m waiting for the presentation to end.

Instead, you should begin your presentation with something fun and casual to grab your audience’s attention and make them interested in what you’re talking about. You can follow that up with an explanation of how the fun stuff is actually important to the subject you will be discussing, allowing you to smoothly transition to the main portion of your presentation. This format makes me feel like I should value and appreciate what you’re talking about. Plus, it doesn’t interrupt my engagement like a summary does.

I’m also more likely to enjoy your presentation if I don’t know what you’re going to discuss next. If you begin your presentation with an overview, the audience has nothing left to look forward to except for the facts that matter to them or that answer their questions. So when you’re not addressing those concerns, people like me will feel bored. I might feel anxious for you to get to the part that matters to me.

I’d rather not know what you’re going to talk about next because it gives me a reason to stay engaged, even when you’re not discussing the things that are most important to me. If you don’t include an overview, then I know I better pay attention because there’s always the possibility that an important point is right around the corner.

By not starting with a summary, your presentation can go from being a chore to commanding the floor. Your first impressions can improve your entire presentation, but preview summaries turn off my interest immediately.

This article can also be read on

#PublicSpeaking #PresentationTips #Presentations #Speech #FirstImpressions


You can also read this article at

In response to the news that r/decadeologyanarchy will go private once it reaches 500 members, I want to mention that if anybody wants to make a public post in the style of that subreddit, they can use Nonmonetized Together to do so.

Decadeology is a subject I’ve been fascinated by for years. It’s a term used to refer to Internet analysis of the evolution of society, technology, politics, and pop culture throughout the years. Where decadeology differs from general historical analysis is that a decadeologist usually limits their focus to decades they’ve lived through, basing their analysis on their own personal perceptions. Another difference is that people sometimes use decadeology to predict the future.

As you can see, decadeology isn’t a very academic method of analysis, but it was never intended to be. It’s just a fun way to explore different people’s ways of perceiving the world.

What a lot of people don’t realize is that up until a few months ago, decadeology used to be more geared towards hair-splitting. You would often see people grouping certain eras with super-specific cut-offs, often down to a year’s season. Or they would analyse really small shifts in society. Now, this wasn’t exclusively the case. Decadeology has always made room for broader analysis, but hypercategorization was a common feature of decadeology.

But lately, decadeology has gained a much wider audience, which has caused the hair-splitting to be pushed to the wayside in favour of more mainstream-focused discussions. Though, I enjoyed reading the in-depth posts that used to be popular. I liked them because they were more detailed and made the community less repetitive. A few people agree with me, and they congregate on r/decadeology’s sister subreddit, r/decadeologyanarchy, which is dedicated to preserving decadeology’s tradition of making hyperspecific posts.

Since I don’t have a Reddit account, I was disappointed to hear that r/decadeologyanarchy said they would go private at a certain point. One of the reasons I read Reddit is because of its convenience — you can see a lot of discussion without signing in. But I remembered that I run a non-paywalled platform that welcomes alternative and overlooked content — the one you are reading right now. Why don’t I designate Nonmonetized Together as a place where people can publicly make decadeology anarchy posts?

This does not mean that Nonmonetized Together will become a publication focused on decadeology anarchy. I will be regularly writing new articles on other subjects just like I always have. If you liked what I’ve been posting previously, you’ll also probably like what I will continue to post on the future. I’m just saying, anybody who wants to have a public discussion on the topic of decadeology anarchy can use this platform to do so.

Nonmonetized Together is available both on Medium and on a federated platform called In the future, Nonmonetized Together may be available on the website Neocities.

Make sure to read Nonmonetized Together’s “about” page to get an understanding of what the community stands for, how it works, how to behave, etc. I have other articles that go further in depth on the things discussed on that “about” page. While it’s important to read the “about” page, these other articles aren’t really necessary to read, but they can help you understand this online environment better. Many of them are featured near the bottom of the “about” page on Medium and

Nevertheless, I’m not expecting everybody to understand everything about this publication right away. If you make a Nonmonetized Together post that suggests you don’t quite understand something about it, I’ll respond to the post and let you know.

If you feel overwhelmed with all this information, you can go here to find the articles I’ve posted to Medium, sorted by topic. Please note that the list “Issues that Nonmonetized Together can help solve” is comprised up of other people’s articles; all the other lists contain my own articles.

If you want to be added as a writer to Nonmonetized Together, make a Medium account and send me a private message or comment saying you want to be added. Then you will be able to post to the publication.


You can also view this article at

Yep, I don’t like it when academia invents obscure terms to prevent the masses from educating themselves, so I’m just going to name #svalien something that describes exactly what it does.

Please note that the title of the publication will still be displayed as “Non-Monetized Together #svalien” because the new term is too long to fit in the title. The term #svalien will be used in the publication’s “notes from the editor” for the same reasons.

If you’re wondering “what is #svalien,” here’s the answer:

It’s a marker I invented to let everyone know that you don’t need to be constrained by politics when you’re on Nonmonetized Together. The community operates in a social context where you can be free from the limitations that your political role imposes upon you. Other activists are encouraged to make their own #svalien online communities to help restore a sense of hope among viewers.

For more information, see the link below:

#Updates #CommunityUpdate #NameChange #SocialNorms #Politics


You can also view this article at

As I’ve mentioned many times already, I decided to stop having political opinions and motivations in 2020 because I just couldn’t convince myself that my political views were any more important than anyone else’s. Becoming politically neutral means that the pro-life components of my Catholic faith are presented in a luminous new perspective that not everybody is familiar with.

People tend to assume that pro-lifers want to outlaw abortions using state control, but my political neutrality prevents me from supporting that. I would rather make it easy for others to find access to information on why abortion is not such a great idea. This way, I can make a positive difference in society without trying to gain control of society.

I believe this is a more empowering approach for people than traditional pro-life or pro-choice movements because it is centred on distributing knowledge, not on forming oppressive laws. This is what’s useful about my neutrality — you know I’m on your side and that I have no ulterior motives.

Besides, as an eager follower of Christ, I don’t want to turn people away from Catholicism. I want to present it as something people would want to get involved with. By the way, the lack of public religious discussion is a societal problem. You should be spreading your own religion’s knowledge, too, unless it discourages that sort of thing for whatever reason.

So, in this article, I will present the Church’s pro-life philosophy from the point of someone who wants to share a valuable perspective, not from someone who wants to control you for political gain:

Remember that the reason why murder is considered immoral is because it takes away a life, which is the most valuable thing someone can own. By this standard, abortion would be worse than murder of a fully-formed person because a fetus didn’t even get the chance to own their life yet.

Plus, there’s no concrete scientific proof as to the exact point all fetuses become human, so you run the risk of killing someone who has already gotten to that point. You would have to use personal feelings instead of scientific proof in order to justify abortion, which is really irresponsible when a potential life is at stake.

When someone’s dealing with personal problems so bad that they have to kill someone in order to overcome the problems (like gangs, drug addiction, sex trafficking, etc.), people would usually realize that the solution would have been to prevent the problem from getting out of control, offer the sufferer alternative solutions, or find a way for them to be less desperate. In these cases, it would be ridiculous to say the issue could be solved by making it easier to kill someone, like pro-abortion camps would. That wouldn’t solve the greater problem.

So if you want to convince a pro-life person that abortion is okay, you’ll have to not only persuade them that someone’s life isn’t valuable enough for them to take ownership of, but you will also have to find indisputable proof as to the exact moment when all fetuses become human.

#Abortion #Catholicism #Philosophy #Power


I would like to present the people with the greatest-rising association with the word “terrorist,” every year from 2005-2023, according to Google Trends. Some of these examples demonstrate the demonization of different identity groups by society over time as well as the wide variety of cases the term “terrorist” is used for.

The names in this article are based on worldwide data, not country-specific data. I know data may vary depending on country, but I think basing it on worldwide data can show us the enemy of the country that was the most powerful at the time.

In 2005, the face of terrorism was Volkswagen.

In 2006, the face of terrorism was Zinedine Zidane.                                     

In 2007, the face of terrorism was Achmed the Dead Terrorist.

In 2008, the face of terrorism was Bill Ayers.

In 2009, the face of terrorism was the Taliban.

In 2010, the face of terrorism was Carlos the Jackal.

In 2011, the face of terrorism was Osama bin Laden.

In 2012, the face of terrorism was Anna Hazare.

In 2013, the face of terrorism was Dzhokar A Tsarnaev.

In 2014, the face of terrorism was the Islamic State.

In 2015, the faces of terrorism were Christian terrorists.

In 2016, the face of terrorism was Black Lives Matter.

In 2017, the faces of terrorism were anti-fascists.

In 2018, the faces of terrorism were Islamic terrorists.

In 2019, the face of terrorism as the United States Coast Guard.

In 2020, the faces of terrorism were the U.S. State Department List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

In 2021, the face of terrorism was the Taliban.

In 2022, the face of terrorism was state-sponsored terrorism.

In 2023, the face of terrorism was Hamas.

I knew it! Social media is depersonalizing how we view each other! From 2014 onward, the enemy has been organizations, while from 2005-2013, it has been mostly individuals. Honestly, I enjoyed it more back then, when people understood that there was variation within groups.

Can you make out any other patterns from the data?

#Terrorism #GoogleTrends #Media #Representation #Culture

You can also view this article at


Dan Dimmock/Unsplash

Article also available at

I have a hypothesis for why people in the Internet age are so unwelcoming when it comes to politics. It’s a multi-stage process, and I’m gonna lay it out here. You’ve probably already heard bits and pieces of this hypothesis elsewhere already. I’m writing this article in the hopes that you will be a curious citizen and investigate whether the hypothesis is valid.

In the first stage, some left-wing and right-wing media publications show only the most spiteful and stupid examples from both opposing political angles.

In the second stage, a small selection of people from each side acts foolish enough to assume that those examples are an accurate representation of the entire political wing. They make online posts under that assumption. They may also forget that people on the opposing side may come across very different stories, descriptions of stories, and political rhetoric than they do.

In the third stage, people from the other side view those online posts. They get defensive because these posts don’t match their reality and/or because they aren’t aware of the subtext behind the post (due to the differing information they receive in the first place). Since these are personal examples that reflect the negative news coverage they see, the idea that the other side is made up of the brainwashed and the dangerous starts to appear more convincing to them.

In the fourth stage, the people introduced in the third stage start acting in a way that appears extremist to the other side, yet simply natural to someone who believes that their side is under attack. Other people start thinking, “this person must be a threat to society because I never asked to attack anybody, yet they’re threatening me!” As these real-world incidents continue to grow, this ends up appearing to further validate the clickbait journalism from the first stage.

From here on out, the cycle continues repeating. Both sides continue collecting examples and influencing people until the threat becomes real and democracy starts to crumble, despite the only people who actually wanted this to happen being the few outlying examples from the first stage.

This is only a hypothesis, so it doesn’t mean anything until you start collecting data on it. Yet if it turns out to be true, one of the solutions could be to rely on religion/spirituality/philosophy instead of politics. Another solution could be to make Internet posts that highlight the positive potential that opposing political wings can achieve if only they don’t act like the worst examples of themselves.

So go out and test this hypothesis. Look up academic findings, network with members of Nonmonetized Together, research cases and compare them to each other, communicate with people from different walks of life, and attend events.

If you’re too tired to do this, let me know in the comments. If I get one of these responses, I will participate in this research too. I will not only keep notes of the information I collect, but my entire research-gathering process, so you will see what I did that led up to finding the information, as well as research attempts that did not bring up anything useful. Don’t wait for somebody else to tell me they’re tired; most of my articles get either zero or one comments.

Exciting, right? Now start learning!

#Activity #Research #Theory #LeftWing #RightWing


Article also available at

Nonmonetized Together is a place where people can think ponder their worldview and develop a greater understanding of themselves. This article is no different.

I’ve put together eight questions for readers to ask themselves. Probably only some of the questions will apply to each reader. There are three positive outcomes that this can achieve:

a) You teach me that a question is inaccurate or missing key information.

b) You keep the previous belief that the question is asking about, but expand it so that it now accounts for the factors mentioned in the question. This would result in a more educated and persuasive argument than what you had before.

c) You change your mind after considering the question.

There is one not-so-positive outcome this article can achieve, and that would be if you already considered the points I bring up, therefore waste their time by reading the article. I welcome all four options equally because I gave up on having political views a while ago. I’m here to provide an online environment where you can be encouraged to encounter any of the four outcomes.

Okay, here are the questions:

1. Have you considered that by framing abortion as a women’s issue and not a family issue, you’re describing childcare choices as something only women can do?

2. Why would you assume all affirmative action hires people based off their identity and not their suitability for the job? Maybe some affirmative action initiatives can focus on the most suitable applicants from each race, gender, sexuality, and disability.

3. If you made a big fuss about YouTube dislikes getting removed but not about YouTube removing comments from videos on “Topic” channels, why?

4. Why are you so concerned about “cancel culture” when back in the day, you would understand that you can’t please everybody? (This might be a good question for @lanajthomas)

5. You do realize that shutting down sexuality-switching sessions only helps those who are fine with their current sexuality, right? Not people who want to change it.

6. When somebody calls your theory racist, why do you choose to take it personally instead of as feedback on the weaknesses of your theory?

7. Why do you expect AI to compensate you for influencing its output when human artists don’t compensate you for influencing them?

8. What makes you think that you can convince people with harmful ideologies to change their mind if you don’t even let them speak on your platform?

I hope you had fun expanding your perspectives! And before you comment, remember, this is a #svalien space, which means you are free to not let your political orientation limit your ability to do things such as supporting your side’s sacrificial lambs, forcing everybody into predefined groups, and more. Read here to find out.

#PersonalGrowth #ReaderCentred #Thinking #Questions #List


Does getting in a political Internet argument throw the rest of your day off course? Are you stuck deciding between the anxiety of staying silent and the anxiety of participating in the argument? Ladies and gentlemen, I have found a way to approach politics that might actually address your needs.

Here’s the idea. In the comments section for the article on this link, one of you readers can answer the question, “what political movement concerns you and why?” Then another person can respond to that comment and explain why that person doesn’t need to be concerned. This way, the focus of the argument can be focused on using politics to provide comfort and security to others.

Please remember, this doesn’t mean you should invalidate the commenters’ concerns or make them feel misunderstood. The commenters’ worries should be approached as legitimate. Even if it isn’t legitimate to you, it’s legitimate to them, and may be emotionally or mentally painful for them. Moreover, these fears won’t just go away if the commenters are told they’re not real. By approaching politics this way, I hope that this will promote empathy and solidarity for people with different viewpoints.

Now let’s take Internet discussion to its full potential!

#Politics #Discussion #Support #OnlineCommunication #PoliticalDiscussion


You can also read this article at

Update: I no longer use the term #svalien to describe this, I use the term “the context that isn’t limited in the same way as the political context.”

Definition of #Svalien

It’s a marker I invented to let everyone know that you don’t need to be constrained by politics when you’re on Nonmonetized Together. The community operates in a social context where you can be free from the limitations that your political role imposes upon you. Other activists are encouraged to make their own #svalien online communities to help restore a sense of hope among viewers.

Why, though?

I’m giving you the opportunity to get away with behaviours that would otherwise be viewed as politically self-destructive. This is one of the strategies I use to keep Nonmonetized Together a place with minimal influence from the outside world’s current unequal power structure. In this article, I’ll start by giving five reasons why #svalien spaces could be valuable and useful. Then, I will explain my strategies for achieving those goals and answer some other questions you may have about #svalien.

Reason 1: So you can work to achieve the same political goal with fewer sacrificial lambs

Politics is all about strategically allocating limited resources to achieve political goals. For a government to invest more in achieving a certain goal, they have to cut funding for other areas of society. Or when the government is changing laws, there are a limited number of people these laws can appeal to. Because of these restrictions, all political ideologies have sacrificial lambs — segments of the population who lose out from these ideologies gaining power.

Image from Jon Tyson/Unsplash

Sacrificial lambs are a necessary but unfortunate component in society. The best you can do to lessen the consequences of sacrificial lambs is to tell the lambs not to take the politics personally. Not only does this interpretation make things easier for everybody but it’s also more accurate — sacrificial lambs are a natural consequence of the democratic system, merely unlucky enough to be on the losing side of society. Yet promoting this reality will be problematic in the real world because of the aforementioned limited resources that political sides compete over. Personal attacks allow political interests to use their resources more efficiently.

This reality extends to most of the Internet, despite the fact that the Internet allows you to send public messages without needing to consider as many risk factors as would the government. But social media is also used as a tool by politicians, organizations, and influencers to extend their political reach, and of course their online messages have to be consistent with the messages they communicate in other formats. This means that the power dynamics of the offline world are replicated onto the online world. To change these norms concerning sacrificial lambs, there needs to be an online place that isolates itself from these power interests, and that’s what Nonmonetized Together promises to achieve.

You can use Nonmonetized Together to support your political orientation’s sacrificial lambs while attacking them outside of Nonmonetized Together. This would not be hypocritical because success through Nonmonetized Together means following different rules than the rules for achieving political success. For once and for all, I’m giving you the chance to interact with sacrificial lambs without feeling threatened by them. This may allow you to learn new things about them. If enough of these interactions occur, we might be able to reduce the fallout caused by political upheaval … by a tiny amount, at least.

Sebastian Herrmann/Unsplash

Reason 2: So you don’t have to group people in categories they don’t belong

Politics only thrives when it places people in broad categories. “Family values” can mean many different things, but when it becomes politicised as “pro-family values,” it typically only means one thing. Same thing with LGBT+ rights and “pro-LGBT+ rights” organizations. Liberal, conservative, and leftist are also broad categories, and a political party will usually identify with one of those three options instead of the subcategories that more accurately reflect people’s beliefs. This way, a political party can get 50% of the votes despite taking firm policy stances on ten different controversial issues.

Categorization benefits politicians because it encourages conformity, even when group members don’t feel like they completely belong. Categorization also allows politicians to pretend that they speak for an entire demographic of people — something that’s good for their public image but obviously untrue. There are variations in every group. For example, on his campaign website, Donald Trump aligns his interests with that of law enforcement, military veterans, and those who feel censored. Joe Biden doesn’t yet have a section on his campaign website where he highlights his plan, but in his recent tweets, he claims he is on same side as immigrants from Muslim countries, those struggling with student debt, and Tribal communities. But what about people in law enforcement who are struggling with student debt, or tribe members who feel censored?

Before Nonmonetized Together, these people would struggle to have their perspectives heard and would be given less support by society. If that sounds like you, your lived experience can now get some recognition from a community centred on finding solutions, inspiration, and knowledge. Another thing is that on Nonmonetized Together, there’s not that dynamic I mentioned earlier about needing to hold on to your resources, so you don’t have much to lose by acknowledging underserved populations on Nonmonetized Together. Compare that to the outside world where it’s usually less risky to pretend that reality is simpler than it is.

Reason 3: So people can feel comfortable sharing subversive views with the community

Some viewpoints, such as socialism or transformative anti-colonialism, don’t sit well with those in power, because they require people to let go of things they have developed a strong attachment to, and because they deal with concepts that are very uncomfortable to address. Because these beliefs are a tough sell to politicians, they are not well-suited to the “rules of the game” of politics. Many people who have subversive views have to tone them down to something more mainstream whenever they participate in the political sphere. Otherwise, they go nowhere.

I try to make Nonmonetized Together a place where people can feel comfortable sharing these ideas, but only if they want to. Really what I’m aiming for is a respectful community with diverse views. By making sure this blog avoids dominant power relations, I can remove the need for Nonmonetized Together users to appease people in power.

Reason 4: So people can present and interpret counterarguments as something to benefit from

It’s problematic to view the personal as political because then you will interact with people like a politician. An example of this is on social media, where counterarguments are used — and generally interpreted — as something that someone deploys to boost their own ego. Politicians behave this way because it’s part of their job, but this is not a socially responsible way for other people to behave. On Nonmonetized Together, I’m trying to create an alternative culture where counterarguments are instead used to benefit the person they are directed to.

Hector J Rivas/Unsplash

Reason 5: So you can have a non-political discussion about oft-politicized topics *Does not apply to Nonmonetized Together*

I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing for ordinary people to be politically conscious, but sometimes those discussions are not what you’re looking for. Sometimes you just want to talk about transgender people, vaccinations, or an at-war country from a completely innocuous perspective. Now, I don’t think Nonmonetized Together is the right place for that, but I suppose this could be an idea for other #svalien online spaces.

How should I refer to this publication in everyday communication?

This publication should still be referred to as Nonmonetized Together in everyday communication. The hashtag is supposed to be kind of like a verification symbol. I actually wanted to put it in the description but there wasn’t enough space except in the publication’s “notes from the editor.”

Does the word svalien mean anything?

No, I just find it catchy, coming from an English-speaking perspective. It’s just the word “alien” with the rarely-used letter combination “sv” added to it. Same reason why the Nonmonetized Together logo consists only of the colour pink. It’s simple and recognizable.

Strategies I will use to achieve this

· Correct people who use this platform incorrectly. When a commenter uses a tactic that is more appropriate for politics than Nonmonetized Together, I will tell them about Nonmonetized Together’s social context and how it affects their tactic. I will mention their tactic and their goal by name, and say that while their tactic may be suitable for their goal in most social contexts, the tactic would not help them achieve their goal on Nonmonetized Together, and that different strategies may be more useful. If this situation ever happens, being polite will be crucial because I will have to convey to the commenter that I wasn’t expecting them to understand everything about Nonmonetized Together. In fact, the only methods I have for keeping readers updated about Nonmonetized Together are either to answer people’s questions about it, or to respond to comments that get something wrong about Nonmonetized Together.

Edge2Edge Media/Unsplash

· Swearing off politics. In 2020, I decided that everybody would be better off if I didn’t have political beliefs, so I trained my mind to disregard my previous political opinions. Three years later, I’m no longer interested in competing for my political self-interest. I would rather enjoy my life for what it is and give you opportunities for achievement. I also find Christianity more satisfying than politics. Politics and Christianity are like two sides of the same coin. They’re both value systems but are complete opposites otherwise. Politics is all about competition, power, and ego while Christianity is supposed to be about co-operation, wisdom, and humility (there are a lot of people who appropriate religion for political purposes though, but the two are supposed to be separate). So right now, religion is a big goal for me, not politics. Even though most of my articles are not overtly religious, I feel like I’m doing a service to God by presenting a collaborative space that functions as an alternative to politics. That, instead of political competition, is what motivates me and gives me meaning in my life.

· Holding individuals accountable, not groups. This means that when I can, I should describe people in my articles as individuals, not as a member of a group. Depending on what’s appropriate for the situation, I can refer to them by username, real name, fake name, or no name at all, but not as an anonymous member of a group. I should refer to them like I do in this article. With the grown-ups in charge assigning blame to entire groups of people, it’s all too easy to forget that these groups aren’t identical clones of each other. Nonmonetized Together is here to resist this practice and describe people as people. I think presenting stories this way can help people view issues as they are without delving into identity politics. This might also make it easier for the people in these articles to come across Nonmonetized Together’s post on them, which would probably result in a significant positive influence on the issue that was being written about.

· Opening new avenues of thought in the comment section. If someone ever hijacks this community and uses it to fuel the political machine, I can respond to their comments not by discussing the same things everybody else has been arguing in circles about, but by making comments that open the very mental faculties they are trying to close. Since the person I’m talking with would technically be an Internet troll, I wouldn’t be too bothered if I don’t convince them of anything — I would mainly be writing for the readers, not for the trolls. The goal is to prevent readers from getting caught up in unproductive forms of political thought.

Antonio Janeski/Unsplash

· Implementing commenter’s suggestions. Nonmonetized Together isn’t my blog, it’s our blog. If you have any suggestions for Nonmonetized Together, let me know in the comment section so I can implement them. By making it easy to share your suggestions with me, this can help make the hunger of power irrelevant within the community. I haven’t had any suggestions yet (other than one deleted comment), but I will implement your suggestions as long as they are practical and they achieve their purpose. If I don’t think your suggestion will work, I won’t put it in place, but I will respond to your comment and tell you why.

· Researching claims that commenters make. Distributing misinformation can result in gaining huge political power. If I can’t verify user’s claims, I’ll ask them for verification. Until I get some sort of confirmation from the commenter, I will put a warning in the article so the readers are aware that the claims are unverified. An example of this would be my discussion with Turi Sue in the comment section for this article.

· Trying not to write articles from a position of authority. I want the author-reader power dynamic to be equal. In this article, I use the words “might” and “may” to indicate that the suggestions could possibly work, not that they would probably work. The article also gives the reader opportunities to decide for themselves what’s best for them. For example, at one point, I write, “This may not be the best idea, so I hope people who read this article can collaborate so they can make a better one.” I also ask, “Do you have any ideas for techniques to research information outside of AI’s influence?” I have noticed I’m not always great at sounding nonauthoritative in my writing, but that’s something I can improve on.

· Not monetizing the articles. This will bring the focus back to knowledge production, not money production. Trading knowledge for knowledge is more equal than trading money for knowledge.

· Not giving claps. Sometime maybe a few months ago, I decided I will no longer give claps to comments and posts on Nonmonetized Together articles. Other readers can, but as the creator of Nonmonetized Together, it could be a conflict of interest if I clapped.

· Being patient with the commenters. I give them as many chances as they need to explain themselves clearly. I can also start comments with something like, “let me know if I understand correctly.”

Priscilla Du Preez/Unsplash

· Targeting my responses toward all readers. Even when it seems like I’m responding to one person, I have to remember that there could be other people reading the response. I try to consider how this comment could be useful to them and inspire them to come up with ideas for positive change.

· Not using weaponized trigger words.

· Using straightforward language to avoid unnecessary conflict.

· Free speech with consequences. Yes, people have the legal right to behave unfairly, but that also means that I have the legal right to behave fairly by undoing the damage they caused. There are a few ways I can do this. The simplest option is to warn others about a user’s unacceptable behaviour. There is also the option of not responding to the harmful comments directly, but by responding to the comment as if it was undamaging, whether that be by jumping through obvious mental hoops or by slightly changing the comment’s wording. Yet unlike much of the “political” Internet, this isn’t to cause damage or create drama, but to treat the community fairly. Like I said, I can’t stop everybody online from being an unfair person (restricting their speech doesn’t change anything), but I can reduce the damage by being fair.

· Instead of telling someone their argument is wrong, telling them what is missing from their argument. People spend so much time complaining about the other political side but very little time figuring out how the opposition could be a better version of itself. This is because promoting encouragement is not compatible with the political field. Yet on Nonmonetized Together, it’s normalized to help others develop their arguments, so now everyone can benefit from political discourse. Instead of burning society to the ground, you can phrase your argument in a way that appeals to them.

· Keeping track of unsolved community issues and what needs to be done for them to be solved. This way, I can focus on making sure this community delivers on its mission.

· Allowing anyone an opportunity for redemption, but only if they write an apology piece. For them to be redeemed, this piece MUST show that they understand why their actions are wrong. It also MUST list a specific plan for what they will do in the future for them to not cause the same problems. When people don’t give others a chance to redeem themselves, they are no longer fighting for a cause, they are fighting against others. I don’t want Nonmonetized Together to be a place to attack people. I want it to be a place to attack problems in society.

· Only block users from the community if their behaviour is getting out-of-control. For example if users are actually causing people to feel unsafe or if there is a large-scale trolling attempt. Nonmonetized Together is supposed to be a place to actually find solutions to problems in the world. This sometimes requires some of the ugly parts of society to be shown. But, it does not require sickos to take over the community spreading fear and trauma.

· Not using “mentally ill” as an excuse to shut people down. Also, making sure other people here are not doing so. This article explains how I will create a culture where “mentally ill” refers only to is original meaning.

Helena Lopes/Unsplash

· Being careful where I work. I cannot work at a job that is too political or else I may be coerced into removing its #svalien context. If readers ever find where I work, I want them to feel comfortable with the knowledge so that it won’t create a conflict of interest.

· Only existing on certain websites. Nonmonetized Together is not appropriate for members-only websites because I want anybody to be able to access them. It also has to be on a website where I can create my own environment, so nothing like X or Facebook where all public posts are all tossed together in a “for you” page. What I mean by this is a website where you have to click on an article to read it and it will appear on a new page. This could help keep Nonmonetized Together safe from people who don’t want anything to do with us. And finally, it has to be in a long-form format so people don’t feel the need to distort the truth by condensing it. That being said, you’re free to make your own #svalien community on other websites. I’m just saying there are good reasons Nonmonetized Together is only on Medium and

· Pointing out the positives of comments that are completely wrong. Even if they’re so wrong that you think, “that person has no hope.” Well, by finding a strength to their comment, I can at least provide some direction in their life. If I only mention everything negative about their posts without saying something good, maybe it will alienate them from Nonmonetized Together, as well as further society, and will cause them to degrade in weirdo onlone echo chambers. If I mention positives, Nonmonetized Together can be the place that breaks this feedback loop. Also, when I point out positive aspects to bad comments, it lets other people know that I’m open to what they say and that I’m not just dismissing whatever they say. This would let people know that all they need to do is fix up their comment.

· Apologizing if a user is giving someone a hard time and reiterating the troublesome comment in a nicer way. Hopefully, this can help kill the toxic discussion and turn the conversation into something valuable for readers and participants.

Tim Mossholder/Unsplash

#Manifesto #Society #Politics #Internet #Svalien