Photo from Sarah Ardin/Unsplash

Article also available at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/protecting-ourselves-from-totalitarian-movements-on-the-internet-c1fcad23db63.

What This Article Is About

Nonmonetized Together – an environment on Medium and write.as that promotes open dialogue, empowerment, personal development, and access to knowledge. A place where nobody is under pressure to be perfect. A world where you can take a breather from the political chaos on the rest of the Internet, where you can listen to and learn from each other instead of dunking on each other. A space where articles are phrased in a way that makes them useful for participants in a variety of ways, depending on each participant’s worldview.

But what if a Nonmonetized Together visitor’s worldviews involve forcefully taking these experiences away from people? How can participants successfully defend themselves from these movements while staying true to the values of Nonmonetized Together?

This is a topic we absolutely need to discuss because I believe that ordinary people deserve the same privileges as academic sociologists, but this would require the use of methods designed to prevent tyranny and hate. Firstly, anybody who tries to use Nonmonetized Together to silence opposition using force will be banned immediately. I’ll call these movements “first-degree totalitarianism.” But what about someone who is in favour of totalitarian ideas but also willing to act fairly on Nonmonetized Together? In this case, the goal would be to allow this person to participate the community while being careful that they don’t escalate into first-degree totalitarianism. Note that a movement doesn’t need to promote totalitarian beliefs to use first-degree totalitarian methods.

In this article, you and I will come up with ideas to prevent first-degree totalitarianism from taking over Nonmonetized Together. The ideas I will share are untested, so I’m going to run them by you and see what you think. Then, if I get a chance, I will try them out to see if they work. These ideas will be presented in a special format I created where I present the background info first, then the idea, then the supporting evidence. This will be done to prevent people from misinterpreting the background info as supporting evidence and vice versa.

Get Involved

Viktor Forgacs/Unsplash

But before I begin describing them, you should know that I would also love to hear your ideas on how to overcome totalitarianism. You might want to read up on Nonmonetized Together so you can get a sense of whether it is the best place to implement your plans. Or if you want, you can just wing it and not read up on us. Either way, I will send you a response telling you whether Nonmonetized Together can implement your plans and why/why not.

Here are some articles that can help guide your understanding of the community (choose whatever article you feel like reading):

(About Our Blog) Tired of Internet Drama and Fakeness? This Community Can Help With That.

8 Things I Can Only Do Here On Nonmonetized Together.

Why I Added #Svalien to the Nonmonetized Together Title.

How This Online Community Fights Against the Stigma of Mental Illness.

Worried About Political Interests On Nonmonetized Together?

This Common Internet Practice Embodies Most of the Worst (Legal) Aspects of Internet Culture.

This Blog’s Comment Sections Will Make You Feel Significant.

Check Out This Brand-New Social Media Metric.

Keep in mind that Nonmonetized Together is a community based off of norms, not rules, so nothing in the above articles are set in stone. This means that if you see a Nonmonetized Together guideline that presents a problem for implementing your anti-totalitarian ideas, you can try writing a comment that makes a case for the guideline to be changed. If you can show that your ideas can be successful in relation to Nonmonetized Together’s context, I can update the norms to include your ideas. But just because a discursive strategy is successful in the greater society or the political sphere, doesn’t mean it will be successful on Nonmonetized Together. The strategies that are useful here are different.

Background info for idea #1:

See introduction.

Idea #1:

Anybody who uses Nonmonetized Together to forcefully silence opposition and/or spread information designed to create unrest will be banned immediately once we find out.

Supporting evidence for idea #1:

We need users to feel that first-degree totalitarian methods are counterproductive on Nonmonetized Together. By having zero tolerance for these methods, Nonmonetized Together can achieve its goal of being an environment that makes up for the unequal power relations in the greater society. Totalitarianism, on the other hand, causes inequality. By protecting itself from totalitarian movements, Nonmonetized Together allows users to share and receive information that could give members strength and agency.

Background info for idea #2:

Nonmonetized Together has its own unique set of norms, different than that of the rest of social media, and painstakingly designed to promote responsible free speech without falling into the same traps that ruined other free-speech websites. By operating on norms instead of rules, any Nonmonetized Together user gets to interact in a way that directly transforms the existing norms that have gotten society in this deep mess of stressful unproductive discussion. This makes it possible for a non-totalitarian to share knowledge that can challenge a supporter (not actor) of totalitarianism without either person feeling threatened enough to retaliate.

In my attempt to create new norms that can allow Internet users to create a better future, I have studied social media discussions for hundreds of hours, wondering how they could have been handled better. My autism allows me to pinpoint problematic social behaviour that most people take for granted. On top of that, the autism supports I received growing up allowed me to realize the importance of providing personalized support to people who want to do things right but who fail to do so. I am motivated by the possibility that there may not be another chance for people to band together and make a better Internet. Without Nonmonetized Together, our future could be in the hands of whoever can make people the most anxious about the future.

Idea #2:

Because of this context, nobody who states support of totalitarian ideas will be removed from the community without them doing first-degree totalitarianism.

Supporting evidence for idea #2:

This allows anti-totalitarians to take advantage of the fact that unlike the rest of the Internet, this is a safe social landscape devoted to listening and learning, and anti-totalitarians can use that to engage in dialogue that could point totalitarians to safer paths. By understanding the suffering that totalitarian beliefs inflict on totalitarians, anti-totalitarians can encourage peace and tolerance in a way that totalitarians will understand. Participants may receive direct knowledge from a totalitarian about what caused them to take such extreme approaches, and since this is an environment based off listening and learning, we can use this information to solve the issues that led people to choose totalitarianism. These opportunities just aren’t available elsewhere on the mainstream Internet due to censorship, as well as the fact that most people on the Internet would rather act hysterical than try to get along with each other. However, Nonmonetized Together uses free speech to resist radicalization instead of welcoming radicalization, so I hope that we won’t get censored by Medium or write.as.

I’m aware that free speech has contributed to online radicalization in the past, but I also realize that if I block and ignore viewpoints that need improvement, then I’ll just be shifting the responsibility of handling these problems to future generations. And if we continue to ignore the problem, then these generations will be more powerless than present generations, and will have a harder time fighting against these movements! By blocking and ignoring totalitarian ideas, society is leaving it up to totalitarians to solve the problem on their own. Guys, society’s putting fascists in charge of ending fascism! And people wonder why many of us feel unsafe.

Background info for idea #3:

A movement can use first-degree totalitarian methods to promote non-totalitarian messages. Nonmonetized Together is committed to wiping out all first-degree totalitarianism completely.

Idea #3:

I want to hold all first-degree totalitarian movements to the same standards regardless of the movement’s message.

Supporting info for idea #3:

If Nonmonetized Together readers think that I am being partial to one group of people, this could lead to unnecessary conflict. To avoid this, I will hold everyone to the same standards.

Background info for idea #4:

Here on Nonmonetized Together, nobody benefits from forces of power. Community members instead benefit from respect, listening, and fairness.

How do I manage this? By only approving articles that set a tone of cooperativity and solutions, making the comment section mostly free speech, and then guiding the conversations into more productive directions when things go awry. By doing this, I can implicitly set norms and standards for readers’ responses, and these norms and standards can be more civil than that of the rest of the Internet. This means that while a reader can have the freedom to reply what they want, I can set a precedent as to how they comment and for what purpose, without being forceful about it.

The most important goal on Nonmonetized Together is to accurately understand what people are trying to say. We just need to say exactly what we mean and make sure readers know that. We can do this by explaining our points clearly, logically, and literally enough to erase any concerns of double meaning. We can start comments with “let me know if I understand correctly…” and then clarify. To avoid conflict, we can start off our responses by finding common ground with the other person before getting into disagreements.

Idea #4:

When I see someone who says something in favour of totalitarianism without using first-degree totalitarianism, I will tell the commenter even though they may feel the need to use first-degree totalitarianism in the outside world, that need will never be as strong as on Nonmonetized Together. I will use the information in this idea’s background to explain how this is done, and then I will invite the totalitarian to discuss the issues that pushed them in that direction, so we can actually work towards solving these problems.

Supporting evidence for idea #4:

If somebody goes down the wrong trail and gets lost, you don’t let that person fend for themselves, you need to contact them. Same thing here. You can’t expect to solve societal problems by leaving the problem up to the person who is causing them. We need to put politics aside, form alliances with these people, and give each one a chance to explain their situation, so none of them have to use violence or threats to find a solution.

Background info for idea #5:

Nonmonetized Together has its own unique set of norms, different than that of the rest of social media, and painstakingly designed to promote responsible free speech without falling into the same traps that ruined other free-speech websites. By operating on norms instead of rules, any Nonmonetized Together user gets to interact in a way that directly transforms the existing norms that have gotten society in this deep mess of stressful unproductive discussion. This makes it possible for a non-totalitarian to share knowledge that can challenge a supporter (not actor) of totalitarianism without either party feeling threatened enough to retaliate.

One way you can show a user that you’re not out to get them is to be grateful whenever one of them notices a hole in your logic. Eagerly view it as a tool for growth. This may allow them to see you’re being cooperative, not competitive. Even if they’re wrong about there being a hole in your logic, you don’t need to get defensive. You can correct them, but you can tell them you appreciate their effort.

Idea #5:

When using Nonmonetized Together to communicate with others, you might want to try showing them that you’re not out to get them.

Supporting evidence for idea #5:

It’s very important that Nonmonetized Together is a non-confrontational environment. This can be achieved by acting non-confrontational. By reducing conflict, totalitarianism can be made unnecessary on Nonmonetized Together. If a reader makes a response that misinterprets your post as an attack, it’s best to de-escalate the situation right away. Listen, the reader probably isn’t doing this just to be mean. The reader likely made that response because they view you as a threat.

Background info for idea #6:

Where and how do we find cases of first-degree totalitarianism? We need a method that will not create fear and distrust among the community.

Idea #6:

My suggestion is to do some non-confrontational inspections wherever we see something that may suggest a first-degree totalitarian movement. This would involve asking users questions that will determine whether they are innocent or guilty.

Supporting info for idea #6:

If we word these inspections carefully, we can make it so people know we’re not trying to be aggressive. Maybe a participant can begin their comments by saying they respect the non-totalitarian parts of their post but then mention that they are “concerned” about the part that appears totalitarian, saying “I just noticed what might be a problem” with the post. Non-totalitarian participants can tell them that we want their movement to do as much as good as it can, but that there are a few things it needs to do first before the people behind the movement can start benefitting.

Background info for idea #7:

Sometimes we may run into a participant who is not interested in contributing to productive discussion or helping other participants grow. I don’t want to censor them, but I also don’t want them to turn Nonmonetized Together into a cesspool. What can we do to discourage them from contributing to the community?

Idea #7:

Maybe we can tell the troublemaker something that would scare them off from the community. By “scaring them off,” I don’t mean “say something that would make them angry”, I mean “say something that’s so honest that they would socially alienate you in response.” Ideally, it should be something about the community that they may find off-putting.

Supporting evidence for idea #7:

These people can only bring trouble to Nonmonetized Together, so don’t worry if many of them want nothing to do with us. By making responses that cause feelings of discomfort, we get to reinforce Nonmonetized Together’s nonsugarcoated identity in the process.

Conclusion

Nonmonetized Together is not for everybody. Participants need to be brave enough to investigate the cracks in society that have led some people to disturbing life pathways. But people have engineered online social spaces to create division, alienation, and paranoia, so Nonmonetized Together can use social engineering to undo the damage.

Discuss...

#Peace #Power #Communication #HateMovements #Internet

You can also view this article at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/update-im-changing-the-name-of-svalien-to-the-context-that-isn-t-limited-in-the-same-way-as-the-1871f4b5b667.

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:

https://write.as/non-monetized-together/why-i-added-svalien-to-the-nonmonetized-together-title

#Updates #CommunityUpdate #NameChange #SocialNorms #Politics

Discuss...

Article also available at https://medium.com/@non-monetized_together/8-questions-that-you-may-not-have-considered-asking-yourself-133d0ff85061?source=friends_link&sk=09755cedbad4d4f7134088e6b7ede56e.

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 being competitively political 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, not forcing everybody into predefined groups, and more. Read here to find out.

#PersonalGrowth #ReaderCentred #Thinking #Questions #List

Discuss...

What do you think of #svalien?

You can also read this article at https://medium.com/non-monetized-together/why-i-added-svalien-to-the-nonmonetized-together-title-7d7fe230f4ac.

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

If you have any other strategies or any ways of improving this list, please let me know!

· Correct people who use this platform incorrectly. When a commenter uses a tactic that is more appropriate for competitive 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 competitive politics. In 2020, I decided that everybody would be better off if I wasn’t competitively political, so I trained my mind to approach politics differently. 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 competitive politics. Competitive politics and Christianity are like two sides of the same coin. They’re both value systems but are complete opposites otherwise. Competitive 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 competitive political purposes though, but the two are supposed to be separate). So right now, religion is a big goal for me, not competitive 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 competitive 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. (edit: I now give claps to articles but not individual comments because I want to boost some conversations but give everybody an equal chance to be visible when participating in them)

· 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 competitive 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 write.as.

· 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

Discuss...