![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Very disappointed in AO3, they turn out to be more racist and in more ways than I knew about. I am trying to hold on to hope that it can be changed now that this stuff is getting more public. However, that question ( scroll to "The redacted question") was a barely disguised accusation that could have caused real harm to a real person. The only reason I can see it not getting deleted immediately with a strong look at TOS violations for the poster is to warn the target, it sounds like the whole committee saw it. Either they aren't screening things before they get that far at all (and I think they're a bit big to do things in a chat without any submission process to toss out things that don't need to be seen by the whole committee like spam or WEAPONIZED ACCUSATIONS OF CRIMES in the targets home country), or they have no sense of the responsibility they shoulder towards people who are putting themselves in danger to work with them.
They made a conscious choice to actively seek out volunteers from countries where that puts people in danger, the least they can do is show some awareness of it. The "if its dangerous for you leave" response is just shutting down the conversation. They could have outlined what AO3 is doing to mitigate that danger and shared suggestions from the volunteers who live in those countries on how they protect themselves, with a final note along the lines "and as much as we value your contributions, we understand and respect the decisions of any volunteers who need to leave for their own safety". Not "I, the perfectly safe person in another country, have decided it isn't worth the risk for you".
On the plus side Zixin's eloquent response demonstrate an understanding of both the particular issues AO3 is being asked to address in the short term and the overall value of AO3 to people around the world.
They made a conscious choice to actively seek out volunteers from countries where that puts people in danger, the least they can do is show some awareness of it. The "if its dangerous for you leave" response is just shutting down the conversation. They could have outlined what AO3 is doing to mitigate that danger and shared suggestions from the volunteers who live in those countries on how they protect themselves, with a final note along the lines "and as much as we value your contributions, we understand and respect the decisions of any volunteers who need to leave for their own safety". Not "I, the perfectly safe person in another country, have decided it isn't worth the risk for you".
On the plus side Zixin's eloquent response demonstrate an understanding of both the particular issues AO3 is being asked to address in the short term and the overall value of AO3 to people around the world.
