Thoughts on the Fanexus Application Form

[osteophage]

[Note: this post was originally made to Pillowfort on Nov 30, 2020.]

Over on a certain viewlocked post about this month's Fanexus drama, a user discussed being put off by their application form, and I remarked that I could probably write a whole post on that alone.

This is the Fanexus application form, which is for applying to join their forum "while we wait for the beta of the site to launch."

A few quick bullet points about this:

• The form tells you to provide your social media accounts. This is required.
• Twitter and Tumblr accounts are specifically requested first, followed by a separate text box for "other" accounts, "if you dont have a twitter/tumblr."
• It asks you to answer certain ideological questions about what you "believe," after just having told you that your social media is being used in order to "vet your commentary."

Those ideological questions are as follows:

Do you believe that if someone enjoys something in fiction, they must endorse it real life?

• Yes
• No

Do you feel there's exceptions to the fandom mantra "Ship and Let Ship"? ("Ship and Let Ship" is the belief that all fictional pairings have the right to exist, regardless of their in-canon relationship/preferences/ages/etc., and regardless if you like them or not.)

• Yes, there are exceptions. (Please explain below.)
• No, "Ship and Let Ship" includes all ships, no exceptions.

This establishes at least three things.

First, at base, this application indicates they're asking you to profess a certain ideological position instead of asking you to agree to certain terms of service/rules of behavior. As I have expressed elsewhere, this itself was a red flag. Instead of setting general, standardized rules like "no harassment" or "no death threats," they seem to be using this ideological litmus test as a proxy for determining if potential users are the right Type of Person. This system would make more sense for something more intentionally exclusive (or that calls for certain qualifications), but for prospective users of a regular website? It comes off as bizarre and at least a little cliquish. They are directly telling you with this form that they want to personally judge you in order to determine whether you're worthy of being let in.

Second, their criteria for the right type of person to let in are based (exclusively!) on taking sides in a specific fandom debate, presumably as a way to preempt bad behavior. To me, that exclusivity of focus suggests they either 1) haven't considered or 2) aren't as concerned about bad behavior on any other topics than this. It's as though they've got blinders on and are exclusively concerned with particular types of ship wars as the only type of problem they could possibly expect to encounter.

Third, on top of that, the particular wording of these two questions is concerning.

The first one presents you with the notion that "if someone enjoys something in fiction, they must endorse it real life," and then asks you if you agree -- yes or no. That's it. That's your set of choices there. As someone who would answer "no" to that question, I think this presents an oversimplistic treatment of the issue, and not just because it's not allowing me to personally articulate a more complex perspective. I also think it's a flawed tool for what it's ostensibly designed to suss out. Given what else we know about Fanexus and their professed commitment to "anti-censorship," it's pretty clear they're attempting to weed out those who are suspicious of certain fictional inclinations as a moral indicator. What this question design fails to account for is something other people have already noticed and even try to leverage rhetorically -- that the debate is usually fixated on some inclinations as reflective of personal character, not all. Consequently I can easily imagine someone Fanexus is trying to keep out actually answering with a "no" to this question, as there are many less controversial elements and plotlines that people generally seem to be less concerned with and less likely to read as indicative. In short, it's just too weak of a protective measure.

The second question... is much worse. To be honest with you, I don't even know how I'd answer this one. "Exist"? What do you mean, "have the right to exist"? What are you even talking about? You could have just asked me "are you okay with harassment" or whatever specific real-life behavior but instead you go asking me if ships have "rights."

On a lesser note, although that comprises the bulk of my criticism, I'm also amused at the presumed buy-in here. The question doesn't ask me if I agree with that particular "fandom mantra." It presumes I already profess to believe in it and then asks me if I make "exceptions." In order to even be legible to this question as an ideological metric, I have to express some kind of investment in shipper culture and these little sayings to begin with. That someone might not talk or think like that didn't even seem to cross their mind as a possibility worth allowing for. That someone might not even understand their subcultural jargon or have any idea what they're talking about? Inconceivable.

Why this matters, again, is that it's communicating something about their outlook on the project. In deciding what to ask their applicants (that is, after deciding to have an application process in the first place), they've demonstrated a narrow focus on one particular style of shipping debate, and they seem unwilling or incapable of thinking outside those terms, which furthers my impression of this project as a cliquish endeavor to court a particular social circle.

Looking back on the language of these questions, I'm reminded of a similar, more-indepth survey that was at least attempting to be more diligent. Here's our prior discussion of it on Pillowfort, and here's the context of where I found it -- note that post was preceded by this one, where you can find user asterosian in the replies. So between that and his own post, I recognize that he was at least trying to grapple with a little more complexity here. I respect that, and the fact that the resulting survey still didn't adequately account for people like me just goes to show how far the Fanexus version would've had left to go, even if they'd been actually trying. But I digress.

Seven months ago, a few of us discussed these and other warning signs associated with the Fanexus application process. The ideological questions seemed poorly designed, the application seems geared to exclude anyone without a preexisting social media presence, and those applicants who were rejected were not even being notified of the fact. In addition to all that, I was dismayed at the double standards of disclosure, given that the Fanexus team demands social media details from its applicants but is simultaneously insistent on remaining anonymous themselves.

Although this is now old news, I want to highlight these particular elements in order to connect the dots between these early warning signs and what we're seeing today -- accusations surfacing of harassment, manipulation, and unprofessional behavior as opposing camps emerge between those still involved with the project and those who've since quit or been ejected. Over on Twitter I've seen various users reflecting on what should be done differently "next time." So, if you like, consider this my contribution to that conversation: next time, try to identify the early signs like those being telegraphed here, in this application process, with its indications of short-sighted thinking and double standards. If your website is meant to be a general-purpose website rather than just a personal social circle of friends, if it's meant to be supportive of pursuits other than shipping, if it's meant to prevent and discourage harassment across the board as opposed to only a specific ship-focused kind, it doesn't make sense to handle it like this.