Yahoo! Contributor Network Internet Censorship October 2012

Well. I knew the day would come when what was once an amazing writing outlet passed away. All amazing things pass away. Perhaps that's part of the allure of the amazing, it seems eternal until it fades (as all things do). You may wonder at the cryptics, the seemingly coy conversation starter, but fear not, I shall explain.

I realized it had been some time since I last submitted anything to the Yahoo! Contributor Network. I've got 91 pieces published through their site. I fancy stopping at 100. Now, some of the pieces are a testament to my status as a novice freelancer and were originally published by AssociatedContent.com.

AssociatedContent.com was an incredible place full of user generated articles, creative writing pieces, product reviews, etc. They had a fairly simple payout plan and an openness, an equal place for equal voices. Fellow content producers (CPs) acted as peer reviewers, part-time editors, concerned users flagged articles, private messaged or commented to the author about the quality, accuracy, or some line that resonated (whether good or bad).

In the beginning AC was unique. It was a place for liberated users to create a library, a database of thoughts from around the world. When I first joined (September 2007), AC didn't offer payments to people living outside the U.S. But, it wasn't about payment as much as platform. Don't get me wrong, payment is important, even so, writers don't write for money. They write because words are their life's blood, if they don't write they'll die. (Maybe I'm melodramatic, I'm a writer). Payment just helps them eat.

A writer today, writing online, can make decent money, if they can quickly pop out hundreds of 400 word articles on the most mundane subjects known to human kind. AC was a dual layered platform offering the article poppers a place to make residual income on their work and a place for creative writers to also make residual income on their work. AC offered upfront payments for certain types of non-fiction work (for article poppers), though the nominal payments weren't usually enough to compensate for the legwork.

I knew early on that if AC became successful enough the risk of buy-out would rise exponentially. I also knew that buy-out generally came at the expense of platform. Things always change when new ownership arrives. It's the golden rule of corporate buy-out politics: Find something that is awesome, then buy it out, change it up, mutate/destroy the awesome, and drag it out until nothing is left, then discard the damaged awesome. Rinse and repeat, in the name of profits.

When I found out that Yahoo! was poised to purchase Associated Content, I was emotionally confused. On the one hand, Yahoo's interest gave a legitimacy to AC that wasn't really there before. On the other hand, Yahoo was a different type of site, catering to a different audience. I wanted to be excited for AC, for the other content producers (CPs), for myself as a CP. Even so, I couldn't get excited. I knew. Yahoo was a large conglomerate already branded with a specific type of audience in mind. Buying out AC offered quick access to countless "quality" CPs and countless "non-quality" CPs. The first order of business would be renaming the site, the second order would be converting/synching the systems, and the third order would be weeding out the "non-quality" CPs (a two-step process involving changes in the submission guidelines and introduction of content editors). Technically, these orders of business could be done in whatever order fit Yahoo's interests.

Well, suffice it to say that the Yahoo! Contributor Network (formerly AssociatedContent.com) changed their name, switched AC's CPs to the Yahoo! platform, altered the submissions guidelines, and added content editors (not necessarily in that order). Thus, they began the process of weeding out those CPs they felt were "non-quality" or not suitable for Yahoo! Contributor Network. In this process, they also began the heavy-handed task of internet censorship.

I have a confession. Some of you may be taken aback. Others will just nod in understanding. I cuss. I swear. I curse. I use profanity. I'm a recovering sailor. I do not use profanity in every single piece I write. I do use profanity in the appropriate places within my writings. For example: Should a character in a story stub their toe, the realistic response would be: "Fuck! That hurt."

As a realist, I capture reality. Unfortunately, reality doesn't bode well with censorship. Thus, while I wrote for AC (uncensored), I was able to produce content like: Foul Language, Cursing, and Swearing are All Parts of Speech. (This article is part of the AC archives that were transferred to Yahoo!). Unfortunately, pieces like this are no longer possible on Yahoo! Contributor Network. This article would have been declined during the submission process because of "vulgar language."

This weekend I submitted two poems. One had no cuss words, the other had "shit". Both poems were initially "declined" by the editor(s). The poem without vulgarity had no feedback/reasoning for why it was rejected. For that poem, I added a keyword tag to the keyword section, additionally I added a period and capitalized the word following the period. I resubmitted and the poem was published immediately. Since there was no feedback, I can only guess why it was declined (I suspect SEO/keywords). You can read the newly published poem at the following link: Aching, for One Whole Minute.

The second poem (with "shit" in it), I have deleted from the Yahoo! Contributor Network submission process. They asked me to remove the "vulgar language" and resubmit. However, I refuse to be censored. I'd rather delete the poem from their platform, than to change a single word. I will find another outlet for that particular poem. I believe the only time my poetry (or other work) should be edited is when there is a blatant error. The word "shit" was intentional, thus no error, thus no change will occur.

For your amusement, here is a picture of the decline notice:

Yahoo! Contributor Network declines Finley's poem "Unseen Future Unfolding" for "vulgar language" 28 Oct 2012

And, for your reading pleasure, here is the poem I refused to change for the Yahoo! censors, I mean, editors. (Please note: I do not harbor animosity towards Yahoo! Contributor Network, nor their editors. My aim is to point out that censorship changes the intention of the writer and the intention of the written piece. Additionally, I'd like to highlight the point that altering a "vulgar" word compromises the integrity of the piece. In my poem, "shit" could be changed to a number of equivalent words all amounting to a stinking, steaming pile of fecal matter, none of those words capture the essence of "shit" better than the word "shit." Besides which, the act of making this change would be an admission by me that I think censorship is okay - censorship in the land of 1st Amendment rights is not okay).

Unseen Future Unfolding

While watching mytube Neil d. told me

my reflection is not present, but past.

That light travels there and back.

That light is the length of past sight

which is really now sight reflecting

past view. If, then, we each seek the past,

perhaps it is because we can only see

what was before. Now—though we may

be deep in it—is really the unseen future

unfolding around us, and we, though

super computers, can see but a second ago.

Space-time, then, limits our abilities to see

Now for what is truly there. We can

surmise, we can assume, we can project,

we can even prophesize. None of which

changes the sick beauty found in the reality

that we are inherently designed to see

the immediate past and to make assumptive

and presumptive decisions regarding the

immediate future based on that past view. 

We strive and drive forward with the urge

to live Now. But, we are bombarded by the past.

So much so, that many try living in denial, as if

past never happened and future doesn’t exist.

I think sometimes: Is it a sickness? An ailment?

Some sort of “I don’t give a shit” disease?

I couldn’t be happier that Neil broke it down.

It explains such as could never be explained.

It explains how and why even though some deny,

they repeat, verbatim, like their playbook

came from the first game ever played

on a SAP waiting to be taken into slavery.

All they see is the past. All we see is the past.

Not the long ago. Not, eons, nor ages.

But, seconds, maybe minutes. Well, I take

that back. When we look at the stars we see

explosions from ages, or eons, that long,

long ago. Don’t we dream while we look?

Hope while we stare? And for that instance,

when we zoom so far back we can’t fathom

the timeline, is that not when we know the future?

~Monique Finley
10-14-2012

September 2012 Helium.com Contest submissions

Alright y'all! Here's my submissions to the Helium.com Creative Writing Flash Fiction Contest Sept 2012.

As always, please enjoy!

Still Awake
http://www.helium.com/items/2372091-keeping-awake

In Dreams
http://www.helium.com/items/2372614-in-dreams

Sleep Walking Dan
http://www.helium.com/items/2374219-sleep-walking-dan

Talking In Your Sleep
http://www.helium.com/items/2374214-talking-in-your-sleep

George Woke Up
http://www.helium.com/items/2374238-george-woke-up

She Was a Dream
http://www.helium.com/items/2374824-she-was-a-dream

Ever Hear of Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity"?

http://paulryan.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

Rhetoric is, in my opinion, one of the most interesting aspects to politics and to language. Every society that engages in debate will recognize a number of universal tactics. All types of rhetorical tactics are available to sway a reader, some attract, others repel. The emotional appeal is common among politicians, juveniles, and anyone not ashamed of pulling a guilt trip. The appeal to reason is common among followers of logic, practicality, and know-it-alls showing off their mental prowess. As you may guess, I like to employ both, depending on the subject matter. Many other rhetorical tactics exist, but they're outside the scope of this blog post; I'm sure if one were to google "rhetorical tactics" a plethora of information would appear on their browser. I mention the emotional appeal and the appeal to reason on account of Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity.

Perhaps you've heard of it? I hadn't. However, I thought it would be good to do a little checking on mister vice-presidential hopeful Rep. Paul Ryan. And, that's when I stumbled upon his budget proposal. I thought, let's see what this Wisconsin Congressman has to say about fixing the budget. I began to read the web .pdf (see link above). He opens each section with an emotional appeal thinly disguised as an appeal to reason. It's amazing to read each section as if it were created from a template.

Step 1: Historio-emotional appeal using "American traditional values" (over the last 30 years...);
Step 2: Numerical facts as an appeal to logic; thinly veiled emotional appeal to "incomprehensible numbers"  (ie. $554 Billion; $15 Trillion);
Step 3: "Problem" reiteration as obvious solution and appeal to reason  (emotional transference, finger-pointing game; blame problem then remove current "solution");
Step 4: "Problem" reiteration infused with pro-tradition commentary (read as "nostalgia for Golden Era") as closing appeal.

New section? No problem...Rinse and repeat. Go ahead, scroll down through Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity.  What patterns do you discern in each section?

His every "solution" would take away from those without, while doing nothing to actually address the budget crisis.

You want to address the budget? Start charging corporations and the wealthy their fair share in taxes. Income earnings are earnings whether you worked 80 hrs or bought the right stocks. Quit giving outrageous chunks of taxpayer money to corporations that have more wealth than multiple governments combined, they don't fucking need money -  they already have it. Scrap medicaid? How about all congressional employees including the president get on medicaid and then cut the congressional healthcare coverage (an expensive and redundant program)? Oh, and  rather than paying these congress people whatever they choose to pay themselves, how about we reduce their pay to the minimum wage in their home states? Save taxpayers countless billions over the lifetime of the Republic. Besides, if it's good enough for the American people, it is good enough for our leaders, who are part of and servants to US.

Speaking of saving the Republic money over its lifetime, how about we scrap the lifetime pay benefits accrued through service in congress? One term in congress and the paychecks roll on. Wait, what? Yes, one term and the pay checks keep coming. Let's put a stop to that. Additionally, congressional welfare recipients ought to be drug tested before, during, and after taking office, pop positive and lose all benefits. Life-time secret service for ex-congress? Why? They know American secrets? They could be used as tools for terrorists? Why not put them in witness protection and save tax payers the money? No one is kidnapping Bob Dole, waiter.

Besides, if its good enough for the average person hiding from the mafia, it's good enough to hide a few congress people from potential terrorists. If they want to stay in the lime-light after office, they can hire body guards as a tax deductible business expense given their decision to chase fame is a business choice. The American people shouldn't be required to take fiscal responsibility for congressional people desiring the spotlight.

Public servants caught embezzling, misappropriating, or otherwise stealing from the American treasury ought to be whipped on the steps of the Jefferson monument then sent to prison...actual maximum security prison and not minimum security resort prison. In prison, they would then lose all the benefits of having served in congress and gain all the benefits of a felon serving 10-20 for defrauding the American people. Let us not forget the benefits of Bubba - just tell him the congress person molested young America and watch what happens.

We'd be doing far better for our country to hold these traitors to the standards they set for us, than we would be to listen to any more of their fiscal plans. Ryan's budget plan reads like the road to map to hell as dictated by that electronic chick GPS voice that takes us down every construction bottleneck in the country. Want to extend the years we feel the pains of this first global depression of the 21st century? Then vote for Romney and Ryan and let them enact this medieval plan. Like Chicken Little, you'll all be screaming, "The sky is falling!" while ducking under your cardboard boxes and kissing your chubby yet malnourished asses goodbye.