Losing the plot (or at least untangling it a bit)

Over the last month or so, I haven't done as much writing on my actual manuscript as I would have liked thanks to assignment marking deadlines, but I have been making some significant changes to the novel outline. One issue I had originally was that there were parts of the outline where I didn't really have a good idea of what I wanted to happen. As a result, these sections were either rushed and lacked adequate detail, or had 'placeholder' events that were there just to get the story from point A to point B regardless of whether those events made sense. In a similar vein - as I've complained about before - there were multiple instances of thing happening Because The Author Needs Them To rather than because they were logical things the characters would do.

After a lot of staring vacantly at my computer screen and a lot of scribbling on post-it notes, I moved some things around and had to add another chapter to try to fix those problems, only to discover that something else that was important doesn't really fit anymore. It was a bit like playing Jenga, with the whole thing constantly threatening to come crashing down around my ears, but eventually I managed to remove most of those rushed or illogical events from the story. For the events I previously didn't really have a logical explanation for or the explanation was ridiculous (for example, the event happening being technically possible but the level of chance/luck required for it to happen was astronomical), I was able to reconsider some of the characters' motivations and behaviour and how other characters would respond to that, which meant I could then say "Here is why Character A might do X, which means that now Y happening has gone from statistically implausible to reasonably likely".

There are still a few remaining elements where I haven't come up with a good explanation for them yet. Mostly surrounding the backstory of the antagonist, a powerful supernatural being who is both a ruler of her realm and a prisoner of it. The reader and/or the main characters may not ever learn the full reasons behind why something is happening in the story, and that's okay, but as the author, *I* still need to know why it's happening, so that I can make the bits the readers and characters do learn at least sound plausible.

All of this restructuring has resulted in some bits I previously liked being significantly reduced or cut out entirely, but other sections have been expanded, and I think the story overall is stronger for it. I certainly think it flows much better than it did previously. The manuscript is over 30,000 words now, and my estimate from eyeballing the word counts for the existing chapters is that the final product will end up at around 75,000 words, so it's looking less like a novella and more like an actual novel.

On the Australian government's social media ban for under 16s, and why it will be as useful as a fart in a spacesuit.

As many of you will be aware, the Australian government is trying to ban children under the age of 16 from using social media.

Banning children from social media is like banning them from going in the water. We'd be far better off teaching them to "swim"; educate them on the dangers of social media and how to be safe and protect their privacy online so they have the skills they need to navigate the water/online world.

Young queer and trans kids and other marginalised people (for example, people of colour and people with disabilities) need support and information, which is often difficult or outright dangerous for them to get from people in their lives but which is available from communities online. Cutting them off from that will put them at risk of further isolation and harm (which, sadly, is likely the main point of these laws being introduced).

And this won't just affect teenagers. It's not like social media companies can only ask teenagers to provide proof of age, they'd have to ask EVERYONE to do it. Which means facial recognition and/or uploading formal identification. This obviously has colossal privacy/safety implications. In this day and age it's not a matter of if our data will be stolen but when, so all adults are in danger of harm from these laws, but vulnerable populations (gay, trans, folks with medical issues, people who have/had an abusive partner/family member etc) are even more at risk. Not just because they're more likely to be targeted in the first place, but they're also more likely to be harmed if their private details are made public. So their only options are to either risk being doxxed or just cut themselves off from their online support groups/mechanisms (which again may be the only support they have).

As a writer and artist, I'd also be remiss in not mentioning the impact this is likely to have on creative people. Unlike for a lot of other occupations, we almost have to use social media to advertise our work. Whether it's photography, writing, art, music or anything else, it's incredibly difficult to get eyes on our work because (leaving aside the very few big/famous names in the industry), we can't get other people to advertise for us. If we want our stuff marketed, we have to do it ourselves, and even if we have a dedicated website, that doesn't mean much if people don't know to look for it. For a lot of writers and artists, social media is THE main way they get the word out about their books or their new art for sale, and often one of the most practical way for them to solicit commissions that help them put food on the table. If Australian creatives are forced to upload their identification in order to access these sites, will they do it? Sure, some will... but as above, many will justifiably decide it isn't worth the risk, and they will just stop using social media. As a result, writing or art will stop being financially viable for those people and there's a good chance they'll either revert to only doing it as an occasional hobby, or they'll be forced to take on more 9-5-esque jobs that leave little time and energy for creativity at all. This sucks for the individual artists, but also sucks for Australia's creative industry.

From a practical standpoint, banning YouTube means also banning Google... which is used in a huge number of schools for student collaboration and accessing learning resources, so... RIP that too, I guess? Hope all those teachers are going to be paid overtime for having to rewrite lessons and curriculums because the kids won't be able to access those educational videos anymore... (lol, like they even get paid enough in the first place)

Also, like with a lot of other "prohibitions", those who want to get around the ban will probably find a way anyway (at the risk of further punishment), so not only does the ban have the potential to harm young people, it's also unlikely to actually protect them.

On a similar note, kids are going to keep bullying each other regardless of whether they have social media or not. Without Facebook or whatever, the bullies will just continue with good old-fashioned name-calling and schoolyard assault they were already doing in addition to the online bullying, because teachers won't do anything to stop it either way (partially because they're under-resourced but also because, let's be honest, a lot of them just don't give a fuck). On top of that, students who are ostracised in school may have built up friend networks online, so taking that away from them will do even more harm.

So not only will this ban introduce a whole heap of new problems, it won't even solve the ones it's supposed to. But this is what happens laws around technology are made by people who probably think a floppy disk is cutting edge and that "all the cool people" are using MySpace.

[this post was constructed from rants I have made previously on various social media sites]