I don’t think Nano’s statement is neutral on the matter of generative AI at all. The statement said the organization didn’t explicitly endorse its use in one sentence only to condemn people who opposed its use as abelist and classist in the next breath. That’s employing the same logic as dark money organizations in US politics. Sure, they can’t legally endorse a candidate, but they can sure as hell slander that candidate’s opponent. The truth of their stance comes out in what they think about those who oppose it.
And what a stance it is, implying that people of color might not get traditionally published without using generative AI. Implying that poorer people, because they are poorer, are not literate enough to write work worthy of publication without generative AI.
I wish it was a misrepresentation, but I don’t see very much evidence suggesting it is.
As a matter of policy, the FBI does not comment on investigations. So no, there is no way – unless an indictment occurs – to know what they did with the report.
It would certainly be weird if they talked about it (although there could be subtle clues, like raiding offices and homes, interviewing witnesses, investigative custody, etc.). That’s why I clarified:
The term "hearsay " is the issue we (the NaNoWriMo community members who uncovered this) keep bumping up against, even though we were the primary sources for filing the report. A lot of the content we found on the fetish site was very obviously illegal (I’m sure you can read between the lines here), to the point where we could not in good conscience download, screenshot or save the content.
And in all honesty, it wasn’t within our scope. As soon as we realized what we were looking at, and its relation to the moderator running the teen-thread on the NaNoWriMo forums, we immediately backed out and filed the reports to the FBI as well as NaNo HQ. We were just a bunch of writers who accidentally stumbled on something awful, and mistakenly trusted that NaNoWriMo’s staff would immediately handle it.
That’s why I think the optics focus should really be on NaNoWriMo’s actions after the report, honestly. Because, regardless of if outside parties believe the grooming accusations to be credible or not, NaNoWriMo’s handling of it - and insistence on pretending it never happened should be what’s talked about most.
Scrivener/L&L was notified about this back in November of last year, and I think the way the situation was handled (by both past and current NaNoWriMo admin) speaks for itself, honestly. The new executive director has decided to delete & ban anyone who speaks about it on their public spaces, and Kilby’s official communication claims they didn’t find anything to substantiate the accusations, despite there never being an official investigation.
We also have leaked screenshots from former NaNoWriMo staff saying that the narrative fed to staff and sponsors by HQ was that the grooming accusations were “just a bunch of purity culture enthusiasts”. I assume that Scrivener/L&L received a similar breakdown, which may be why they have been hesitant to pull their sponsorship. But honestly, the time has long passed for any reputable organization to be supporting NaNoWriMo in its current form.
I sincerely hope L&L reconsiders their position, because a lot of people are watching to see how they handle this.
Don’t take that to heart, I was just explaining to kewms my motivation for asking further “dumb” questions (after all, I don’t know you, or anyone involved).
I sent in an email to L&L that actual children got hurt and was asked if I could provide hard proof that children were hurt. Which leads me to two possible conclusions:
L&L are unaware of the grooming allegations (which is bad because a company should know the goings on of an organization they’re sponsoring)
Like I said above, I think L&L should be looking closely at how NaNoWriMo (past and present leadership) has handled the controversies they’re facing when evaluating if this is a beneficial partnership. Optics-wise, NaNoWriMo is extremely damaged, entirely by their own action (or inaction), which - from a business perspective, seems detrimental. While “supporting writers” is an admirable goal, I fully understand that most of these partnerships are judged by a cost/benefit analysis.
None of the NaNoWriMo staff who were around when L&L was founded are still at the organization (they have either quit or were fired), and the brand itself is being eviscerated on many social media platforms right now. From an outsider perspective, I’m really struggling to see how NaNoWriMo’s continued existence in its current form is providing a benefit for the writing community (which was cited above in Keith’s statement as to why L&L won’t be pulling their sponsorship).
Unfortunately “some randoms on the internet” aren’t who have been contacting L&L with concerns, as that would have likely been easier to brush off. Many are long-time users of the software, or published authors (like Rebecca Thorne), or people with multi-decade connections that span both the L&L and NaNoWriMo organizations. And, a lot of the concern isn’t out of an intent to make demands – it’s out of concern that the tainted legacy of NaNoWriMo will take down L&L when it inevitably crashes and burns. A lot of us legitimately love Scrivener, and it’s hard to see L&L take a stance of supporting an organization that has caused harm (in both past and present controversies) against the writing community.
There are some testimonials here from minors that as far as I know are freely publicly available and written in the words of the victims. I would try offering those in a response.
There are also as has been discussed criminal complaints that were filed. Difficult to say what else would be meant by asking for hard proof. A confession under oath?
I’m not at liberty to say what additional evidence there is especially since I don’t know exactly what was sent to Scrivener, but what I have seen is pretty clear. I was skeptical of the whole thing until I saw the evidence for myself. It happened.
There were some serious allegations made, but those are for the appropriate authorities to investigate - and they are. I certainly fail to see how anyone on this site has earned any vitriol. A polite inquiry into the position on continued sponsorship is fine (and you’ve had that now), but vitriol, absolutely not.
That said, this thread is starting to give me an appreciation for just how easy it is for conversation and content on an internet forum to get outside the control of the corporate owners. Which may not be helping the point you were trying to land.