Stealing Minds and Destroying Morale: LibGen, Meta, and AI

Last week I learned that all four of the books for which I am sole author, or co-author, were illegally pirated by Library Genesis (LibGen). The LibGen database was in turn scraped illegally by Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, for the purpose of training the company’s AI (Artificial Intelligence) program in use of the English language. How many literary works were compromised? What recourse do authors have? Why is this a problem? Go make the popcorn and brace yourself.

I am not alone in having my works taken illegally, without notification, without my consent, and certainly without compensation. An estimated 7.5 million books, articles, and scientific papers are on the LibGen website. Nearly all of my writer and science friends, and even their parents, are victims of this intellectual property theft. If you have ever had anything published, you need to search LibGen.

Thankfully, The Atlantic magazine provides a search tool, for free, in the top left corner of the page in this hyperlink. Use it. Search for the names of people you know, and notify them if their works appear.

If you are not already a member of the Authors Guild, I strongly recommend becoming one. This particular case is high profile, but only the tip of the iceberg. There are many other piracy platforms that provide free access to literature without compensating the author or the publisher. Authors Guild has a strong legal team that fights for the rights of authors against copyright violations, against book bans, against publishing scams aimed at newbie authors, and many other issues including slow payment and non-payment by publishers.

You may hear from various sources that LibGen is actually the “good guy,” and it is only Meta that is at fault in this case. Publishing is a complicated industry, its landscape changing almost daily. One argument I saw praising LibGen involves the fact it “archives” ebooks, which became even more important after February 26, 2025. On that date, Amazon made it impossible to download ebooks from Kindle to your computer, or any device over which you have control of the files. The fact that you can fetch them from LibGen does not let that pirating company off the hook, it simply punishes Amazon and the authors of those ebooks.

Most publishers of scientific journals truly are evil, though. First, the author pays page fees to have their work published. Then, the publisher puts those papers behind a paywall that essentially shuts off access to the general public. I confess that without the “services” provided by the kin of LibGen, I would have extraordinary difficulty in conducting research for my own books. I simply do not have the time to contact the author of a given paper, provided they are still alive, with a public email address, and ask them if they can provide me with a PDF of the paper I am seeking. God forbid that capitalism could keep its dirty fingers out of the pie of collective knowledge we should all be able to access, and that authors should not have to pay to publish.

Back to the current issue for a moment. What can authors do? Class action lawsuits against Meta are in the works, and I will likely let Authors Guild and the law firms do the heavy lifting on the behalf of us authors. AG also has a ”What Authors Need to Know” page listing additional courses of action, including a template for a letter you can send to Z-man, the CEO of Meta, to express your outrage, and/or concern. If your life can function without Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, you may want to consider alternative social media like Bluesky.

Why is all of this a problem? Authors and writers are already compensated precious little for what we produce. Many of us never see royalties, and “advances” ahead of publishing are becoming more of a rarity all the time. This devaluation of our skill set, imagination, and creativity is something we already suffer, without the added attacks of piracy and plagiarism, and the indignity of being replaced by AI tools.

I came across a YouTube video above, by Del Stone, Jr., that captures perfectly my own sentiments. The view that intellectual property is not worthy of respect, but instead something to be “harvested” and used against creative people in the future is demoralizing AF, as the kids these days would say. What these corporations are doing is robbing people like me of the desire to continue creating content, and stimulating critical thinking by our readers.

You wonder why I rail against capitalism on this blog? Now you have some idea. I can no longer promise new posts here, or over at my Bug Eric blog. What is the point? Why should I continue to provide free fodder for AI machines? I’m open to persuasion, but for now I may stick to putting out a book every so often, and doing the odd article for the few editors I treasure. Thank you, and good luck.

No Wrong Way to Resist

There is one wrong thing you can do, and that is to criticize and dismiss an effort to do something positive simply because, in your opinion, it "is not enough." This is a chronic problem currently, and it fails to acknowledge anything other than statistically measurable effects, publicity, visibility, and savvy organization. Critics ignore the impacts on individual participants, the importance of collective purpose and strengthened solidarity, and habituation to action.

A small group of us protesting on Presidents' Day outside the courthouse of our small town.

The recent spending boycott on February 28, organized by the People's Union USA, was roundly attacked for requiring so little from participants, but considering that we have, as a broad citizenry, become complacent and perhaps lazy over the previous four years of relative calm, not demanding an intensive, personally risky act was probably the right call.

One important aspect of a boycott on purchases is anonymity. When there is the perception of risk to personal safety, the promise of invisibility is a helpful recruitment tactic. The same goes for the gathering of data by corporations and bad actors elsewhere. When you don't spend, you don't leave a digital or paper trail. Perceived vulnerability, real or not, is an enormous disincentive for engaging in protests that demand public spectacle with its potential for confrontation with counter-demonstrators and/or police violence.

The most profound impact of a buying boycott is personal. It causes you to pause your spending, and creates a window of opportunity to reflect on what you need and prioritize, and where you go to fulfull those needs and wants. It gets you to explore local alternatives to the global corporate marketplace, for example. Maybe, like sobriety, you take that one day boycott up a notch and make a habit of it, one day at a time. Extricating ourselves from the matrix of capitalism, at the scale it has become, is going to be a marathon, not a sprint, but it is something we can choose to do. What can I live without, you might ask yourself. What might I indulge in with less frequency?

One social media comment I saw claimed that not all locally-owned businesses are any better in their politics, hiring practices, responsiveness to customers, and impacts in other areas. That is definitely true, but a small business can survive only so long if word spreads that it exercises biases, tolerates or encourages bigotry, or fails to support the local community. It always pays to do your homework, ask your neighbors, and use other resources to inform your decisions on what enterprises to patronize.

Boycotts do affect the financial bottom line of the corporations targeted, but that usually takes time. There is definitely a sense of urgency now, and the critics of the one-day boycott are impatient. What we don't hear from those people are alternatives or complements to consumer boycotts. Well, one vocal critic, on a social media post, claimed that only a widespread labor strike will have any measurable effect. That exposes an awful lot of people to retaliation from their employers, at a time when unemployment benefits are no longer guaranteed. Too many are living paycheck to paycheck. Yes, a prolonged work stoppage would be very effective, but would require near total participation.

What gives me great satisfaction, even if I hear about it after the fact, are spontaneous efforts at disruption, such as overwhelming I.C.E. tip lines with bogus referrals for undocumented immigrants to target for deportation, or emailing human resources at the Office of Personnel Management to frustrate the DOGE request to supply it with five bullet points describing your job accomplishments the prior week. Such little acts also generate a great deal of much needed humor when people post their responses on social media. We need more of this kind of creative monkeywrenching.

Ideally, we need to reach the enablers of the oppressors and anti-democratic players. That means engaging or shaming CEOs and majority shareholders of the companies running the show. Call them out. Demand that shareholders dump their stock. Give these powerful people no peace. After all, they are not giving you any. Call your congresspeople, sure. Go to their town halls, if they bother holding such events. We need to up the pressure, though, maybe as a continued presence at all of their offices, all their public appearances.

I saw a photo, or perhaps a generative AI image, on social media recently that depicted a woman holding a cardboard sign. It read "I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change. I am changing the things I cannot accept." This is a quote by Angela Davis, an esteemed leader in the Black Panther Party of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This resonates on many levels. I wonder if we need a twelve-step program with that mantra. I would go to the meetings, learning what actions others are taking, and trying them myself.

Metaplexities

The landscape of social media has become more complex recently, or perhaps more unstable, restricted, biased, and otherwise uninviting. Maybe it is me, and my experiences that have colored my opinion of the “Metaverse” and other platforms. In any event, I am forced to reevaluate my use of these ways of interacting. This is painful, because in real life, in my small town where I am a socio-political minority, I have no friends at all, even after three years.

My history of adopting social media has been one of reluctance, but Facebook has been an almost daily ritual since I joined back in 2009. Friends had to twist my arm to register, but I quickly found it to be a useful tool. I set up an Instagram account on December 14, 2021, and even made a handful of posts from my computer. When I logged in on January 20, 2022, I found my account had been permanently disabled for “violating community standards,” with no more specific information. I have not, and will never, set up another Insta account.

I cannot pinpoint when I joined Twitter, but it was apparently prior to June of 2014. I mostly neglected it initially, but gradually it became more of a habit. In July of 2019 I noticed the format had changed, and I didn’t like it. By late November of that year I was complaining that fifty percent of my Twitter feed was advertising. It was all downhill from there, and I left “X” for good on November 7, 2024.

Fortunately, Bluesky became a much more friendly alternative to X, and I made an account there (@bugeric) along with a legion of ex-X users. We shall see how long this honeymoon lasts. While I am also on LinkedIn, and have an account on YouTube, that is the extent of my online communities.

Lately, Facebook has become more of a hassle than a comfort. It has become nearly impossible for me to use it easily on any device other than my phone. On desktop, and now laptop, it requires two-factor authentication, and never recognizes either of them even when I ask it to “trust” the device. Messenger, the chat function of Facebook, now encrypts messages, and I can never see messages sent, just the notification that they were delivered. I do not recall ever getting an option to create a PIN for accessing encrypted messages. Consequently, I have largely given up using Messenger.

Other factors complicating my relationship with Facebook include the Meta corporate decision to abandon fact-checking of public posts; and Meta is now more tolerant of hate speech, especially when it is directed at the LGBTQ+ community. Lastly, the dedication of Meta to scraping images and other user content for use in training generative AI (Artificial Intelligence), and announcement that it fully intends to create artificial user accounts to boost its algorithms, has many of us questioning whether we want to be a party to all of this.

I consider myself average, if not slightly above average, in my ability to curate my newsfeeds, so that I usually get to see most of what I want to see. What has become a supreme frustration now, on Facebook, is criticism from ”friends”, whenever I post almost anything.

The other day I posted that I was proud of my partner for deciding to do more of our grocery shopping at Aldi, instead of Walmart. About two comments in, people started saying “Well, Aldi isn’t that great [socially responsible], either.” Wow. We live in a small town with limited options, we are doing the best that we can! We also utilize a farm store farther out in the county, and the downtown farmers market when it is in season.

I mentioned these exchanges over on Bluesky, and got 152 “likes” so far. One person commented that “Moral choices are hard and imperfect. Snarking from the sidelines is easy.” Another said “Tell them they sound like shame bots. These people really have lost themselves to a mind virus that just looks to discourage. We call these detractors.” Another reply: “I think we need to take a stand against people who believe in ‘purity tests’ like you describe. That kind of behavior is NOT helpful.” I especially liked the “shame bots.”

My strategy from this point forward will be to post little from my Facebook private page, with few, if any, images or videos, so I am not feeding the machine of AI (I have also changed the settings on my “off-Facebook activities”). I will post almost exclusively from my business page, Eric R. Eaton – Writer. I’ll use my private account to keep up with friends and colleagues, and share posts I find useful.

I hope that I can be better at regularly putting content on my blogs, Flickr photostream, and iNaturalist account. I will perhaps investigate other social media outlets and services as I learn of them, and adopt those with a user interface compatible with us old people. Now, if the local townspeople would all wear something (I rarely see MAGA attired) that identifies them as an ally or an adversary, that’d be great.

Postscript: I get a lot of “don’t take things so personally” advice. Well, I do take things personally. I am an only child who was never properly socialized. I think it is a minor miracle that I get along with anybody. Maybe stop assuming I am normal?

One Secular Coffee, Please

Some people would say that I am blessed to be living in a small town like Leavenworth, Kansas. Well, that is part of the problem. The fusion of retail business and religion is problematic everywhere, but especially so in rural areas where consumer choices are limited. Proprietors do not think twice about how their messages, subtle or overt, are received by others outside their denomination.

I recently posted the above image on social media, and while there were sympathetic comments, other remarks were quick to defend the coffeehouse. Some did not believe it was an issue at all. Personally, I wish it were not a consideration, but being a “citified” person, willingly subjected to a variety of influences, I cannot escape a feeling of unease.

We supposedly have a separation of Church and State in the U.S., though the line is becoming increasingly blurred. We need the same divide, though, when it comes to the church and business, and between church and public education. I am reasonably confident that God desires the collective good, no strings attached. I am a lot less sure that is the case from a religious perspective.

Let me state for the record that I have no objection to any individual’s right to subscribe to any religion. That is, in fact, a freedom worth defending. I would, however, prefer that you keep your beliefs to yourself in your public interactions, unless someone asks you about them. Even then, you have a right not to disclose.

The unfortunate state of affairs is that religion has consciously decided to marry politics to influence government, espousing agendas that are outdated and discriminatory at best, but often hate-inciting and oppressive. It is at the point that Christian Nationalism is now a widespread desire, fueling divisiveness the likes of which we have not seen in recent history.

Even more passive denominations are now so stained by the footprint of extremists that many of us have given up on making the distinctions. Your “good intentions” trigger all the bad connotations. They send a signal that you may not be friendly to non-believers, or vulnerable demographics like the LGBTQ community, for example, let alone Muslims, Hindus, maybe Jews, and people of other faiths. “Jesus is Lord,” on my receipt? Really?

Many religious people think there is no place that should be exempt from proselytizing. I disagree. Maybe there needs to be a law in the town charter or something that at least compels a business to overtly disclose the religion of its owner, and have it publicly displayed on the door or front window.

”Oh, no,” business owners would cry, “we could lose business if we had to disclose our religious affiliation!” Thank you for making my case. If you are so proud of your beliefs, why hide them at the bottom of the invoice? You want to take my money until I’m on to you.

I’ve patronized this coffeehouse for about two years, but only noticed this statement on my last lunch. I feel like I’ve been had, like I was tricked into endorsing something I don’t subscribe to and, by proxy, funding whatever religious causes the establishment donates to. I’m embarrassed as well as disgusted. There you have it, full disclosure of why this kind of thing irritates me so much.

Something else you should know: I am not a diehard atheist. It took me a while to figure out that religion and God are not the same thing. I thought I didn’t like God, but it turns out that what I really find troublesome is the religious interpretation of God. It would be like figuring out that you thought you hated democracy, but what you really have a problem with is (liberal) Democrats. Well, shoot, thanks for weakening democracy with the Republican candidates you vote for. In short, religion is in many ways ruining God’s reputation.

I can walk downtown to this locally-owned coffee shop, and to the other one for that matter, but both are owned by highly religious people. I am now left with a national chain that is not Starbucks, but the walk is longer and there is no place to sit once I get there. I suppose that is the penalty for adhering to one’s beliefs.

The Impossibility of Money

It should be clear by now that our current monetary systems are failing us, or at least the vast majority of us. It has reached the point for me, personally, where I am questioning the very existence of currency, let alone how it behaves. As long as we accept the contemporary and historical paradigm, we are unlikely to generate positive change (and I’m not talking about coins).

I can’t get over the irony that money is called “currency,” evoking the word “current,” as in something that flows. That is not what happens in our economies. Currency gets backed up behind the dam(n) of capitalism, hoarded by a tiny minority.

Cryptocurrency was, to me, an off-putting concept from the beginning, but I only recently figured out why. While the idea of alternative forms of transactions is attractive, this is not the answer, for many reasons.

The currency of my livelihood is words, so I am disappointed in myself for not immediately recognizing the obvious. “Crypto” is Greek for “hidden,” as in cryptozoology, the study of sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, and related legends. Fascinating, but there is not widespread subscription to the idea, kind of like cryptocurrency. The last thing we need for our economy is more hidden currency. We already have offshore bank accounts and other tax havens. We need total transparency in matters of money.

The energy demands for running blockchain are another reason for concern. The server farms consume massive amounts of electricity for their operation. The same can be said for generative AI (Artificial Intelligence), and data mining, too. Such large server farms are also incredibly loud, running twenty-four hours, seven days a week, generating noise complaints along with Bitcoin.

Beyond the energy-intensive aspect, cryptocurrency has other shortcomings. It has yet to be widely accepted by retail businesses. It requires technology that is still inaccessible to many, by choice or by reliability of internet service providers. Don’t get me started on NFTs (Non-fungible Tokens). Lastly, there is understandable consumer skepticism over crypto’s validity, valuation, and sustainability.

The most attractive attribute of cryptocurrency might be the perception that it is somehow subversive, a way of undermining conventional capitalist models. It’s complex nature and dependence on technology ensure that it will likely remain the domain of a different, tech-savvy minority. Perhaps it is the “snob appeal” I am mistaking for subversion.

A truly viable alternative currency will have to come from the bottom up, designed for communities of all levels, from local to global. As it stands now, we have currency of an arbitrary value, determined by a select minority, and that is demonstrably unsustainable, at least in the environmental sense. There exists a different model that might serve as a template.

The currency of the natural world is energy. It has an absolute, invariable value. Can energy be hoarded? Not permanently, and certainly not generationally. Various organisms are able to store energy to use during hibernation, metamorphosis, and other stressful processes and circumstances. Otherwise, energy cycles freely, allowing the proper functioning of ecosystem transactions.

The challenge of emulating a natural model is to do so without the attendant predatory and parasitic forms of energy exchange. We have that in spades in the capitalist model, and the trend is toward exacerbating that pattern rather than nullifying it.

The true revolution in currency will have to be organic. The leadership for it will probably come from Indigenous peoples, provided we allow that, and can forge alliances with labor and consumer unions. Existing models for localized currencies might help inform such a movement. Promoting interest in, and subscription to, credit unions and cooperative businesses will only enhance the effort.

The incentives for promoting blockchain tech are still profit-driven, as opposed to even trying to balance the common good. I think I have more faith in the imagination of artists to take us in a positive direction here. Pair that brand of creativity with economic and social justice disciplines, and we might be able to get something truly equitable. Finally.

"Life Isn't Fair"

How do you feel when someone utters that phrase? Do you ever find yourself saying that? There is something about this simplistic statement that sticks in my craw, and maybe yours, too.

© Harvard Medicine Magazine

I put “life isn’t fair” into the same category as “thoughts and prayers.” It sounds dismissive, even if it is not intended that way. Such phrases are excuses for avoiding taking the energy and responsibility for tangible action to resolve the problem, tragedy, or injustice.

”Life isn’t fair” suggests that you accept this as a given fact of life, and that we should, also, so that we can “move on,” or “have closure,” or whatever else puts the ordeal out of your sight and out of your mind, as quickly as possible. It is about preserving your comfort.

In your defense, maybe dismissive language protects you from snowballing into anxiety and depression yourself, if you tend to dwell on the profound misery that so many people experience daily. Empaths are easily overwhelmed, I imagine, and self-care may demand keeping the problems of others at arm’s length.

Still, “life isn’t fair” is a statement that mostly discloses your privilege and entitlement because it reveals a situation or condition you rarely, if ever, face yourself, such as poverty, a shooting at a public school, or flooding from a hurricane because you have always been able to afford the higher ground. ”Get over it.” That might as well be what you exclaim, because those are the next logical words after “life isn’t fair.” Are you uncomfortable yet?

I have concluded that the sole purpose (and soul purpose) for my own existence is to make life more fair. I think that I have always believed that every species has a right to exist, whether it provides a direct service to humanity as a whole, or not. Other organisms are an endless source of wonder, fascination, and reverence for countless individual people, and that’s enough for me, enough for me to go on living, in fact.

It is only rather recently that I have come to see the depths of fear and loathing that we direct towards some members of our own species. We treat many artificial subsets of humanity worse than mammal vermin and insect pests. We call “those people” minorities, immigrants, and LGBTQ. An acronym, for God’s sake. That is what we are comfortable reducing human souls to.

Global humanity continues to persist, to operate semi-functionally, not because of government operations, nor economic cohesiveness, nor shared religious beliefs, but mostly despite those institutions. Some extremist politicians are wanting to write legislation further stripping basic rights from the most vulnerable of the world’s citizens. They are wanting life to be less fair for everyone but themselves.

By sheer coincidence, as I was writing this, a friend posted a meme on social media that listed other examples of “toxic positivity.” Most memes are overly simplistic, have a negative or even destructive agenda, are unhelpful, or outright wrong. To their credit, the creator of this meme matched common, dismissive phrases with more constructive and empathetic suggestions.

Toxic positivity is really a form of bullying, or at least condescension. It belittles genuine, appropriate emotions, and punishes vulnerability. It refuses to recognize suffering, let alone address it in any meaningful way. There is a reason we are able to cry, to experience emotional lows. It is not for the sake of comparing one degree of pain with another. It is not an opportunity to invoke your religious definition of God, and how He will provide. Sometimes the reason bad things happen is because bad people and bad socio-political institutions inflict trauma. Don’t add to it.

Toleration is not enough. Accept people’s ability to grieve, to cry, frown, or otherwise express difficult emotions. Reward it, in fact. Tell them you see them, seek to understand the depth of their situation, and simply be present for them. Ask if you can do anything beyond that. Check in again later.

If you are feeling extra-brave, start advocating for mental health. Help end the stigma surrounding depression and related illnesses. Stand up to toxic positivity, stoicism, and false bravado. We can build a better society if we stop saying “life isn’t fair.”

Punishment

That’s what all this has been about from the beginning, isn’t it? Punishment for your imaginary enemies, and those public servants whose job it is to protect the citizenry from scoundrels like you. Punish those “deviants” who only want the freedom to live their authentic lives, free from fear of violence and bullying and discrimination. Punishment for women who dare to assert their rights to bodily autonomy, and equality in the business world. Punishment for those immigrants seeking asylum and a better living, fleeing from oppressive regimes like the one you envision for yourself. The thing is, none of those demographics deserves punishment; nor does anyone who loves and advocates for them.

Insulated from the hoi polloi by your inherited affluence and celebrity, you consistently and successfully portray yourself as a victim. Bravo. That should win you an Oscar or an Emmy, but not an election to the Oval Office. You are by every measure a perpetrator. Maybe we should spell it “perpetraitor," instead, given that your political BFFs are dictators and war criminals.

Your campaign of distraction has been frighteningly successful. You managed to draw attention away from the criminally affluent who are truly ruining our country, and the planet, and shift the focus to demonizing artificial subsets of humanity that make easy scapegoats. Complicit in your diabolical scheme has been religious extremism, bending the Bible to your benefit. Your benefactors have muzzled the formerly free press, if not enslaved it, for your benefit.

It is clear that you have no interest in improving the lives of anyone but yourself and your heirs, and perhaps those billionaires to whom you owe privileges. Your rank and file either don’t see that, or you have convinced them that the wanton suffering of others is enough to entertain them while you rob them blind.

The only thing guaranteed by your administration is the continued misery of runaway corporate capitalism, White supremacy, LGBTQ intolerance, mass incarceration, Christian nationalism, and climate change denial, to name but a few of the atrocities you willfully and joyfully represent.

Your “concepts of a plan” for healthcare, your addiction to tariffs as the panacea for economic prosperity, and your fervent desire to “drill, baby, drill” would be laughable were it not for the very real, dire consequences of your ineptitude. Your foreign policy acumen is so warped and lacking that you pose a clear and present danger to the very nation you seek to govern.

What do you expect me to do now? Submit? At least pretend to be red, that coldest of colors? Flee the country and seek asylum of my own? Those might be tempting options, but they are not in my nature. No, if anything, I will take it up a notch, be the incendiary voice for truly radical progressive policies, an advocate for lifestyles that work in harmony with the rest of life on Earth.

Congratulations, then, on making me even more intolerant of you, and those who support you, even those who refused to choose either candidate. They are cowardly, and blind to the damage you will do. I will be committed to standing in your way, at every opportunity.