𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔

Unofficial librarian of the Library Caratland, unfortunately

Shipper, she/they

SVT translations (not pro) OT13

Atatürkçü / Free Palestine 🍉 / 29 / ♰ /🇹🇷

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

@caratdeul96 Thank you for reading 💐

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

@Enxy_03 Thank you for your kind words, goodnight Autumn 💫

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

People on here often tell me two completely contradictory things depending on the day: “Moon, you look into things way too deeply,” or, on the flip side, “You clearly didn’t look into this enough.” Today made me reflect on both of those statements, not just in the context of this particular discourse, but also on how I approach information, communicate my thoughts, and interact with people in a community where emotions can run high.

Before anything else, I want to take responsibility for the tweet I posted earlier and subsequently deleted. The tone was unnecessarily harsh, reactive, and dismissive, and I sincerely apologize for that. I was frustrated by some of the reactions I was seeing on my timeline, but frustration does not justify speaking to people that way. I could have expressed my disagreement without resorting to aggressive language, and I should have. My position remains that I don't think it is fair to personally blame performers for their agency's post-production software choices, but the way I communicated that point was wrong. I let my frustration overshadow the actual argument, and in doing so, I contributed to the very kind of unproductive discourse I would rather avoid.

I think part of why I reacted so strongly is that the way I approach these discussions is deeply influenced by my scientific background and, perhaps more importantly, by a philosophy I keep coming back to whenever I try to investigate something: the one explored in this Kurzgesagt video, We Fell For The Oldest Lie On The Internet (https://t.co/BHn33re92p).

What stayed with me about that video was not simply the discovery that a widely repeated scientific claim had been circulating for decades without people adequately checking its original source. It was the process behind it. Kurzgesagt spent over a year tracing a supposedly established scientific fact through textbooks, lecture slides, and academic papers, only to discover that the famous number could be traced back to an informal theoretical estimate from 1922 that had been repeatedly passed along through secondary sources. A claim had become familiar enough to feel unquestionably true, even though very few people had gone back to examine the original material for themselves. The problem wasn't necessarily that people were deliberately spreading misinformation. It was that a compelling, easy-to-repeat story could travel much further and faster than the complicated, time-consuming process of verifying it.

And honestly, that is what makes the video so relevant beyond science. It is a reminder of how information becomes accepted as truth, how repetition can create an illusion of certainty, and how easily we can mistake a familiar narrative for a verified fact. This happens in scientific literature, in the media, and in fandom spaces, too. When we care deeply about artists, their work, and the creative effort behind what they put into the world, our instinct to protect them is understandable. We want to defend what we value, establish boundaries, and hold the people responsible accountable. But when emotions are involved, an assumption can quickly become an explanation, an explanation can become a consensus, and eventually, that consensus can be repeated so often that questioning its original basis feels almost like questioning the people who believe it.

That is why I tend to look deeper into things, sometimes perhaps more than people expect me to. When I ask for primary sources, examine production credits, look into subcontracted studios, or try to understand the technical documentation behind a claim, I am not trying to prove that everyone else is wrong, dismiss anyone's ethical concerns, or suggest that people's feelings are irrelevant. I am trying to understand what we actually know, what we can reasonably infer, and what remains uncertain. Those are three very different things, and I think we sometimes lose sight of that distinction when a discussion becomes emotionally charged.

+

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

@MEOWONWOOYOUNG Yer varsa bir tane Wonwoo ilk sayfadan

[🌌 @woozimedia]

261018 woozi_universefactory ig story update #우지

👤 abracadabra was song geonhee’s idea
👤 it wasn’t me, it was youngdae hyung
👤 no it was jihoon! it was jihoon. it was probably jihoon..?
🍑 (spiderman meme)

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

Coming from a scientific background, I have learned that research should make you more humble, not more convinced of your own superiority. The more you learn, the more you understand how much you don't know, how easily you can overlook something, and how tempting it is to accept a conclusion simply because it fits what you already believe. Scientific thinking is not about having an answer to everything. It is about being willing to question your own assumptions, examine the available evidence, acknowledge the limitations of what you can establish, and change your mind when the evidence calls for it. Sometimes, the most intellectually honest thing you can say is, “I don't know yet. Let me look into it before I make a definitive claim.”

And I need to hold myself to that same standard, including when I am frustrated, when I feel misunderstood, and when I genuinely believe I have a point worth making. Having a research-oriented approach does not automatically make me right, and spending hours looking into something does not give me permission to speak to people however I want. I can be careful with my sources and still be careless with my words. I can have a valid argument and still communicate it badly. Today reminded me that these things are not mutually exclusive, and that being willing to acknowledge my own mistakes is just as important as asking other people to examine theirs.

I also don't want anyone to mistake my willingness to investigate things for a claim that my own words should be trusted without question. I can misinterpret information, overlook context, or reach the wrong conclusion. I am not immune to confirmation bias simply because I have a scientific background, and I would never want anyone to treat my conclusions as unquestionable. If anything, I hope people feel comfortable questioning what I say, asking me for sources, and pointing out when I have missed something. That is part of the process, too.

Ultimately, I would rather sit with uncertainty for a while than settle for a conclusion that feels satisfying but hasn't been properly examined. I would rather admit that the available evidence is inconclusive than fill the gaps with assumptions and present them as facts. And I would rather have a difficult, respectful conversation about what we can actually establish than watch a complicated issue become reduced to a narrative that everyone is expected to accept without question.

I am stepping back from this particular discourse now, but I am taking a lot away from it. Not because I believe I handled everything correctly, but precisely because I didn't. I want to be more mindful of how I communicate, especially when I care strongly about a subject, and to remember that the way I make a point matters just as much as the point itself. Seeking evidence and treating people with respect should never be competing priorities.

To everyone who took the time to have thoughtful, patient, and respectful conversations with me today, thank you. I genuinely appreciate the people who were willing to engage with the discussion without turning it into a personal conflict. We are all navigating an internet that rewards speed, certainty, and emotionally compelling narratives far more often than it rewards nuance or careful investigation.

I don't think the answer is to stop caring, stop questioning things, or stop discussing difficult subjects. I think it is to learn how to do those things better: to care without letting our emotions replace evidence, to question without assuming bad intentions, and to remain open to the possibility that we might be missing something ourselves.

That is something I am still learning, too.

Have a nice day/night everyone 💫

[StarVibe @starvibe2015]

🏆 Congratulations to #JUN!

JUN takes 1st place on StarVibe's September Comeback Artists leaderboard with "9"! 🎉

Thank you to all fans for your amazing support and passion! 💫

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

@pagesofwonwoo Thank you for reading 💫

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

I saw "AI" in the credits, gave a fast side-eye, and my previous post is right there on my timeline for anyone to dig up. I’m not deleting it, nor am I pretending otherwise,especially when I’ve written extensive essays on the systemic horrors and security breaches of AI before anyone here cared about data centers.

Seeing AI attached to creative work naturally makes people uncomfortable. Corporate scraping, labor exploitation, and replacing artists with automated junk are real issues. I get the reflex. But there’s a massive difference between having legitimate concerns and completely losing reading comprehension over two letters.

Before the usual crowd starts typing: no, I’m not writing this because I’m some blind company loyalist fighting for my biases or ships.

I’m currently doing my PhD. Between my actual research, laboratory data, and real-world deadlines, I have zero interest in dedicating my brain cells to celebrity defense. Drag the company. Boycott them. Hold executives accountable. Criticize Seventeen all you want, I have zero personal investment in shielding a multi-million-dollar corporation or random dudes who just happen to be good at singing.

What I actually care about is information literacy.
Tweet 3 (Cehaletle aktivizm yapılamayacağını yüzlerine vuran kısım):
Let’s hate predatory corporate shortcuts. Let’s protect human artistry. But performing moral outrage over a technical label you haven't bothered to understand isn't activism; it's just noisy posturing. You cannot meaningfully criticize a pipeline if you don't even know what the tools actually do.
My background is in bioinformatics. Machine learning models, computational algorithms, and predictive workflows are a literal daily reality in my scientific field—the very mathematical frameworks that won the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for predicting protein structures (AlphaFold2). I know how these systems work mathematically. I know the distinction between computational processing tools and generative scraping engines.
Tweet 4 (Uzmanlık sınırları ve doğrudan hedefe bağlama):
Does that make me a VFX supervisor? No, and unlike half of Twitter, I don't pretend to be an overnight industry expert.
What I can do is read a credit roll without panicking, cross-reference standard post-production methodologies, and separate actual pipeline data from fan-fiction assumptions.

And no, an "AI VFX" credit does not automatically mean "generative prompt bot." It identifies a specialized outsourced team handling algorithmic computational tasks, not an autonomous machine stealing the show.

So let’s actually break down what the credits say, how VFX works, and why writing off an entire collaborative production over two letters is ridiculous.

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

I spent my whole day in the trenches writing an academic thesis on post-production software just for an AI bot to follow me because the keyword pinged its algorithm 😭

Locals in my mentions and prompt-bots in my follower list are officially my villain origin story..

[˖ ִֶָ ☽.࣪𓃠 @felinology_]

btw, these are the rewards jun has won from the starvibes awards!! 🥹

• Seoul u-plex billboard domination
• MBK center LED screen in 🇹🇭
• YUNIKA VISION in 🇯🇵

The winner's artist fandom gets to choose ONE of these promotion options after coordinating with starvibes :)

[shanie🍥 ggyu @minwonshu]

trainee mingoo the cutest 🥹#2026MAMAVOTE #SEVENTEEN

[ᴿᴵᴱ ₁₀₁₃ ☪︎ ★ ²⁸ @rj_mochi_13]

SEVENTEENの笑顔をずっと見たいから
🩷🩵
#2026MAMAVOTE #SEVENTEEN

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

@hanishurush Thank you for reading my essay and I'm sorry it happened to you cleaning them takes so much time 😞

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

@shushuaberry Thank you for reading 🙏

[hannie ☻ @minghaocheoI_]

CARATS! MAMA VOTING HAS ALREADY RESET !!! RT AND VOTE NOW IF YOU SEE THIS!! ❤️‍🔥🚨

WE MAINTAINED OUR TOP 10 SPOT OMG KEEP VOTING AND LETS GO HIGHER CARATS WE GOT THIS!!!!!! 🏃‍♀️🏃‍♀️

#2026MAMAVOTE #SEVENTEEN

[my name is a... @zooe_oo]

これｶﾞﾁ声出して笑った

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

@Ican_hypeghost Thank you for commenting 💫

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

Here some if you want Korean and Turkish ones too I can send them

1. DaVinci Resolve 20.1 New Features Guide:
https://t.co/aS9evtKiMB

2. NeRF — Communications of the ACM:
https://t.co/gmqx3Ofo31

3. Visual Effects Society — Publications:
https://t.co/xJIOgW0jX8

4. Sustainable AI — MLSys:
https://t.co/KyLapU0iKr

5. Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training:
https://t.co/929W4ZwIgl

6. Trends in AI Inference Energy Consumption:
https://t.co/FoSCzfogBR

7. U.S. Copyright Office — AI:
https://t.co/gzjEJjknZc

8. EUIPO — Generative AI and Copyright:
https://t.co/aKit9HFAfq

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

@mofu_channnn Here

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

I saw "AI" in the credits, gave a fast side-eye, and my previous post is right there on my timeline for anyone to dig up. I’m not deleting it, nor am I pretending otherwise,especially when I’ve written extensive essays on the systemic horrors and security breaches of AI before anyone here cared about data centers.

Seeing AI attached to creative work naturally makes people uncomfortable. Corporate scraping, labor exploitation, and replacing artists with automated junk are real issues. I get the reflex. But there’s a massive difference between having legitimate concerns and completely losing reading comprehension over two letters.

Before the usual crowd starts typing: no, I’m not writing this because I’m some blind company loyalist fighting for my biases or ships.

I’m currently doing my PhD. Between my actual research, laboratory data, and real-world deadlines, I have zero interest in dedicating my brain cells to celebrity defense. Drag the company. Boycott them. Hold executives accountable. Criticize Seventeen all you want, I have zero personal investment in shielding a multi-million-dollar corporation or random dudes who just happen to be good at singing.

What I actually care about is information literacy.
Tweet 3 (Cehaletle aktivizm yapılamayacağını yüzlerine vuran kısım):
Let’s hate predatory corporate shortcuts. Let’s protect human artistry. But performing moral outrage over a technical label you haven't bothered to understand isn't activism; it's just noisy posturing. You cannot meaningfully criticize a pipeline if you don't even know what the tools actually do.
My background is in bioinformatics. Machine learning models, computational algorithms, and predictive workflows are a literal daily reality in my scientific field—the very mathematical frameworks that won the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for predicting protein structures (AlphaFold2). I know how these systems work mathematically. I know the distinction between computational processing tools and generative scraping engines.
Tweet 4 (Uzmanlık sınırları ve doğrudan hedefe bağlama):
Does that make me a VFX supervisor? No, and unlike half of Twitter, I don't pretend to be an overnight industry expert.
What I can do is read a credit roll without panicking, cross-reference standard post-production methodologies, and separate actual pipeline data from fan-fiction assumptions.

And no, an "AI VFX" credit does not automatically mean "generative prompt bot." It identifies a specialized outsourced team handling algorithmic computational tasks, not an autonomous machine stealing the show.

So let’s actually break down what the credits say, how VFX works, and why writing off an entire collaborative production over two letters is ridiculous.

[𝔍Moon𝔍 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝓇𝑒𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 @nebulamoonie]

I completely get where you’re coming from, wanting to protect their creative identity and make sure fans’ voices are heard comes from a good place!

That’s actually the exact reason I ended up writing a really comprehensive, deep-dive breakdown on this entire topic. I wanted to map out where the line between standard computational tools and actual generative replacement lies, what the credits realistically tell us, and how we can direct our pushback effectively so it doesn't get dismissed.

It’s a bit of a long read, but I can link it below if you’d like to check it out! Really appreciate you having such a thoughtful and respectful conversation about it with me 🙏