November 28, 2019

"In keeping with the spirit of our show, last week we invited someone from the other side of the debate, Posie Parker, a gender-critical ex-feminist, to give us her perspective."

"The discussion was equally productive even though her take on some issues seemed a bit intransigent to us. We pushed back on a number of her arguments. The discussion was civil, entertaining, funny and informative... However, 24 hours later we received a notification informing us that the video had been deleted by YouTube because it constituted 'hate speech that incites hatred or violence.'... In the ensuing storm of complaints from our fans and neutral observers, YouTube appear to have caved to social media pressure and reinstated the video.... The reality revealed by this incident is that the big tech giants answer to no one. While there is a formal right of appeal, the tech giants of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube act as judge, jury and executioner. In many cases, the decision is made by automated algorithms and then superficially reviewed by faceless apparatchiks. We weren’t told which aspects of our video were 'hate speech' and, beyond throwing around this catch-all term, no justification was offered for taking it down. In essence, YouTube is accountable to no one. The libertarian argument that YouTube is owned by a private company which is entitled to police content as it wishes is no longer sustainable. We live in a digital world in which a handful of big tech companies have seized control of the public square. As I have argued before, we need a First Amendment for the Internet...."

From "YouTube Censored My Interview With Posie Parker," by Konstantin Kisin.

Here's the interview:

104 comments:

Michael K said...

The world is quickly becoming a preview of Kurt Schlicter's new novel, "Collapse."

rhhardin said...

Maybe they took it down as too boring.

Birkel said...

She's correct.
XX or XY?
Change the chromosomes and we'll talk.

Bob Boyd said...

A Progressive is a totalitarian who can't even be honest with himself.

rhhardin said...

The best expert interview I've heard is Richard Epstein. Try it for expert and non-boring
https://www.econtalk.org/epstein-on-the-rule-of-law/

compare to impeachment today and spot the list of things wrong with the impeachment.

Gahrie said...

Under the meaning of the word when the First Amendment was written, freedom of the press did not refer to a group of people (as everyone thinks it does today) but rather the machinery needed to publish your ideas (the printing press). Freedom of the press meant you had the right to own and use a printing press, not that a self selected group of people had special rights.

One could make an argument that social media sites are the modern day equivalent to a printing press, and therefore everyone should have access to them.

BADuBois said...

A while ago my YouTube membership was deleted by Google for allegedly violating the TOS. But I never uploaded a video, or commented on a video. I merely watched music videos and historical videos about WWII and aircraft history.

How in the world was any of that a violation of the TOS? I appealed and was denied. No humans were involved. And there is no other way to reach out to a person to YouTube so I can regain a membership and bookmark videos in the past I've enjoyed.

Some scary *bleep*.

Wince said...

The policing of speech in the area of transgenderism makes it especially obvious that totalitarianism truly is about making you deny that which you see in front of your face.

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

Interesting to hear a feminist talk about Twitter giving her personal information to the police when she says Twitter would not do the same to Jihadies.

I Callahan said...

The libertarian argument that YouTube is owned by a private company which is entitled to police content as it wishes is no longer sustainable. We live in a digital world in which a handful of big tech companies have seized control of the public square. As I have argued before, we need a First Amendment for the Internet

Absolutely 100% correct. The other side of this sword is a similar situation - if you say something that doesn’t fit the current acceptable thought, that same set of media titans allow people using their platforms to cancel you for holding contrarian views.

I’ve said this before; I’ll say it again: free speech exists only in the abstract. The fact that the government doesn’t get involved is moot; if exercising your free speech either gets you into trouble, or it’s blocked by a faceless corporation, then you don’t really have free speech.

Fernandistein said...

"The libertarian argument that YouTube is owned by a private company which is entitled to police content as it wishes is no longer sustainable."

Why? Because youtube shouldn't remove "civil, entertaining, funny and informative" videos featuring gender-critical ex-feminists, or some other reasons not stated in the excerpt?

"In essence, YouTube is accountable to no one."

To whom is the authorette accountable?

A while ago my YouTube membership was deleted by Google for allegedly violating the TOS.

Did you get your money's worth?

Kevin said...

The government is already meeting with the tech companies to regulate “hate speech” and “lies”.

Using the argument that these are private companies enables the government to do what the Constitution prohibits.

I Callahan said...

Fernandistein, how do you not see the slippery slope here? Kevin’s comment is relevant - now the government doesn’t have to regulate speech - corporate America does it for them.

John henry said...

Progressivism = Fascism

Show me I'm wrong.

John Henry

Fernandistein said...

Using the argument that these are private companies...

Well, they are private companies.

...enables the government to do what the Constitution prohibits.

Should they be forced to bake digital cakes with slogans they don't like?

Fernandistein, how do you not see the slippery slope here?

Yes, see above. What's the difference between the gov't forcing youtube to host any given video and forcing some hapless baker to write something?

I Callahan said...

Nobody is FORCING anyone to do anything but ALLOW people to say things. Comparing it to baking a cake is not a comparison.

Roughcoat said...

Geez, I hate those people.

You know who.

whitney said...

I was so confused. Parker Posey has come out against transgenderism? I was so shocked she had escaped the compound like that but then I saw my error

Gahrie said...

Yes, see above. What's the difference between the gov't forcing youtube to host any given video and forcing some hapless baker to write something?

There are thousands of bakers, but only one YouTube. I think certain social networks should become public utilities and be run as such.

mockturtle said...

Gahrie opines: I think certain social networks should become public utilities and be run as such.

But 'public' = government, right? How is that better?

AMDG said...

If they decide to act as a publisher they should be treated as a publisher and be responsible for all torts committed in postings.

mockturtle said...

If we the people insisted on the First Amendment being honored, things could never have gotten this far. The whole concept of 'hate speech' is unconstitutional and should be treated as such.

Gahrie said...

But 'public' = government, right? How is that better?

Because then First Amendment protections come into play.

I Callahan said...

But 'public' = government, right? How is that better?

Because at least we’re protected by the first amendment in that case. You know it’s bad when the government is more trustworthy when it comes to speech than corporate America. But that’s where we are.

Doug said...

Parker Posey has come out against transgenderism? I

Parker Posey does not equal Posie Parker.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

However, 24 hours later we received a notification informing us that the video had been deleted by YouTube because it constituted 'hate speech that incites hatred or violence.'... In the ensuing storm of complaints from our fans and neutral observers, YouTube appear to have caved to social media pressure and reinstated the video.... The reality revealed by this incident is that the big tech giants answer to no one.

Far be it from me to defend Big Tech, but it is not easy to maintain a standard policy on what get taken down as offensive when you don't know from day to day what's considered offensive. I guess that's the perils of letting a company like Google become almost a utility without regulating it somehow.

traditionalguy said...

Thank God for freedom to speak truth. That is why the Plymouth brethren risked it all. As young men and women they had read the forbidden translations of scripture smuggled into England and had acted on them. The King burned Tyndall at the stake, but his translation won.

whitney said...

Doug said...
Parker Posey has come out against transgenderism? I

Parker Posey does not equal Posie Parker.

That's pretty short attention span you couldn't even finish reading my comment

whitney said...

Progressivism = Fascism

Show me I'm wrong.

John Henry

Fascism is a nationalist movement. Progressivism is not. Done!

BADuBois said...

A while ago my YouTube membership was deleted by Google for allegedly violating the TOS.

Did you get your money's worth?

I did. Because it wasn't free, I watched commercials for each video I bookmarked.

If there were clear rules to follow, and if I had broken those rules, okay, my bad.

In this case, it was arbitrary without a chance for appeal with, you know, a human.

And as others have pointed out, there are thousands of bakers, but only one YouTube.

Amadeus 48 said...

There is a market in hosting and posting. If counter-voices really need facilities to get their messages out, you would think that someone would meet that need. Or maybe it is being met already.

I use You Tube to view some things. I use Google to search for some things. I usually find what I am looking for. Lots of controversial stuff is out there. If you think you are missing some great thing on the internet, you are right, all the time, and everywhere.

These terms of service disputes are frustrating, but somehow Titania McGrath manages to stay on Twitter. Trump stays on Twitter. If the Twitter folks were really ready to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the cause, they'd cut off Trump forever starting March 2020.

Let's see what happens.

Any bets?

Kevin said...

What's the difference between the gov't forcing youtube to host any given video and forcing some hapless baker to write something?

You’ve got it backward. Parts of the government are already telling the tech companies they will regulate them if they don’t edit out the speech they find offensive.

See: the reaction when Zuckerberg said Facebook wouldn’t regulate political speech.

Ken B said...

Break them all up. Their patents are illegitimate because there should be no software patents.
Warren is right about 1 thing: anti trust. Break them up.

mockturtle said...

Gahrie & I Callihan: My second post addressed yours before you posted. If you don't believe that our First Amendment rights have been pulled out from under us with nary a whimper from the ACLU, etc., you haven't been paying attention.

mockturtle said...

Ken B: I suggest you go read [or re-read] Atlas Shrugged,. Leveling of the playing field means someone will get leveled. And it's usually the ones who are the best performers.

Mike Sylwester said...

The universities are enrolling more and more students who cannot and will not read at the university level.

This policy leads to various consequences. For example, the universities must coddle such students' resentments and tantrums, which might even ruin the universities. Examples are the University of Missouri, Evergreen University and Oberlin College.

Another consequence is that even if such students might graduate, they might be generally unemployable.

It seems to me, however, that censoring businesses such as YouTube might hire many such non-readers to work as their censors. After all, a person doesn't have to be able to read at the university level in order to watch and censor videos all day.

Ironically, the universities have well prepared such people intellectually for the profession of censoring thought crimes.

The universities have become our society's epicenter in the suppression of free speech. The rationales for censoring free speech are originated and developed in the universities and then are exported, by means of the graduates, to non-university institutions throughout our country.

Amadeus 48 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I Callahan said...

Mockturtle: how does that comment address that? The fact that the first amendment is weaker now doesn’t mean it can’t be advocated for ever again. ESPECIALLY when it comes to corporations having “open” forums and still blocking people based on content. What better opportunity to fight for free speech than when fighting big tech?

Temujin said...

How'd we even allow ourselves to get to the point where stating that trans-women are not women is considered hate speech and must be squelched?

This is not hate. It's an opinion.

Those who feel they can shut down speech are ignorant of the entirety of human history. If you think you have the right to shut down others, but that your speech is immune to being shut down, you'll be learning a very hard lesson in the not too distant future. Whether you are an individual, a group, or a major corporation. It'll come back at you as well.

Amadeus 48 said...

Althouse's dips into Tik-Tok have been a revelation. There is a world of content out there that I never see, some of which is very clever. It is the world of "influencers", goofy home movies, creativity unleashed, media stars that I have never heard of. I don't choose to spend any time in that world, but millennials do.

The internet is the entertainment pulse of the world. You are always missing something good, sometimes great. But all of it by its nature is ephemeral. It is thought made visible and then left behind.

I don't know the questions, let alone the answers, but I am not too worried about it because the content is so diffuse.

Narayanan said...

What's the difference between the gov't forcing youtube to host any given video and forcing some hapless baker to write something?
_____&&&&&---_
Isn't YouTube TOS more like baker's display case with unlimited shelfspace inviting creators to exhibit items?

clint said...

The same company owns Blogger, for what it's worth.

MadTownGuy said...

"While there is a formal right of appeal, the tech giants of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube act as judge, jury and executioner."

Does she think it will be easier, or harder, if the government regulates it?

mockturtle said...

This is not hate. It's an opinion.

Even if it is hate, Temujin, should we not have that right? Is it not an attempt to control our very thoughts? While I don't hate trans, I do hate what they have done to themselves. They look like pathetic freaks. And physicians, who have taken the oath to 'do no harm', should be prosecuted for participating in this travesty.

virgil xenophon said...

IIRC, Several years back--25?--a major shopping center was successfully sued for preventing political campaign literature being distributed in its public spaces (food court etc.) The shopping center owners advanced the argument that, as a pvt entity, 1st Amend rights didn't apply, but the courts held otherwise, stating that, in effect, modern social development/changes had seen the shopping center public spaces replace the town square as the de facto informational hub of the community and thus the functional equivalent of a public utility, and so ordered that the passing out of public handbills be allowed. Could not this case be the foundation of an assault on on You Tube, Google, etc.?

Fernandistein said...

And as others have pointed out, there are thousands of bakers, but only one YouTube.

Well, no, there are other video hosting platforms, and you could fairly easily turn your own home computer into a video server.

Besides, everyone already knows that "'trans women'[sic] aren't women" so in this case you're not missing anything at all, ha ha.

"we need a First Amendment for the Internet"

The First already (mostly) prohibits compelled speech.

Roughcoat said...

I'm okay with hate and hate speech. Don't phase me none. For instance, and as previously mentioned, I hate those people.

C'mon coppers -- come and get me!

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

What's the difference between government forcing private businesses to not discriminate by race and government forcing private businesses to not discriminate against deplorable political opinion? Who among the Ayn Rand fanboiz here are consistent on this point? (Honest question, I know some of you are indeed consistent.)

How about private businesses like MasterCard, PayPal, etc. being able to deny financial services to people with non-woke attitudes? They're private businesses, after all. Would getting the government involved in the problem of people being cut off from functioning in a modern economy just make things worse? Joe Schmo can just start his own globally honored financial transaction system if he wants to to start a business or just buy stuff online, right?

Michael McNeil said...

“In keeping with the spirit of our show, last week we invited someone from the other side of the debate, Posie Parker, a gender-critical ex-feminist, to give us her perspective.”

Really? So she's now an “ex-feminist”? Has she declared that? Would you, Althouse, accept somebody else's characterization of you as an “ex-feminist”?

mockturtle said...

Angle-Dyne, does the government not already withhold economic aid in the form of tax exemptions to companies, universities and individuals who do not toe the rightthink line? And no, I've never been a fan of Affirmative Action.

Would getting the government involved in the problem of people being cut off from functioning in a modern economy just make things worse?

As with education, the answer is assuredly yes.

mockturtle said...

And if the day comes [and it's already showing up here and there] where currency is no longer accepted as legal tender, it's time to take to the streets in protest. Though the Fed controls our currency, the banks should not have complete control over our ability to buy and sell.

n.n said...

Trans/neo-female (i.e. feminine male) with skewed or simulated gender attributes. On the other hand, trans/homo and trans/bi women are quasi-feminine female with a skewed sexual orientation (i.e. mental gender) Then there are transvestites who are not transgender but rather trans-social who appropriate women's fashion that is designed to normalize a favorable juxtaposition of the sexes.

John henry said...

To all those complaining a about google:

Do you use Google for search? Email? Calendars? Office suite?

Chrome, so they can track you?



Etc?

If yes, then stfu. I use Bing and DDG perhaps 100 times a day for search. About once a month I may not find something and will try Google. I've never, in 15 years or so since I gave up on Google, found something on Google that I had not been able to find on bing or DDG.

Here's a comprehensive list of free Google substitutes.

https://www.techspot.com/news/80729-complete-list-alternatives-all-google-products.html

John Henry

Matt said...

Fuck the trannies. Fuck every single one of them and all their braindead supporters.

The world is going to shit because 47 people are mentally ill but in a super special way so we all have to go along with their delusions.

Fuck that.

Fuck the trannies.

mockturtle said...

I use Duck Duck Go for the most part.

John henry said...

Btw: I am in full 100% agreement that Google Twitter Facebook et al have an absolute right to enforce any terms of service they wish.

I also have an absolute right not to use them if I don't want to. I wouldn't have it any other way.

John Henry

n.n said...

Fascism is a nationalist movement.

Fascism is a convergent corporate methodology. Progressivism, imputed qualifications aside, is monotonically ambiguous change. There is progressive liberalism (i.e. monotonically divergent). Progressive conservativism (i.e. monotonically moderate). Fascism is often chosen by movements to force progress when single/central solutions are insufficient.

n.n said...

that Alphabet/Google Twitter Facebook et al have an absolute right

Up to but excluding monopolies and practices, where democracy... the market dies in darkness.

Jon said...

Remember a few decadea ago when the Fed Gov decided that "public accommodations" like restaurants and hotels could not serve whom they pleased? Why can't the Big Social guys like YouTube, Twitter, etc. be treated in essentially the same way and be forced to behave "properly" (to be decided by the courts or legislation) as in the previous case? Seems only fair to me.

Yancey Ward said...

Like Whitney above, at first I thought it was Parker Posey, but then I saw the video.

Roughcoat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roughcoat said...

I use Google because I don't care. All kinds of people are tracking us, those are the times we live in. I've been tracked by people scarier than Google, the Turks and Kurds for instance. The Turks and Kurds hate each other but they don't like me because I've published articles critical of both which they regard as ... wait for it ... hate spoeech. Thanks to me the Turks and Kurds agree on something. They've pretty much forbidden me from entering their lands. Boo-hoo.

MayBee said...

I am just flabbergasted that we've gotten to the point where even questioning transgender dogma is not allowable.

Roughcoat said...

"I'm a free man. I am the only free man on this train!"

For points: who said that and in what movie and what was the context?

FullMoon said...

Trans gang is organized. No doubt if one of the gang is offended, they can generate thousands of complaints with the push of a button.

Same way left can immediately create boycotts.

Unlike the right. Take the NFL boycott as an example. How many vowed to never watch another game?

Anyway, once in awhile I will see a commercial that offends me and decide to never buy that product. Then, days or weeks later, I forget what the product was. Suspect most of us are the same, because we are not as insanely radical and intolerant as the goofy left. The unorganized right is much more tolerant.

Happy Thanksgiving, especially to our hate filled liberal commenters here, who are never actually happy and live to make everybody else as miserable as they are.

Yancey Ward said...

I only know the answer today without looking it up, Roughcoat, because the movie was discussed here at Althouse a few months back, and I think someone even linked the Youtube scene from it.

n.n said...

Alphabet/Youtube is hosting women's fashion shows wearing not Victoria's Secret lingerie (and less), featuring not trans/neo-female models, many of whom have progressively abnormal (i.e. not fat, not skinny) proportions that should trigger the censors. NBC, too. I wonder how they set up the color quotas to remain in social compliance.

n.n said...

Trans gang is organized.

Transgender spectrum ("rainbow"). Trans-social (e.g. transvestites), too? Trans/homos, and probably the impure trans/bis, are working to normalize a separate but equal status.

Ken B said...

I am half way through the interview. Very int indeed.

John henry said...

Nn

How do they have monopolies?

In any sense implying an ability to force people to use them.

Lots and lots of alternatives to all of these companies. Don't like them? Use an alternative.

Gab, Mastadon, parler, another I can never remember are functional alternatives to Twitter.

Firefox, dragon, Dissenter (which is my main desktop browser) explorer, brave, edge, safari, opera, dolphin and more for Chrome alternatives.

Yet people go on using Google products and Twitter.

Why?

Laziness mainly.

I am fine with that. Just don't complain that you don't have alternatives.

You do. Most as good as the Google product. Some identical to the Google product (chrome, Dissenter, dragon, brave and others are just different brands of the same open source browser) some better (Bing for image search)

Want to open up the market? Get pdjt to start posting on Gab/Mastadon etc in addition to or instead of Twitter.

Get pdjt to issue an EO that Firefox or Dissenter or some other browser will henceforth be the default browser on all executive branch machines. That Bing (or DDG) will be the default search engine. That Facebook will be blocked on all systems except as specifically required for govt work. (solitaire too while we're at it)

That would do more to open the market than 10,000 pages of regulations.

Regulate the? Why? There's no need at all.

John Henry

Angle-Dyne, Servant of Ugliness said...

Angle-Dyne, does the government not already withhold economic aid in the form of tax exemptions to companies, universities and individuals who do not toe the rightthink line?

Yeah, and who's saying otherwise? How is that a response to my question?

And no, I've never been a fan of Affirmative Action.

Not talking about affirmative action. So, you wouldn't want the government getting involved in private companies (say, MasterCard) denying financial services because, e.g., they don't want to do business with black people? Yes, I know, the government has long since involved itself in that, but that's not what I'm asking you and pointing that out is not an answer. Neither is saying they'd be stupid to do that (they would). They're private companies, you think they should be able to do that, right? No matter how much hardship it imposed on the individuals that they didn't want to sell services too? (And it would impose whopping hardships.)

As with education, the answer is assuredly yes.

Really? So you're not bothered with wrongthinkers being denied access to the financial services without which it's pretty much impossible to function in a modern society? "Just use cash!" (No running any part of your business online, or buying anything online for you, then. And a lot of other things, too. Enjoy your 19th-century trading post larping.)

I'm not seeing the analogy to the Department of Education here.

And if the day comes [and it's already showing up here and there] where currency is no longer accepted as legal tender, it's time to take to the streets in protest.

It'll be way past time to take the streets when that happens.

Though the Fed controls our currency, the banks should not have complete control over our ability to buy and sell.

Uh, that's exactly the point, mock. "Buying and selling" in a modern economy cannot be conducted beyond the most modest personal needs with "cash only". Since you don't buy the "public utility" argument, thinking that it would only lead to gummint screwing things up worse than they would be otherwise, do you think we'd be better off if the local private utility company could refuse to sell you gas, electricity, or water because the SPLC doesn't like you?

Ken B said...

Fernandistein's argument has another hole. Google maintains its dominance by the use of patents. Those patents are enforced by the government. So it’s not as private as he pretends.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

Angle-Dyne: From a historical perspective, too much government has done more harm than has too much private enterprise. However, the toothpaste is out of the tube and the Feds have seized unprecedented control and are not likely to relinquish it.

n.n said...

John Henry:

I didn't state that they operate with monopolies. Legally, maybe. A consensus of content and steering, probably.

ntabaq said...

correct

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

John henry said...

Yet people go on using Google products and Twitter.

Why?

Laziness mainly.


You do realize that Blogger (blogspot.com) is owned by Google and that you're using a Google product when you comment on the Althouse blog, don't you?

Like I said in an earlier comment, I don't defend Big Tech, they've got a lot of problems. Google has become ubiquitous to a degree, though; sort of like your local power company. Very hard to get away from for most people.

n.n said...

Google has become ubiquitous

Google this. Pass the Kleenex. Xerox that.

I search with regularity, sometimes Bing it, other times Google it, never Yahoo it, and occasionally a DuckDuck. Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John henry said...

Of course I do, nn

I even have a blog on blogger. I allow have 3 Gmail accounts (one because sprint made me. One to go with the blog and one when I needed a throwaway address) I never use them except to sign up for stuff.

I also watch. Upload and Download from YouTube daily.

I avoid Google where I can. Use it when I can't and recommend others do the same.

I don't ask for govt to protect me from them. I can protect myself just fine, thank you.

John Henry

n.n said...

So, we have established that there are differences between male and female sexes, between masculine and feminine genders, between man and woman, with normal distributions. And, of course, the penis and womb, respectively. Now what? When are the physiological differences significant, and should there be normalization, tolerance, or rejection of abnormal genotypes, phenotypes, and choices.

n.n said...

To NorthOfTheOneOhOne, from John Henry, care of n.n

Of course I do, nn

I even have a blog on blogger...

Milwaukie guy said...

Gahrie: Freedom of the press meant you had the right to own and use a printing press, not that a self selected group of people had special rights.

Thank you. I've said this on this blog before. In the Spanish colonies, private individuals were not allowed to own presses, only the government printing house had a license to print.

Freedom of the press does not either single out the news media as "The Press" as if they are some kind of Fourth Estate, in spite of their pretensions. If anyone, the fourth estate should be the ink-stained everywhere, many of who have been killed for allowing "bad ideas" to run from their presses.

The social media tech giants monopolize the new publishing, eroding freedom of the press. This situation must change. What weapon is used to whack these wankers on the head is TBD.


John henry said...

Nn

I'd forgotten about Yahoo for search. Never thought of them as useful as a search engine. 20 years ago when they were still a directory before they became a search engine I used them all the time.

I wish there were still a good directory engine around. I don't need one often but it would probably be handy a couple times a week.

Also, missed is Yahoo groups, shutting down next month. My first maillists were on e-list in 96.it became free-list and was then bought by yahoo and eventually became yahoo groups.

I had almost 5,000 subscribers to my Nevil Shute list by 1999. We got 120 of them, including all living (and one unborn) descendants to come to Albuquerque for his 100th birthday. not him, unfortunately. We did have his typewriter, desk and a propeller he made while a student though.

I really love mailing lists. But I am an old fogie and seem in a minority nowadays.

John Henry

cubanbob said...

Regarding the credit card companies refusing to accept merchants of federal legal products and services I say fine as long as the bank consortiums that own them lose their FDIC coverage. See how fast they stop being woke. As for social media and big tech companies, either they are publishers in which case they can be sued for libel and slander or they become common carriers. Pick one.

Caligula said...

Video requires a great deal of bandwidth, and not everyone can afford to support that. Whereas a transcript of the interview is text, and requires much less. And therefore it might be possible to widely distribute non-PC material via text even if it remained impractical to do so by video. Unfortunately many who would watch a video will not make the effort to read a transcript.

Ideally this sort of disapproval would have the same effect "Banned in Boston" had on book sales a couple of generations ago, in that the ban itself would ignite widespread interest in accessing the 'forbidden' material.

mockturtle said...

Regarding the credit card companies refusing to accept merchants of federal legal products and services I say fine as long as the bank consortiums that own them lose their FDIC coverage.

Good point, cubanbob. They can't have their cake and eat it, too. This should also apply to farm subsidies and any other government handouts.

Quaestor said...

I always get these two confused.

mockturtle said...

Best in Show is hilarious. Especially to those of us who watch a lot of dog shows.

n.n said...

Whereas a transcript of the interview is text, and requires much less [bandwidth]

And a lower carbon footprint. Don't go Green, go green, renewable, recyclable, sustainable, choose paper, or Gopher.

n.n said...

I really love mailing lists. But I am an old fogie and seem in a minority nowadays.

Perhaps an engineer, rather than an "old fogie". You select solutions on merit, and optimize their applications. Also, conservation-minded. Text, shared resource, and directed delivery scheme has a lower carbon footprint. Go green. Ironically, a mailing list would be properly paired with Green solutions.

PM said...

Putting on a duckbill and feathers doesn't make me a mallard.
It's also no reason to shoot me in November.

n.n said...

John Henry:

Do you remember AltaVista, the preeminent search engine of the 90s? BBS, CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, the catalogs of choice. BBS and dial-up?

AltaVista has bloomed. The BBS et al were predecessors to the website. Then, dial-up, somethings are best left behind. And through it all, there was Gopher.

narciso said...

1984 is a how to manual for them, they never intended nonprogressives to have access to these platforms, and they are endeavoring to correct that mistake,

John henry said...

Nn,

Don't forget Archie and Veronica, the use-net, use groups, alt-usegroups, alt-folklore urban, alt-binaries for low rez porn where it would take 10 minutes to display a black and green image said to be a nekkid woman.

And Lotus Jazz. I used Ashton-Tate's Framework, myself.

Lotus used to produce 123 in Caguas. They had hundreds, maybe thousands of 5.25 floppy drives and people swapping disks in and out by hand. A-T also had a plant making dBase the same way.

Prime had a big plant in Ponce. Intel had a huge plant in Las Piedras. Hp'sworlwide ink cartridge business was headquartered in Aguadilla. The plant is still there but hqis ow in Ireland, I think.

Those were the days.

John Henry

narciso said...

did the tax incentives make that big a difference, or was it the ali baba like behavior of local government, like the Miami city council that extorted themselves out of burn notice shooting in their fair city,

John henry said...

Digital Equipment, remember them? Had 6-8 plants in western pr employing several thousand people stuffing circuit boards.

Remember Wang Computers? In 1982 they built a 300.000sq foot building in Juncos to make word processors. Nice word processors and Wang was very successful for a number of years. But if you wanted to crunch numbers you needed a separate machine.

Amgen now owns the facility and the old wang building is a pimple on the site's ass.

My first pc, a top of the line Olivetti with 640kb (not mb) of memory and 2 5.25 floppies cost me $3500 in 85. Added a 40mb hard drive a year later. A 1200 baud modem in 89.

That's how old a fogie I am.

John Henry

Gahrie said...

I don't own a cellphone and still use AOL for my mail.

John henry said...

And now you can buy a complete pc that plugs into the hdmi port of your TV for $150 including windows 10.

The pc looks like an oversized USB thumb drive

These are very nice and do everything my desktop does.

Via the portal

https://www.amazon.com/Azulle-Access-Windows-Fanless-Cherry/dp/B01MA52B9L/ref=mp_s_a_1_11?keywords=hdmi+pc&qid=1574989089&sprefix=Hdmi+pc&sr=8-11

John Henry

Guimo said...

Boycott Nike and Gillette.

Douglas said...

Men who identify as women are men who identify as women. They are not women.

John henry said...

Mostly federal tax incentives.

The local government did build thousands of 10-40,000 sqft industrial buildings, mostly on spec that they would rent pretty cheaply fo manufacturing.

John Henry

Le Stain du Poop said...

Yes, transwomen are not women.

And you feministas are getting exactly what you have been begging for for 50 years.

Schadenfreude -- loving the Schadenfreude.

Le Stain du Poop said...

John Henry:

It's wonderful for you that you are as wonderful as you are we are proud of you.

Not everyone is as wonderful as you---that's the problem.

If you only care about you---then fine.

If you give a shit about the rest of the planet, not so much.....

John henry said...

I like your new handle. People have been calling you a shitstain for years.

Nice to see you embrace the truth.

I'll think of you whenever I see skidmarks in my skivvies from now on.

John Henry