Roissy has been deplatformed

Or so I hear, and Google doesn’t bring it up either, not even the shut down version.

I worry about deplatforming much less than many of you do.  I remember the “good old days,” when even an anodyne blog such as Marginal Revolution, had it existed, had no platform whatsoever.  All of a sudden millions of new niches were available, and many of us moved into those spaces.

In recent times, a number of the major tech companies have dumped some contributors, due to a mix of customer and employee protest.  So we have gained say 99 instead of say 100, and of course I am personally happy to see many of the deplatformed sites go, or move to other carriers.  Most of the deplatformed sites, of course, I am not familiar with at all, but that is endogenous.  I would say don’t overreact to the endowment effect of having, for a while, felt one had literally everything.  You never did.  You still have way, way more than you did in the recent past.

You might be worried that, because of deplatforming, the remaining sites and writers and YouTube posters have to “walk the line” more than ideally would be the case.  That to me is a genuine concern, but still let’s be comparative.  Did you ever try to crack the New York publishing scene in the 1990s, or submit an Op-Ed to the New York Times before the internet was “a thing”?  Now that was deplatforming, and most of it was due to the size of the slush pile rather than to evil intentions, though undoubtedly there was bias in both settings.

Another “deplatforming” came with the shift to mobile, which vastly favored some websites (e.g., Facebook) over many of the more idiosyncratic competitors, including many blogs (MR has done just fine, I should add).

Developments such as VR, AR, 5G — or whatever — will reshuffle the deck further yet.  There will be big winners, many of which are not yet on the scene, and some considerable carnage on the downside.  Maybe you won’t be forced off, but many of you will find it worthwhile to quit rather than adapt.

There still has never, ever been a better time to be a writer.  What bugs people about deplatforming is the explicitness and potential unfairness of the decision.  It’s like prom selection time, where there is no escaping the fact that the observed choices, at least once they get past the algorithms and are reviewed by the companies, reflect very conscious decisions to bestow and to take away.  We have painful intuitions about such rank orderings…still, we are better served by the objective facts about today’s diversity and opportunity compared to that of the past.

I thank a loyal MR reader for the initial pointer.



+1. A simple sentence saying who or what this is would suffice.

All you out there whose father is a liberal; tell him, "Happy Mother's Day!"

Seriously, what a country!

The now-rich nerds (who wore pocket protectors in high school) came up with ways to trash ordinary Americans (that slapped them around in high school) such as deplatforming some and declaring male whiteness a pathology.

FYI, "Neanderthal" Biff, a white nationalist is anyone with ideas to the right of Joe Stalin.

Deplatform me.

I don't have to deplatform you. I analyzed, monetize you, and therefore own you. Also don't be an ordinary American. Be an extraordinary one. An exceptional one. Then my contempt for you low achieving sub-billionaires would be much, much less.

It's in fact very complex in this busy life to listen news on TV, so I only
use the web for that purpose, and obtain the most up-to-date information.


It was hard to find much information on him at all, but this seems to have a rundown on who he is. and this is a review of something he was in.

+1 postmodern
how about
happy mothers day nancy pelosi
that" self impeachment" precept you pulled outta your ass last week
is Marxist & eliminates the whole innocent until proven guilty
problem as well as being the antithesis of pretty much the whole
bill of rights. we gonna recommend no driving until we have a chance
to talk to your constitutional law professor




See the comment by "KL" farther down the page for a good summary of the ideas this man introduced, which I now see everywhere.

Is it just me or is there very little daylight between Roissy/Heartiste types and white nationalists/supremacists? Seems like a lot of overlap, grievance studies for losers who need to blame others for their station.

Are there any black Roissy-ites? Latinos?

You first paragraph is very true. Once upon a time there were black and Latinos there when it was just another red-pill, PUA website for men. I was one of them. Once the rest of the alt-right package came in, it became a magnet for losers.

A black guy is one of the most respected long-time commenters at The Rational Male -- a far more sober and measured "manosphere" site than Chateau Heartiste. The TRM blogger and most of his readers dutifully try to avoid bigotry although there is a clear sense that men are the victim of today's culture wars.

People are pretty behaved at Rational Male despite almost no moderation -- although there was one inanely funny sequence where some idiot was taunting the black guy with picture after picture of squalid African mud huts, in contrast to pix of magnificent towers and cathedrals built by white civilizations.

I'd summarize the message of this website as, don't hate on women, enjoy them but understand where they are coming from and what you need to do to maintain their attraction and respect.

Well, you do realize what's going to happen right? Everyone from Roissy is simply going to migrate over to The Rational Male, and turn The Rational Male into a clone of what Roissy became.

The only solution to the problem of alt-right/incel/red-pill/PUAs is to give them their own ghetto and let them stay in it.

You people are fools. Who is forced to be tolerant: the invaders or the conquered. You are so brainwashed by radical blank slate ideology that you are incapable of understanding the consequences of tolerance, namely being conquered. The reason the left defeats you is because they are intolerant, which forces any 'compromise' to favor them. When called out on your spinelessness, you resort to namecalling and circular arguments (you're a loser because you're wrong because you are a loser). Basingabstract conclusions on social acceptability is prole behavior, the acts of one who has wholly submitted to being influenced by rather than influencing the zeitgeist, one who has no mastery of the world or himself.

That is entirely at the discretion of Rollo Tomassi.

All in favor. The faster they turn this Internet to shit the sooner we can replace it with a truly free one.

We already have a free internet. Advertisers are telling big tech what content they will and will not attach their brands to. Follow the money.

Except that is exactly what the Tech companies are stopping. Google directly stops advertisers from attaching their brands to posts Google dislikes. They literally call it "demonetization". You may have an advertiser willing to pay for placement with the content, but the algorithm prohibits the transaction.

The real thing to follow is not money, it is power. Google and Facebook are not letting the market sort it out, they are caving to elite opinion that shapes the world. Hence why they are horrified about misogyny and racism by white guys with video cameras, but will happily work with the governments of Saudi Arabia and China who keep women as chattel and have thrown entire ethnic groups into concentration camps respectively.

China and Saudi Arabia are powerful. People who dislike white nationalists are powerful. Tech kowtows to the powerful no less than any previous tributary seeking the blessing of the emperor.

'Except that is exactly what the Tech companies are stopping.'

No they aren't. Roissy is free to use Mastodon - - which is about as easy for the tech companies to stop as bittorrent.

Here is a simple explanation from wikipedia - 'Mastodon is an online, self-hosted social media, and social networking service. It allows anyone to host their own server node in the network, and its various separately operated user bases are federated across many different sites (called "instances"). These instances are connected as a federated social network, allowing users from different instances to interact with each other seamlessly. Mastodon is a part of the wider Fediverse, allowing its users to also interact with users on different open platforms that support the same protocol, such as PeerTube and Friendica.'

'Google directly stops advertisers from attaching their brands to posts Google dislikes. '

Being a private company, Google thankfully is still able to make its own choices regarding its own business. Mastodon, not having any commercial aspect, does not need to worry about profit at all.

'They literally call it "demonetization"'

Wait until you hear about this thing called the GPL - amazing what can be done with it, like create the software on which much of the Internet runs.

'it is power'

The GPL, in decades of existence, has convincingly demonstrated that the concept of freedom remains more powerful than any censor.

'they are caving to elite opinion that shapes the world'

And yet somehow, bittorrent still allows anyone to create a network that becomes more effective the more people who join it. And being free software, it does not need to meet anyone's social standards to use it - the GPL is free for misogyny and racism by white guys with video cameras.

'Tech kowtows to the powerful no less than any previous tributary seeking the blessing of the emperor'

And you wonder why this web site never mentions Stallman or the GPL? The GPL kowtows to no one. The only problem with free software is simple - it is even easier to kowtow to convenience than to the powerful (something well known to them, of course).

Quite so. Not every problem has a technical solution, but the technical problems of not being hosted on Wordpress or losing an account on Twitter do indeed have easy technical solutions.

I encourage members of the MR community to join Mastodon.

There is a more free license than the GPL. The GPL has significant restrictions(especially GPL v3)..the BSD license is the ultimate in software freedom. You can do what you like however you like with BSD licensed code. Not so with the GPL.

We need legislation--maybe even a constitutional amendment--to require that private entities give a platform to people those private entities and their customers don't want to work with. Now that's freedom baby!

At least something that protects domain registration.

And internet access.

Internet access is a privilege not a right.

Sure. Except when a gay couple walks into a christian baker.

Like an addition to the constitution that guarantees one a WordPress site along with government provided internet access?

I never heard of Roissy - I followed the link above and learned he was a "Renaissance-style 'great sinner'" (!) - but your comment prompted me to think that perhaps if there never had been such a hue and cry over everyone's "right" to internet access (which always struck me strange, television never having inspired a similar egalitarian fervor) there would perhaps be less absurd fuss over this or that edgelord's (did I use that correctly?) right to a "platform."

Which also reminded me of a teacher I once had - history, I think it was. She had a strange attachment to her podium, which she clutched like a Southern Baptist preacher. Which of course led the boys to disappear her podium from time to time. And sure enough, she would obligingly screech, "Where's maaah podium? I cain't talk without maah PODIUM!"

No, we just need the major players to do more of what they are doing. Some extra legislation for protection of the public, of children, and of copyright holders won't hurt either. Anything to weaken the existing network effects and make Tor/Mastodon/etc more attractive.

NO..the Constitution is to reign in the government..not give it even more control. We the people need to use our own authority bult into the Constitution but refusing to use Google, facebook and any other platform that acts in this way.

This guy should just go to one of the many other blogging sites. Wordpress is a private entity and there are no barriers to entry for a more pro free speech platform to compete with them. What's the issue?

You are so dumb.

As a conservative I agree. This kind of trash does not represent us. Good riddance.

Except by this very attitude you express, you prove yourself to be a cuckservative, not a conservative.

You side with marxists so you can posture on a hill, smig smile on you face while your children's future dies in a fire.
Ego is worthless, yours is based on instilled propaganda and fear and is less than worthless. Discard it.

This incident in itself doesn't bother me. As others have said, he could easily get another site to host him, there are many people (like Ron Unz) who happily host all sorts of "bad stuff". I guess the concern is more that there is a sense that it is becoming dangerous for normal people to deviate from orthodoxy. And this is wrong. I don't agree with Anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, 9/11 truthers and so on. But people holding these views should be entitled to hold them without risk of losing their jobs or becoming pariahs or seeing their names in the media or being doxxed. I do agree with some of what the skeptics on AGW say for instance (not all of it) and I think that we should be able to hold debates around these matters without entirely destroying the people holding the hetrodox views. What can be done is another matter, there is a coordination issue here, private companies individually are right to protect their shareholders and cave in. Perhaps nothing can be done except to wait for the pendulum to swing, which it will. The new-Puritanism currently prevalent will be treated just the same as the old once the SJWs hit their 50's and their kids are rebelling. It does make me want to buy bitcoin though.

You mean like how being gay or even just into BDSM could have ended your career in the past?

(Speaking of which, isn't Roissy a reference to the Story of O?)

Yes exactly. I don't think people should ever be punished for holding hetrodox views or even lifestyles. There is a hint of retaliation in your response, that somehow because there were some people doing wrong things in the past who were on one side of the political spectrum that somehow makes it alright to do those things to them in reverse. I hope that is not the case.

Yeah, no retaliation meant.

It's not very "in the past." Look up Larry Garfield's forced exit from Drupal.

'I worry about deplatforming much less than many of you do.' - Well, that is natural for anyone who decides what to delete or not.

'Now that was deplatforming' - No, it wasn't. Unless one thinks that every single writer has the right to be published by a private company.

'There still has never, ever been a better time to be a writer.' - Well, not if one hopes to get paid for writing. Shilling probably remains as profitable as ever, of course.

'What bugs people about deplatforming is the explicitness and potential unfairness of the decision.' - Along with a seeming misunderstanding that anyone has any obligation to spread someone else's views. This is generally an American misunderstanding, grounded in a deep misunderstanding of what the 1st Amendment is about, which is the right to express yourself without fear of government punishment, in a public setting. The 1st Amendment has never meant that anyone needs to pay even the least attention to what someone says, much less have any obligation to be respectful or have any obligation to further repeat someone's words.

'reflect very conscious decisions to bestow and to take away' - Thankfully, we live in a free society, proven by this very fact.

And who is Roissy? Using google was minimal help, mainly because of all the French information thrown up. Ah, a bit more searching (involving unz, so one can guess at the coyness behind 'a loyal MR reader') turns up this - ' is no longer available.'

The authors have deleted this site.'

Normally, that is a sign that someone is interested in plausible deniability. Not that it matters, since a reddit link seems to indicate that this deletion is seven years old. However, a name pops up several times in connection with Roissy, Heartiste, etc. With the usual caveats about possible false correlations, someone who is (or was?) apparently Roissy in DC is also this person - 'James Weidman is Director of Editorial Services for The Heritage Foundation.

Under Weidman’s direction, Heritage’s presence in America’s newspapers and news Web sites have reached unprecedented levels. Heritage experts and research appear daily in the nation’s major newspapers and magazines – both as sources for news stories and as opinion page commentators.

In 2006, Weidman’s department placed well more than 1,000 op-ed essays by Heritage experts in the nation’s top newspapers and Web sites. Increasingly, outlets such as the Chicago Sun-Times, New York Post and The Washington Times ask Heritage experts to pull “double duty,” serving as weekly opinion columnists in addition to their “day jobs” as policy analysts.'

That person seems exceedingly unlikely to be deplatformed any time soon, actually, assuming that they are the actual 'Roissy' referred to.

As noted above, further information leads to finding out that Roissy was apparently employed by FINRA, if this web site is to be trusted -

Could be a case of two people having the same name, with only one being the Roissy under discussion - I'm sure that Linkedin would be helpful, but Linkedin is another web site that requires javascript, and I just cannot be bothered to turn it on.

James Weidman is Roissy? Now I've heard it all.

Roissy is a pick-up artist, men's rights advocate, and white identitarian.

Oh, one of those, you may think. But he is really bright and perceptive, and really funny in a way you rarely get in these "That's not funny" times.

I think his blog was a guilty pleasure to a lot of guys who would be horrified to be outed as one of his fans. I was gobsmacked to learn here that Tyler was apparently a fan, despite the weird "Oh, blogs come and go," "Heard about it from a correspondent, otherwise probably never would have noticed" ... Yeah, right Tyler .

Thanks, also thanks to c_p. I thought it was a Google blog site named after a suburb of Paris. Indeed Roissy sounds like a pretty funny guy, at first I thought he was an in-cel but then it turns out he's a throwback to the 1970s men of the Saturday Night Live skit "Czech-born Festrunk Brothers". A real wild and crazy guy!



Weidman != Weidmann

If only TC would deplatform prior.

"The legend lives on from the Left Coast on down
of the beta they called “Cuckold Freddie.”
The cuck, it is said, sits alone near the bed
when the thighs of his wife spread to darkies.
With a load of mandingo twenty inches more flaccid
than the Beta Male Cuckold at full chubby,
that goon man and true worked his bone black and blue
when his wife and her lover slapped uglies."

-James Weidman (aka 'Roissy')

His "poetry" reminds me of some language from commenters on this blog. In other words I'm not sure anything of value was lost.

They took Roissy? What a great loss!

You're right, "Google doesn’t bring it up either." Its gone from the web just like it never existed. Guess only we the few will know and mourn its demise.

Goodbye, Roissy. We hardly knew ya.

'"Google doesn’t bring it up either."'

Well, not 'Roissy' alone, unless one cares about France. But Roissy in DC / Chateua Heartiste - some real gems.

Like this 11 minute long youtube video, which seems accurate in revealiing Roissy 16 commandments -

It seems accurate, at least to the extent that the first commandment is the same. Personally, this is not the sort of idiocy that amuses me, but for those interested in learning more about Roissy, it seems sincere. For those who already know who Roissy is, one can be sure that they can judge whether it is a parody or not.

If that's Roissy's real voice, he's a thespian, and indeed the video is a parody and funny between the lines. But parody is the hardest form of comedy, much better to do slapstick. Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell!

Another white nationalist deplatformed. I'm gonna need to dry my eyes. Or not.

Ummm, really this is the best time to be writer?! I highly doubt that! I call false-- mainly via argument of ETHOS, you are not writer, this is called hubris, a word writers know.

Not that these people were writers of any high repute, but this is a serious issue. Also, to say that this is the best time to be w writer, is to ignore the thousands of essays on the death of publishing since the internet has created free ad driven alternatives.

Which "platform" did the deplatforming here, one that holds itself out as an open viewpoint-neutral platform or one with an explicit editorial view and mission?

Deplatforming in the NYT era would have been not being able to buy ink from an ostensibly apolitical vendor for one's own printing presses. Pre-YouTube deplatforming would have been not being able to buy broadcast equipment. I myself don't know of anyone that couldn't go to prom because tux rental shops refused to rent to the person due to his political views.

"What bugs people about deplatforming is the explicitness"

Quite the opposite actually. If someone wants to start an explicitly anti-gun bank with like-minded depositors and investors, go ahead. A generic, nominally apolitical bank drawing support from investors, depositors, employees and others from across the political spectrum, however, is a different matter. As far as I know, Bank of America's securities filings don't tell investors that BoA's mission is to outlaw guns. So, when BoA bans gun makers, that's omission of material facts and thus arguably a form of securities fraud.

Political correctness most often refers to the encroachment of political viewpoint into customarily apolitical or viewpoint-neutral arenas. The combination of "political" with "correctness" implies that the PC-practitioner lacks the ability to distinguish a political view from a viewpoint-neutral fact ("correctness"). It's not so much a First Amendment issue --- except when involving governmental entities like public universities --- as an issue of respecting viewpoint-neutral spaces, even when those spaces are viewpoint-neutral by custom rather than by Constitutional requirement. It gets tied to the First Amendment because a necessary condition of protecting the First Amendment is the ability to enforce viewpoint neutrality and the injection of political views into customarily apolitical contexts calls that ability into question.

The irony of all this deplatforming is that conservatives are the ones crying to the government to bring back the equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine. Let that sink in.

That’s a terrible analogy.

It’s much closer to conservatives demanding that bakers be forced to bake cakes for a gay wedding.

Liberalism IS a religion after all!

Wouldn't it be more the contra?

If bakers are forced to bake cakes for a gay wedding, then $(PLATFORM) should be forced to host $(DISAGREEABLE_VIEW_POINT).

Nevermind ,that no single baker has a monopoly on wedding cakes, however, certain social media platforms have a defacto monopoly on audiences, even audiences that want to hear the disagreeable view point.

And the left is crying, "must not criticize corporations!" Everyone's trying to dunk on each other.

'Deplatforming in the NYT era would have been not being able to buy ink from an ostensibly apolitical vendor for one's own printing presses. '

Good example.

'Pre-YouTube deplatforming would have been not being able to buy broadcast equipment. '

Bad example, as broadcast equipment has always had a major element of government control (or whatever term you prefer) merely in owning it, much less using it unless properly licensed.

Notice how the troll starts to contradict itself as the thread gets longer.


What contradiction?

I thought we were talking about the Roissy airport.

'Roissy' as a term certainly makes it difficult to make that first cut by google - it took multiple searches to stumble across the unz link - unz being a reliable place to find the sorts of opinions that would lead to someone being concerned about deplatforming, as compared to concerns about an airport.

Personal deplatforming has become very popular. And there are lots of companies that will assist in the deplatforming: 23andMe,, HomeDNA, Living DNA, and several other companies. By early 2019, 26 million people had taken a chance at personal deplatforming, and the number will continue to rise. Of course, what I am referring to is DNA testing. Why do so many wish to be someone they aren't? I find it curious. My distant cousin, who I don't know, took a DNA test not to find out she is someone she isn't, but to confirm that she is not someone she did not wish to be, a descendant of Jews. Is that antisemitic? Or just plain stupid. John Kennedy was president when I was a child. Our father looked just like Kennedy, even combed his hair the same way. Were we related to the president? Such were the thoughts of a child. Yet, today those are the thoughts of adults, at least 26 million of them. The internet, especially social media, allow us to to be someone we aren't. Problem is, many have come to believe they are someone they aren't. Personal deplatforming is further evidence the world has gone mad. What's next? Will our paranoid president demand that everyone take a DNA test to prove they are who they say they are? Here is a poignant story of an attempt at personal deplatforming, only to discover we are who we have always been:

I worry about deplatforming much less than many of you do.

You're part of The Regime and it's not going to happen to you. A serious dissident like Anthony Esolen will be a target. Thanks for the dose of self-centeredness. Always an education.

....the way you are forced to read this blog

I thank Roissy for teaching me to keep an eye on (((them))). You can't trust (((them))).

You honestly believe Anthony Esolen (who at least does have a wiki page) is a 'serious dissident,' one that rates up with someone like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? Particularly considering that the Catholic Church has never been an institution that allows dissent regarding its hierarchy and decisions - well, unless one considers protestantism to be catholicism, without the obedience to the hierarchy.

And seriously, this is the 'deplatforming' that he faced? - 'On May 4, 2017, it was announced that Esolen would join the faculty at Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in Merrimack, New Hampshire beginning the fall of 2017. On this occasion, he criticized the Providence College administration for becoming too "secular."'

Just to highlight the level of argument here, the troll is now calling for dissidents to be officially licensed.

'the troll is now calling for dissidents to be officially licensed'


This is starting to be become bizarre as misrepresentation. Why should dissidents be officially licensed? And at least for the Catholic Church, it is theologians that require the proper education as a 'license,' at least if involved with representing the Catholic Church. And the Catholic Church is fully capable of determining who follows its doctrine, and who doesn't. The Catholic Church does not 'license' dissidents, it says they are wrong, and if necessary, kicks them out of the Catholic Church altogether due to believing in (and often spreading, a far graver concern to the hierarchy) false doctrine. With the hope, of course, that they will recognize their errors and return to the truth as determined by the Catholic Church.

Let's be blunt. Mr. Farrakhan has been deplatformed by malefactors of great weath.

Careful. You are hurting the narrative that only right-leaning, white men are being deplatformed. Only white men can be victims.

Lol now apply this logic to police shootings. Your parents were siblings.

It’s watching a liberal(*) society die coupled with a feeling of powerlessness to stop it that’s disturbing.

(*) in the classical sense.



The sense of betrayal by Tech is poignant too. They were supposed to be the good guys! The were supposed to be libertarians! The internet was supposed to set us free!

Don't be naive. FDR and Churchill did some very illberal things to win the war against fascism and protect the liberalism we enjoy today. Don't get so stuck on the rulebook that you forgot how to win.

"Better than the bad old days" does not equal "good" or even "ok." Sure, this is the best time ever to be a writer. So what? That is not a reason to defend systematic speech silencing by social media giants.

I guess I am just weird and see a bit too many shades of Niemoller here.

Suppose the government placed an arbitrary tax on people they disliked (say Zionists). 10% of their income will be fined. There would be court cases and many other attempts to protect these individuals.

What happens if enough companies "de-platform" you that you face the same effective tax? If Amazon decides to stop selling to you, if Google deletes your Gmail, if the electric company decides you might use their juice to power servers containing hate? My family recalls this in the South. Plenty of companies decided that they wished to de-platform based on skin color and many more decided to do the same with regards to civil rights ideology.

Maybe I am weird, but I think if a mob can descend and ruin your life, there is no moral distinction between them doing it through the ballot box or them doing it through a twitter campaign to get bad PR for major conglomeration. If it is morally wrong for a mob to vote away opportunity from the disfavored it is equally morally wrong wrong for a smaller mob to extort such opportunity destruction from corporations.

Legality is a trickier question. Forcing some one to participate in actions they despise, even if society would find such participation more moral, runs into all manner of problems. Obviously this requires some sagacious dividing lines that will likely be pleasing to none ...

Yet I have little sympathy for large corporations telling me that they must needs severe all relationship from these petting "haters". After all they are directly in bed with the CPC who happen to de facto, if not flagrant, racists running concentration camps. They work nicely with the House of Saud ... who happens to execute people for homosexual acts.

Whatever their protestations, these companies are not willing to stand by a consistent set of ideals. Nor even are they willing to reflect on the situation, and then follow a set of ideals going forward.

This is, and always has been, about PR. Large corporations deciding to join the bandwagon of going after acceptable scapegoats.

I do not pretend to know what "should be done", but minimizing a pattern of behavior that historically was used to oppress all manner of minorities is not a good general rule. Diminishing social mores of actual tolerance is morally bad and at least should be lamented.

"After all they are directly in bed with the CPC who happen to de facto, if not flagrant, racists running concentration camps. They work nicely with the House of Saud ... who happens to execute people for homosexual acts."
Maybe the American regime should not support Red China and Saudi Arabia. I mean, its opposition to Iran, Venezuela and Cuba is for democracy and human rights, right?!?!?!?! Let's be blunt. Americans are hypocrites, whitewashed tombs!!!!!!

You have some nerve, Thiago, considering the human rights abuses of the Brazilian regime you defend at every opportunity.

'What happens if enough companies "de-platform" you that you face the same effective tax? '

Use Mastodon, as noted above.

'If Amazon decides to stop selling to you, if Google deletes your Gmail, if the electric company decides you might use their juice to power servers containing hate?'

Well, I do not sell anything through Amazon (and generally avoid buying anything using it), have never used GMail, and my system continues to run on solar power, as it has for years. Of course people can oppressed, but the idea that somehow inconvenience is the same as oppression is actually problematic.

'but I think if a mob can descend and ruin your life'

Welcome to the entirety of human history, basically.

'or them doing it through a twitter campaign to get bad PR for major conglomeration'

The right to call for a boycott - for any or no reason - is absolutely protected by the 1st Amendment. As is the right to mock such boycott calls, of course. You seem oddly concerned about people using their freedom to act in a legal manner.

'it is equally morally wrong wrong for a smaller mob to extort such opportunity destruction from corporations'

Calling for a boycott is not extortion. For example, these people were certainly not extorting Disney 2 decades ago, but were exercising their 1st Amendment rights - 'Leaders of the Southern Baptists, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, voted Wednesday to boycott Walt Disney Co. and its subsidiaries for what it called the company's "anti-Christian and anti-family direction."

The boycott includes the company's films and theme parks and its television network, ABC.

An overwhelming majority of delegates voted in favor of the measure at the Southern Baptist Convention, an annual meeting held by the denomination. The vote is not binding for the nation's 15 million Southern Baptist members.

Many Southern Baptists object to Disney's policy of giving health benefits to same-sex partners of employees, "Gay Days" at theme parks, and the release by Disney and its subsidiaries of controversial books and films like "Pulp Fiction" and "Kids."' OF course, Disney is still being subjected to calls for boycotts.

'Whatever their protestations, these companies are not willing to stand by a consistent set of ideals.'

Is profit an ideal? Because what Prof. Cowen has called shark-like entities are extremely consistent when pursuing profit.

'Large corporations deciding to join the bandwagon of going after acceptable scapegoats.'

Your framing remains fascinating. No private company is forced to sell or distribute anything they do not want to sell or distribute, thankfully. Amazon has the complete legal right to not sell any book they do not want to sell, for any reason.

'Diminishing social mores of actual tolerance is morally bad and at least should be lamented.'

Or better, effectively acted against. For example, use Mastodon for social media, and enjoy having a robust framework that is beyond the reach of all those tech companies.

Remember, prior's argument is that calling for a boycott is protected by the first amendment but criticizing a corporation is not. He's not arguing some principled or consistent position here; he's just a monkey flinging crap at whatever wall he happens to be facing.

'is that calling for a boycott is protected by the first amendment'

It absolutely is, that is not just an argument, it is well established constitutional law..

'but criticizing a corporation is not'

And this is a blatant misrepresentation. Of course any American citizen is free to criticize a company or call for a boycott against it. What Americans private companies have zero obligation to consider regarding employing people is the 1st Amendment, particularly in at will employment states.

'he's just a monkey flinging crap at whatever wall he happens to be facing'

Well, somebody who apparently has no understanding of the distinction between the 1st Amendment and being employed by a private company seems to not even care what wall they are facing.

And this just occurred to me - do you honestly think the 1st Amendment protects you from being fired from a private company after you a call your boss or the company's CEO a string of profanities?

Because if you think that, you are simply wrong. But this is the MR comments section, so who knows if you actually believe that?

Your inability to separate the dual concepts of legality and cultural norms is....hilarious and depressing. The logic isn’t that tough.

Something can be legal and just/good (charity)
Something can be legal and unjust/bad (refusing to bake a cake)
Something can be illegal and just (civil rights sit ins)
Something can be illegal and unjust/bad (murder)

Socrates weeps.

Wordpress is totally within its legal rights to ban an obvious anti-Semite (legality). And for me, it was also the obvious moral decision (morality).

But let’s have another 10 paragraphs on why 1st amendment protections do not legally extend to the private sphere. And you can ignore the entire history of legal protections being downstream from cultural norms/mores and rant and rave and Link as is your wont.

I am not saying anything here is illegal. I do think somewhere in here legal things can become immoral.

Is it moral to tax people say 5% of their income based on their beliefs? After all, auction data shows that people value access to Facebook for about half of that to forgo it for a year; why exactly is it moral for Google or Facebook to say that this person holding this opinion has to forgo this life enhancing service because we dislike them?

I could buy that Google and Facebook are deeply committed to racial equality ... except that they directly work with deeply racist regimes throughout the world. Rather than just letting somehow spew words into the ether, they provide services that aid in things like placing ethnic minorities in concentration camps.

Okay, so maybe Tech just wants profits and they are afraid that the mob will turn them. First this seems unlikely, where else will the mob go? But secondly, how is this categorically different than Southern businesses cowering before the Segregationist mobs and refusing service to Whites who supported Civil Rights? Was it moral for the Segregationists to impose their will on businesses in the South? If not, what exactly allows us to know whose moral will is acceptable to impose on others via private party taxation and service denial?

I mean, take the absurd thought experiment. The mob demands that every economic actor in society refuse to serve the disfavored one: banned from buying food, unable to procure new clothing, receive non-emergency medical care, etc. Is it morally okay if the mob slowly kills the disfavored unable to sustain themselves in utter autarcky? After all it is just them voicing their displeasure via their economic might and everyone just seeking profits.

I cannot say where the bright lines lie, what crosses them, or how exactly to change the present dynamics ... I just think our culture is changing to one that is unhealthy in so many ways to everyone.

" why exactly is it moral for Google or Facebook"
Because their advertisers are protecting their brands. Budweiser doesn't want to be associated with white nationalists. Doritos don't want to be seen near anti-semites. They tell GOOG/FB to knock it off. You aren't following the money closely enough.

Do you think it is moral, not just legal, for companies to refuse services to Civil Rights advocates out of fear that brands will be damaged?

Is it moral to back segregation implicitly to protect a brand?

Excellent post ... again!

I am troubled by the power of these companies to control public discourse and thus thought.

Consider Facebook, by far the biggest social media commons. It is a de facto monopoly via network effects, at least outside of China. Facebook owns it's competitors - Messenger, Whatsapp, and Instagram. Facebook is a de facto social commons. Even if I wanted to switch to a competitor it would not diminish their power because I would need my social network to switch with me and that is not going to happen.

Consider Google. It has a monopoly or near monopoly on search. It also owns You Tube, another de facto commons. What would happen if Google quietly tweaked it's search algorithm to "lose" certain ideas? Do the thought experiment.

Here is a summary of Google's acquisitions:

I am less concerned about Apple, Netflix, and Amazon, mostly because I haven't thought about them as much and because of my belief that freedom of speech and freedom of thought are our most important foundational principles.

Freedom of thought and the free expression of the products of freedom of thought make a people stronger - bad ideas will not prevail in a free society. Good ideas can survive the open expression and discussion of bad ideas. As soon as we start suppressing speech, and thus thought, via some powerful authority, we are in trouble. It is unlikely that one person or one cabal is as intelligent as the sum total of all thinkers. Coupled with political power, the ideas protected by the cabal, even very bad ideas, can be imposed upon the people and can be protected from challenges. This is the very definition of authoritarianism. I think it's bad and I think it is contrary to our founding principles.

Freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of association make our nation great.

I think the least bad option is to make suppression of speech, and thus thought, illegal in any context, including in private businesses.

Freedom of speech means freedom of speech - it's that simple.

Maybe Facebook, et al, do recognize that good ideas drive out bad ones. And they may also realize they’re the ones propagating the bad ideas. That would go a long, long way in explaining the deplatformings and the lack of concern thereof from people like Tyler.

Are you for or against bakers refusing to bake cakes for homosexuals?

That's not how the cake 'issue' works. Bakers cannot refuse to sell cakes to homosexuals (or blacks, or communists, or satanists). What is being debated is can they be compelled to make special orders of cakes with messages on them that they find religiously abhorrent.

On the former, it's not even a debate. If a person walks into a bakery and says please make me a wedding cake, they have the right to be served. If they say please make me a wedding cake that says 'Congratulations Bob and Steve' it gets more murky. Although if the baker is the only one in town, I don't see why the couple can't order a cake and then add whatever wording they want after.

Precisely right. Discrimination is against the individual making the purchase and not against the product requested. You wouldn't expect to get a ham and cheese sandwich in a kosher delicatessen, would you?


I think it would depend just a bit circumstances. Is this the only baker in town? Are there readily substituteable products at a trivially different price point?

I mean never understand this. Many, many people think that it is appropriate to fine bakers multiples of average annual income when the plaintiffs could literally have gotten the same goods and services from any of dozens of providers for minimal effort ... yet somehow when world dominating corporations blacklist people that somehow is totally kosher.

I mean my world view, where the "punishment" ought to meet the "crime", it sure seems like it is a bigger punishment to deny services valued at thousands of dollars than those valued at twenty bucks.

Certainly, I also have a lot more sympathy for people who have consistent convictions and living by them, rather than some corporate BS where they flog scapegoats while coddling foreign governments who do far worse.

I don't know where the lines need to be drawn, but it certainly seems all manner if idiotic to let corporations cause massive harms for minimal benefits while ruining small producers to avert minimal harms.

You're not concerned, Tyler?

Concerned about a fellow academic?


The left have become the new Puritans. Perhaps the Salem witch trials are just around the corner.

All deviant thought must be purged and the thinker of such thoughts punished.

The Salem which trials are "just around the corner?"

They're here.

I saw Jordan Peterson dance naked on the Sabbath and he was with Joe Rogan and they said "Hitler; grant us the power sour the milk of Transgender black people". And they took on the form of a FROG. And made podcasts. And one put the evil eye on me, and I was triggered, but saved by the power of the WOKE. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Obama!

This is all true and I swear it on the New York Times, Weekend edition.

What a bunch of sissies.

Tyler is obviously quite concerned. Hence the act of the post. The content of the post is cover.

Tyler has always hated Roissy for giving him the moniker "cheap chalupas" for his cosmotarian views, which. This is just him relishing in the aftermath.

The "cheap chalupa" argument is credited to Cowan, and is even glowingly refered to as the High Priest of Cheap Chalupas.

Tyler Cowan once blogged that Roissy was "instrumentalist" and basically too evil to link.

DC can be a bad dating place for men. Multiple local women dating coaches literally wrote about dating 100+ men (online), insisting men pay, and then booty-texting other men for sex after dates! In this setting, Roissy/Heartiste blogged about Devlin’s idea that women “hypergamously” desire confident, high-status men who are successful with other women. It resembles Akerlof’s asymmetric information problem. Female hypergamy exacerbates Houellebecq’s observation that sexual liberation unleashes inequality in the “Sexual Marketplace”, where winners monopolize women while losers remain incel:

Roissy’s Maxim #14: Female cultural equality = male dating inequality.

Dark Triad traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) correlate with number of self-reported sexual partners. So, Roissy emulated bad-boy alphas, applied the “Mystery Method”, and wrote “my success literally quintupled (by success, I mean number of closes, quality of women, relationship availability, and meet-to-lay ratio) after I learned and applied Game.”

Roissy titled his blog “Where Pretty Lies Perish” to bitterly expose and punish feminist hypocrisy. He coined “rationalization hamster” (female irrationality or self-serving hypocrisy), “cock carousel” (promiscuity), “The Wall” (rapid decline of beauty with age), “alpha fucks beta bucks” (opportunistic dating), “thousand cock stare” (jaded sluts), and “white knight” (chivalrous chump).

Roissy’s blog deteriorated into alt-right aggrieved entitlement, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and anti-immigrant xenophobia. His other blog is still up.

What a great summary. Thanks.

What does "instrumentalist" mean in this context? I read the Wikipedia article on "Istrumentalism".

The issues suggested by the pics in the goodbyamericainaphoto blog are worth discussing, even if they are offensive.

We are in a period of rapidly changing sexual mores and gender roles. What are the implications? Why not discuss it? Have we become afraid of ideas?

Like many long-term married men, Tyler disapproved Roissy’s lessons from D.C.’s harsh dating scene. Tyler wrote “Roissy promotes an aggressively instrumentalist view of the sexes. … Poor Roissy.”

Roissy explained how the sexual revolution (contraception) cheapened sex, and economic liberation empowered women to choose exciting cads over boring nice-guys. His first post, “Endless Dating”, argued that prolonged single adulthood and urban anonymity fostered a promiscuous, exhausting, and unsustainable equilibrium.

“It’s Time to Start Calling Out Women Who Are Losers” criticized judgmental sexism toward unemployed men, when men’s labor force participation exceeds women’s.

“Marilyn Monroe Was Skinny” responded to entitled obese women quoting “If you can't handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don't deserve me at my best.”

“The Crisis of Female Porn Addiction” explains that romance novels are the female analog of male pornography. Yet anti-porn feminists never want to ban this “emotional porn”.

Roissy’s acknowledgment of women’s sexual agency is more progressive than patronizing them as victims of men’s lechery, or as vending machines that you put kindness coins into until sex falls out. Conflict arises when Roissy’s insights undermine women’s bargaining position. “The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.”

Despite his womanizing, Roissy laments that marriage has been undermined by contraception, divorce, women’s economic independence, anti-male incentives, and porn. He thinks feminism has raised a generation of unattractive “soy boy” (estrogen-infused) beta males and unfulfilled careerist spinsters. This corrodes society with single mothers, disengaged fathers, and lower-class dysgenic bastards. That leads down a deplorable aggrieved slope of anti-immigration and racism.

As a happily divorced man in his 50s who pays 60% of his salary to his ex soul-mate, I find this incredibly offensive.

Sure, my children are not my “DNA” children. But see today’s NYTimes, the obsession with DNA and identity is a meaningless abstraction. My children are mine, in a greater sense in which my wife was impregnated by a strange man and I signed the certificate.

And that certificate matters. It’s the basis of modern Liberalism. I raised my children, even if they are not related to me I paid for their college and still pay their living expenses.

They’re my children. Conservatives use cuck as an insult. Any liberal owns it as a badge of honor. I raised my children, blood or no blood.

A cuck is a man who accepts responsibility inherent to modern liberalism.

Yes, Roissy could be extremely offensive. You sound like a high-investment parent, not an absent father. Actual cucks took offense too:

@EdR, I agree it is reasonable to discuss gender, sex, economics, and public policy for families, including marital incentives and sharing blame with women. But it gets hard to prevent divorce without harming children or inadvertently increasing the rate of home poisonings.

Dating in SF and Seattle can be brutal for men too but not too many of them turned into anti-Semitic white nationalists. In life you don't always get what you want. How you bounce back from setbacks determines the person you are. The Roissy crowd, like the Trump crowd, keep finding others to blame when the real fix is in the mirror.

If you define fix as surrender.

Certainly, the tech companies would vehemently disagree with Tyler that they are analogous to publishers.

Was A.B.Dick a publisher.

They supplied the stuff for mimeogragh machines.

All you needed to publish in the 50s and 60s.

My concern with deplatforming is not what % of the population has a voice, but how much control any particular ideology has over the average person's access to information.

I grew up around a certain religion that was fairly controlling, but they never rewrote my encyclopedia, or changed the shows available on TV, or hid from me the things my friends say, or determine what makes the newspaper... Actually the last one isn't true, they did own one of the local newspapers.


But they tried.

I grew up when late night AM was filled by "bloggers" selling their religion, often riffing on the theme of that devil music (from black people) was corrupting children (white girls especially) with "the beat, the beat", calling for banning rock n roll.

That was when radio was like the Internet: government handed out free spectrum to service "the public interest".

While the corporations were involved in developing AM radio, then FM, they had not figured out how to monetize it even circa 1960 for more than a few hours of the day, for baseball mostly it seemed. The corporations needed content to sell radio transmitters and radio receivers.

People had lots of free time to listen, but no means to listen. Except in the car or truck. Or sitting at home. Or in some businesses.

It wasn't until the mid 60s when portable transistor radios became affordable and greatly increased living costs. Ie, they added $50 then down to $20 to the "must buy" costs of families when incomes of $50 a week were middle class.

Then the tens of millions of ears always listening made monetizing even hog futures easy, but especially ads targeting kids. I never went, but i wanted to go at 15 to " Sunday! Sunday! [ROAR ROAR] Motorcity Speedway! See the 800 horsepower supercharged drag racer go up against...." Or coca cola, pepsi, that I heard doing Saturday labor in the Sun and heat for 50 cents for the job, listening to my prize $20 3 transistor AM pocket radio.

The marketplace thrives on information. This and many other things are information. People make decisions based on information.

Wordpress will submit to pressure to shut down your blog. This is valuable information. If you use Wordpress as a blogging platform, make sure you have a backup. Not a bad idea any time, these companies can go bankrupt and disappear.

This applies to every platform being offered. Google made a serious mistake by being arbitrary and political in how it operates. Half of the US population is considered by Google evil and not worthy of a platform by a good portion of it's employees. Fine. That means that it is foolish to invest in their platform as a basis for your business either in advertising or as content delivery. Surely not as a sole provider.

A massive change is occurring as all these large platforms are finding that they are being expected to curate what is on their platforms. The Rogan, Pool, Dorsey and Gadde podcast is enlightening in this regard. It is an impossible task to do in a way that will not drive major portions of their customers away.

All these things decrease the value of these platforms. It is expensive and time consuming to maintain a server and blog platform, but if you have to do it anyways to avoid the arbitrary and ridiculously black hole of the customer service processes of these places, then their value as a service disappears.

The Stormfront is restless today.

This is good practical advice.

FWIW, you can go further than backups if you want. You can set up a "failover," hosted in a different domain and country.

That should be enough for anyone who is merely "edgy." Of course, if you end up hosting too many shooters' manifestos, they might put in a little more work to shut you down.

Trivia: I had a computer stolen once. The police asked if I could say when. I told them down to the second. They look at me like I'm crazy, and I say "I have a failover."

If you are a lawyer and represent unpopular people who are accused, don't use any of these platforms for your communication or advertising.

I also thought that article was relevant to the "de-platforming" issue. Although it merely confirms a trend I've noticed the past number of years, this is particularly disturbing. Apparently, the "right" of a 21 year-old film major to dictate who is worthy to be defended by a attorney (so she can feel "safe") and the attorney's right to defend are more important than the Sixth Amendment, the presumption of innocence, etc. The action by Harvard's leadership certainly will encourage more of this. But, at least Danu Mudannayaki is very proud of her college and her college's administration for "finally doing the right thing". We could make things a lot easier if Danu and her group would just get together over dinner and decide not only Weinstein's guilt but also his punishment. Who needs the courts?

"Who needs the courts?"

Just send him to me. First I'll try 'im, and then I'll hang 'im.

Yeah, that Atticus Finch fellow, lynch him next.

Oh Liberals! How art thou fallen!

Good post, Tyler.

I can't even find a quibble.

"In recent times, a number of the major tech companies have dumped some contributors, due to a mix of customer and employee protest."

I would say 'a mix of SJW activist and SJW activist employee protest'. So, for example, if your website hosts Google ads, you have to make sure you don't place any ads on pages featuring guns. Because advertisers don't want their ads being displayed on such pages? Nope. If that were the concern, Google could easily give advertisers the ability to opt out of having their ads near guns, while allowing other advertisers to allow their ads to appear in those places -- or even to specifically choose to place their ads there. After all, there are many advertisers who would pay good money for that placement (sellers of guns, ammo, and other gun-and-hunting related merchandise or simply sellers of other goods generally of interest to red-state, rural folks). But Google does not take this approach. Why not? Because of fear of protest by left-wing activists (especially the ones inside the Googleplex).

Yet, the gun industry thrives. President Captain Bolsonaro has allowed avery Brazilian to buy 6,000 cartridges a year for self-defense. It means a couple can have 12,000 cartridges every year. It is enough to hold out against a moderately strong attack force.

Would it be reasonable for a Christian businessman to ask that his ads not be placed next to anything sexually explicit?

IOW, don't be a snowflake when you know everyone has preferences.

Deliberate or another reading comprehension fail?

It's not clear, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

"Would it be reasonable for a Christian businessman to ask that his ads not be placed next to anything sexually explicit?"

Of course it would. Just as would be perfectly reasonable for Google allow advertisers to specify that their ads not be placed next to anything material having to do with guns. But that's NOT what Google has done. What Google has actually done is to forbid ANY of it's ads appearing next to ANYTHING to do with guns. Not just for advertisers who object to such placement, but for all advertisers, including those who don't object and even those who would like to buy placement near material about firearms. It doesn't matter if websites have readers who are interested in guns and advertisers who would be willing to pay to reach them with targeted ads -- Google says no unconditionally. So the question you should have asked is:

"Would it be reasonable for Christian activists to demand that Google refuse to place any ads at all next to anything sexually explicit?"

If you think this is not a problem, what would you say if Google caved to pressure and refused to accept and place any political ads from the Trump re-election campaign? Or refused to accept ads from any Republicans at all? How about if they extended the practice from ads to search (where they enjoy a ~90% market share)? Would it be OK if Google started excluding any material that offended SJW activists from its search results? Or if it refused to provide directions to businesses that activists targeted as objectionable? Is there any point where you would see this behavior as a problem?

Google ads are much more a choice for all parties .. than search.

It's interesting, Google "single action revolver" and the second result (after Wikipedia) is a store. But flip to the "shopping" tab and they won't quite show it to you (prints, manuals, holsters, but no actual functioning single action revolvers).

So tyranny of an ad network? That doesn't cross my line, in the way search would.

You are a good SJW snowflake. No ability to tell the difference between choice and force.

You are forced to advertise with Google?

Terms of service isn't force.

Could someone please explain what happened? Did his domain name get banned? Was he banned from a blogging site? What exactly did his "deplatforming" entail?

Apparently, getting mentioned on a leading economics web site, with most commenters apparently saying something along the lines of 'who?'

From what I understand, he had a blog on the Wordpress platform. They kicked him out.

Ok thanks for the explanation. Sooo... He could just go to another blogging site? Why is this a big deal?

Yup. Lots of them. Or even two or three.

Not as many as there are bakeries or countries but for some reason gays and refugees get to demand their first choice.

Isn't it great not to have to do business with people who offend your sensibilities? We should expand this.

Seriously, I'm thinking either everybody has to bake the cake or nobody has to bake the cake.

sensibilities =/= religion

FWIW, he stopped going by "Roissy" and writing about dating and picking up women like 10 years ago. He's been going by "Chateau Heartiste" ever since and mainly writing from a far right angle with not infrequent indirect threats and intimations of violence against liberals, Jews, immigrants, and others. "Neo-Nazi" is overused, but it's not completely inaccurate in this case as there was considerable overlap between Chateau Heartiste and explicitly Neo-Nazi outlets like The Daily Stormer.

Name one "threat" against any such group that Heartiste ever made.

He was careful to avoid making explicit, direct threats.

It's fair to say that he regularly trafficked in "indirect threats and intimations of violence". And he tolerated the same, and even more direct threats, in his comments sections.

This is not true.

Ridicule and bad taste, yes. Violence? Only in some sort of campus, postmodern sense, if that.




Public broadcasting was a response to de-platformign in the TV age.

Then the internet was built with taxpayer funds, and was offered with the promise of open and free access. We know how that turned out.

I can't wait to find out what medium the public will build next, to then get colonized and eventually hijacked by the private sector.

This whole fight about what is censorship and free speech, political correctness, boycotts, net neutrality, fairness doctrine, etc w/r/t universities and privately owned media companies has GOT to be the worst in terms of one's viewpoint depends on who's ox is gored.

You might as well say that Al Gore invented the interwebs.

As an essentially DoD project, there was never any promise of free and open access. It was a great triumph of the military-industrial complex.

Sure thats where the idea and tech originated. Paid for by the public all the same

But you skipped its mass implementation in academia, and subsequent release from there

'As an essentially DoD project'

Well, that certainly explains where hypertext and the world wide web comes from - at least in an alternate reality.

Probably caused by all the world changing work done at CERN. As noted on CERN's website - 'WorldWideWeb - Summary
The WWW project merges the techniques of information retrieval and hypertext to make an easy but powerful global information system.

The project is based on the philosophy that much academic information should be freely available to anyone. It aims to allow information sharing within internationally dispersed teams, and the dissemination of information by support groups. Originally aimed at the High Energy Physics community, it has spread to other areas and attracted much interest in user support, resource discovery and collaborative work areas.'

And yes, that is truly a web 1.0 site.

"There still has never, ever been a better time to be a writer."

Just listened to Studio 360 American Icons on "2001 A Space Odesey" which universally panned at its premier in 1968, April 3. Took me back to a time when people were being "deplatformed" from AM radio which thanks to the new transistor radios that were increasing living costs of every American family buying them for every member of the family exploding the audience, and enabling high profit monetizing of AM broadcasting. No longer were stations, required by the FCC to serve the public interest, giving time to every tom dick and mable who would fill the air time with content for free. The FCC was now pressured to dictate free air time to the public at other than 3am Monday.

The big corporations ran radio stations, then TV stations to sell radios and then TVs, not to sell ads. Sure, they sold ads for big events to pay to produce the big events. Baseball games, corporate sponsors to broadcast the Met or local sponsors to broadcast the local high school or college games.

Until living costs increased enough to make multiple transistor radios and a B&W TV a middle class family necessity and economies of scale brought prices down to allow working class families to afford them if they sacrificed.

With "everyone" listening or watching, advertisers shifted from print to broadcast. But this enabled driving more consumption because the listeners were much younger than newspaper readers. There were few ads on the comic pages.

But mimeogragh had enabled "bloggers" to bypass the big corporate media to produce newspapers and newsletters for the thousands of countercultures.

When 2001 was released, scifi was disrespected by not only the elites, but the mainstream. As a kid, I read scifi even when told by teachers it was rotting my mind. My dad and mom got me to the library every week to check out books and let me bury myself in the couple of books rreading Saturday night and most of Sunday because they understood the value of wanting to read.

That led me into touching on the underground of scifi with fanzines which organized into scifi cons. But that was just another branch of the underground publishing by "bloggers" whether the socialists, commies, the John Birch Society, plus amateur radio, recipes, gardening, ....

I helped my dad from preteen years produce newsletters for the church, running the mimeogragh machine, folding the printed pages, addresssing those being mailed, going to the post office with him to post them under subsidized "book rate" bulk mail rates. Thus in the 50s he was a "blogger" like half the "preachers" of the day were. Few transitioned to the Internet. Thus, they were deplatformed.

"There still has never, ever been a better time to be a writer. "

Said someone with a tenured day job

Soon enough they'll come for you. And you'll wish you'd remembered Niemoller.

Abe Lincoln came after the slaveholders. Nobody stopped him and America became the greatest nation on earth.

Actually he didn't, right?

By this logic Germany is doing pretty damn great so what’s the take away.

Straussian post. Thanks tyler

Deplatforming is a form of censorship. Privately enforced but, given the current concentration of market power, not much less efficient than old days state censorship. State enforced censorship in Soviet Union of 1970s lowered the penetration of persecuted writers perhaps by one or two orders of magnitude by forcing them from state publishers to samizdat. I am not sure the effect of being banned from all major social media platforms at once is much less dramatic. And given that these platforms are now coordinating deplatforming it would be not quite correct to call this censorship "private".

Now, "we have gained say 99 instead of say 100" is a really remarkable phrase to describe censorship. Discourse diversity is not served by publishing 10x or 1000x state/deep state/corporate overlords/majority approved texts while censoring minority views. Just as prosecuting a small minority of population is not remedied by giving birth to 1000x times more children by the majority.

"Deplatforming is a form of censorship."

Web browsing and buying books is a form of censorship. Unless you read everything on the Internet or buy every book Amazon sells, you are not reading/buying someone somewhere. That's deplatforming them!

Those little stars 'reviewers' give books on Amazon, all little censors! Stop the oppression!

Exactly and when the officer says stop you stop and beg for your life otherwise well you only did it to yourself. Tough titties bucko can’t out dance a bullet.

If you are begging for your life to a Facebook moderator the problem is your life priorities and accurate perception of the real world.

It's pretty simple. These "de-platforming" efforts are not viewpoint-neutral. Safe harbor provisions in law only attach to viewpoint-neutral sites.

Therefore, sue them. They'll stop once someone with deep enough pockets gets a judgement.

Sue them on what grounds? Since when are you entitled to be on Youtube, Facebook or Twitter anymore than being entitled to be published in the NYT?

I dunno, maybe the families of the New Zealand massacre?

If you are going to take responsibility for blocking offensive content, are you not also taking responsibility for live streaming execution videos?

Or perhaps anyone who has ever had libel published about them on the site?

Again I think a viewpoint neutral safe harbor is the best option for all concerned with only illegal activities being banned (and I certainly support putting questionable material behind "adults only" filters); but I suspect tech will continue to want to be able to exclude the unholy from their private space whilst also declaring that their space is sufficiently public that they bear no responsibility for what happens within it.

So Facebook and Youtube both ban nudity to some degree but are immune from libel suits because they are a 'safe harbor'. You can sue the guy who posts a video telling lies about you but not the platform itself.

Yet this idea of a safe harbor is not all that new. For example, if someone slanders you in a bar, you can sue the guy for slandering you but not the bartender for allowing the guy to trash talk you. The bar in that sense is an 'open platform' where patrons can shoot their mouths off. Yet the bartender can regulate content in his bar, kicking out patrons he finds rude, loud or otherwise unpleasant. He doesn't have to be bound by some type of ACLU free speech style to enjoy that 'safe harbor' status of not being responsible for everything people say in his bar.

Perhaps then the solution is to rethink safe harbor as whether the company is providing a venue or acting as a publisher. Acting as a publisher would imply full curation of their content and make them the most responsible for it. Providing a venue wouldn't require being absolutely 'viewpoint neutral' if they censor for atmospheric purposes.

The real question for Tech is if they are soliciting or otherwise causing things to be broadcast that would not otherwise. If Google moves libel to the top of the search page, right now they can chant "viewpoint neutral safe harbor".

If Google "curates" the results such that a proven libel in say Talking Points gets top billing while a truthful counterclaim from, say The National Review gets second paged a very reasonable argument can be made that Google "decided" to help spread libel.

Censoring for atmosphere, sure, but again that gets kinda hard when you are willing to provide search, for say the KSA websites. If you are going to provide a venue for state that can and does execute people for homosexual acts it is awfully hard to turn around and say that some random anti-gay rant is "bad atmosphere".

I certainly think the wisest option for tech for both their corporate and civic wellbeing is flagging problematic content to hide behind some adults-only/you-have-been-warned filter and then letting the chips fall as they may.

I mean if I were up top in some Tech firm I would be quite worried as we policed content more. It is far too easy for one of my employees to engage in some sort of conspiracy with the outside world and it is a far messier knot to untangle that the corporation was not a party to said conspiracy.

Again, I wholly believe that current law grants the right to do all the things I fear. I could even be convinced that it is good to have laws that facilitate such acts. I just see it as wholly problematic that society views this as a recourse for random spews of socially intolerable words which should be ever more frequent.

Yet how will that go down? If Facebook makes you click an 'adults only' type button to get to Alex Jones (and clicking such a button might be prevented if you are, say, using a computer in your high school library) but doesn't for a left wing pundit will Alex Jones and company shrug and be happy having a platform? Probably not. And what of Facebooks ban on porn and nudity? Will you say Facebook has to let that live behind the 'You've been warned' button even though Facebook has decided they don't want to traffic in those things regardless?

This whole comment thread is another example of people being all in favor of freedom of association, until someone else's freedom of association starts negatively affecting a group of white men and the things they are into.
Kicking black people out of restaurants? Freedom of association! Get me my confederate flag, we got to stand up for southern racists right to not associate with black folk!
Not baking a cake for a gay couple? Freedom of religion! We got to fight for conservative Christians right to be jerks to gay people!
Private company refuses service to a site full of mysogynistic white men? WHAT MAH FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED! WHERE'S MY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION?

Overstated, but yes. I believe in freedom of association, though I don't often agree with its effects. Most people on the thread are just using their the free speech offered to MR to complain about it. No issues there. If they asked for some intervention, then I'm on your side 100%.

>we got to stand up for southern racists right to not associate with black folk!

Hey Hazel, what's it like to have hallucinations, and then get really upset about them, all the time?

I bet it sucks.

Did you totally forget about how Rand Paul got hammered on MSNBC for saying he didn't support the public accomodations parts of the CRA?
Or the whole thing about he had a confederista working on his campaign staff?
Hello, memory hole.

Here ya go:

Paul appealed to the free market, and argued that if a business owner were to post signs declaring segregation in his or her business, people wouldn't patronize it.

Oh yeah, but if people don't patronize you're business.... THEY'RE A BUNCH OF SJWs WHO ARE DENYING YOUR FREE SPEECH RIGHTS!!!!

I think deplatforming as an issue is missing half of the problem.

Most people deplatformed have been using the platforms' algorithms to essentially game the system. Just as on the big scale YouTube and Facebook is relentlessly AB testing to drive more attention, the little guppies like Alex Jones AB their 'outrage' to get clicks.

Want a model for this? Consider the movie rating system. Long before porn on the internet, movies would try to dance a fine line between being rated R and X/NC-17. Add more sex, nudity and violence, get more tickets sold. Add too much and get an NC-17 and few theaters will carry your movie. On some level there was issues of free speech and artistic expression in play but if we are honest if 10% of the 'issues' were about the artist versus the marketing that would probably be a high estimate.

Now the game is how much anti-vac/Jewish Conspiracy mongering/etc. stuff you can get away playing the same role as bare breasts in your 1980's horror/sex comedy. Since few, if any, of the deplatformed are seriously engaging in debate, I think we should take their cries with a grain of salt.

And, note, the deplatforming was totally rational. Mall owners didn't want to rent to a movie theater showing a bunch of X-rated films while trying to get families to come shop. Facebook bans nudity (so in some ways it is even more prudish than your 1980's mall!). These aren't 'open platforms' but a venue where you can 'play your gig' and venues want stuff that sells, not an 'open space'. Just because your bar has an 'open mic night' doesn't mean it's a free forum.

I saw this coming with the help of roissy and others and started my own hosting service. I have one news site that gets hit with illegal takedowns all the time..which i dutifully ignore while other SJW infested webhosts(godaddy being takes these sites down. I hope folks will choose webhosts the are not afraid of the sjw's...

"You still have way, way more than you did in the recent past."

What kind of dipshit attitude is this? "It's okay to unperson people because in the recent past they had no way of really voicing an opinion, so it's it's okay to unperson them and prevent them from really voicing an opinion."

"Did you ever try to crack the New York publishing scene in the 1990s"

Try this one: Hey black people, be happy with segregation. In the recent past you guys were slaves.

Or: Hey fags, be happy we're only not letting you marry. In the recent past, we burned you, which is why you guys are called fags.

Your logic is shit.

Unfortunately you're right. Usually sharp Tyler's logic is shit here.

Comments for this post are closed