I had a discussion recently with Peasy Myers, the skeptical heretic and the true Puka, on the subject of trolling on the internet. The conversation inevitably turned towards Faringula, and Peasy's policy on blocking of trolls. I'll play a short section of what he had to say on the matter. So when somebody wants to come along and disagree with me, you know, that doesn't get them banned, it doesn't get them kicked off my blog. There's lots of people who are yelling at me non-stop on my blog about various things. But what gets them banned is when they do that attention grabbing stupid behavior. You know, that's the thing. If somebody cannot say something cogent, can't say something intelligent, can't say something even amusing or entertaining, then apparently they don't have the kinds of skills they can survive on the internet, and then let's kick them off my blog. I don't want to hear from them. I was a bit flabbergasted by the difference between what Peasy says here, and what I think everyone, both inside and outside Faringula, know to be the real policy. I thought he was a little more open about it. His posted standards state that, posting here is a privilege granted by me, not a right, and posting privileges can be rescinded at my whim. And then today, February 10th, he responds to a YouTuber by the name of Noel Plum 99. Noel had been blocked a few weeks ago, and posted a video here on YouTube calling Peasy out on the lack of critical voices. Given the footfall of Faringula, he asked, where are the critical voices in discussion? Peasy's response is very telling. He doesn't really deny that there are no critical voices. Oh, he talks past Noel Plum's point a bit, and there's a bit of a quote-mind and the finger of blame is pointed, and Noel is held up as an object of ridicule. That's when we get a breakdown of Peasy's strategy to exclude dissenting opinions and his real criteria for banning people. First he points out, Faringula is a self-selecting community. If you enter the discussion, expect to get dogpiled. Second, there are commenting rules that openly favor the regular commoners, Peasy's fans. He makes no apology for this. Third, he assumes anyone coming to Faringula with a dissenting opinion is just looking to pick a fight, and he likenes himself to a bouncer at a party who removes angry drunks, which is how he characterizes people who advance unpopular arguments. Lastly, and I think this is the defining comment for his mindset. His definition of a reasonable position excludes any position which he himself does not hold. Let that sink in for a minute. If you disagree with Peasy on a key belief, then you are not defending a reasonable position and or therefore a troll. Let's contrast that again with what he said in the Google Hangout. And to me, a troll is somebody who is interested in disrupting communication, who is more interested in redirecting the conversation to be about them, that getting that attention is their reward. They are not interested in advancing a coherent view. So disagree and you're a troll, but just disagreeing doesn't make you a troll. This is bizarre and contradictory logic. He wraps up the whole post by asserting that there are two reasons why you might be involved in the comment section at Faringula. 1. You're there to agree with Peasy in the commentariat. 2. You're there to learn about a different point of view and have your own views made more correct. What I want to do very briefly here is show the level of discourse that gets someone banned from Faringula and contrast that with Peasy's stated position that no reasonable argument is caused for banning. I know right now that I'll be accused of quote mining or ignoring context. I'm constrained by the limits of what I can do here in video. You'll have to go to the original source on Faringula to get the full story, often from sections of greater than 700 replies. I've posted links where possible. My case study is Michael Hawkins, banned for being an oblivious privileged douche canoe, how colorful. Michael is a noted skeptical blogger most famous for taking on homeopathy proponents when they tried to shut down his blog over the use of the term quack. His blog is called for the sake of science. On 2 January 2012, he commented on the moral issues around the use of food stamps for unhealthy food items. He made a series of arguments that the correlation between obesity and poverty is something that education and activism could combat. He made no disparaging personal comments, though many were leveled against him by regular commenters. He made the mistake of relying a personal anecdote from his time working at a grocery store in Maine, where people, according to Michael, sometimes bought lobster with food stamps. The discussion exploded with personal accusations and vitriol. After a while of taking this abuse, he bows out gracefully with a summary of his position and an invitation to continue the discussion on his blog post on the topic of obesity. About 90 minutes later, we have this comment from P.Z. Bam! Nanny Hawkins gets the ban hammer right between the eyes. What's the point of this? He'd already left the threat, had never stooped to the level of his critics and was willing to answer criticism of his own position. It's clear to me that his crime was holding a position not shared by the majority of the community. His banning appears to be nothing but retribution after the fact. We could look at similar cases like Edward Gimmer, who, according to the dungeon, was banned for being a poor oppressed white man, who defended the position that harassment policies should be gender neutral and cover both sexes. Or Hunst Tottered, who was commenting on the problems in the atheism plus movement. P.Z. felt these comments were off topic on a blog entry about a cartoon depicting atheists wearing a shirt with an A-minus being jerks. He issued an ultimatum to stop posting. Hunst Tottered made the mistake of not refreshing before responding to a comment aimed at him, so he missed this warning. He said, oops, synchronization error, and that was the last thing he ever said at Faringula. The dungeon lists him as banned for stupidity and self-centeredness. So what's the consequence of all this? Nothing whatsoever for me. I'm done with them and I'm not alone. Faringula, as a search term, according to Google Trends, has continuously fallen for the last 18 months. It's below 2006 levels and dropping. Who wants to go somewhere they aren't welcome? That's a shame. P.Z. put out some excellent science content when he is so inclined, and he's generated a lot of charitable donations for good causes. I want to apologize for these internal dispute videos. They're not the direction I want my channel to go. If I hadn't been involved in the Google Hangout with P.Z., none of this would have been a concern for me. It just felt like an injustice, a deep hypocrisy that needed addressing. I'll be back to my normal format by the end of the week with an analysis of gun control legislation. I hope you'll check it out. Thanks for watching.