Net Neutrality

'A Solution That Won't Work to a Problem That Simply Doesn't Exist'

Maverick FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai on why net neutrality and government attempts to regulate the Internet are all wrong.

|

Things were tense at the end of February, as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) prepared to vote on a proposal that would revamp the way Washington regulates the Internet. The 332-page document put forth by Chairman Tom Wheeler aimed to shift the classification of broadband Internet service from a Title I information service to a more heavily regulated Title II telecommunications service. Wheeler had made general information about the outlines of an earlier version of the proposal public, but, as is common at the FCC, the full text had not been released.

As the deadline neared, outspoken FCC commissioner Ajit Pai took to the airwaves he regulates (and the social media sites he doesn't), requesting that the commission's vote be delayed and the document released to the public: "The future of the entire Internet [is] at stake," Pai declared in conjunction with his fellow Republican commissioner Mike O'Rielly. But it was to no avail: The FCC ruled 3–2 to regulate the Internet.

Pai, educated at Harvard and the University of Chicago, has long been an opponent of net neutrality regulation and other measures to increase the power of the government over the Internet. The 42-year-old son of Indian immigrants spoke with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie just days before the controversial vote. For video of the interview, go to reason.com.

reason: Everyone says they want a free and open Internet. What are the points of agreement and then where does it get fuzzy?

Ajit Pai: I think [former FCC Chairman Michael] Powell put it best when he said in 2004 that there were four basic Internet freedoms that he thought everyone should agree with: the freedom to access lawful content of one's choice, the freedom to access applications that don't harm the network, the freedom to attach devices to the network, and the freedom to get information about your service plan.

Everybody, or virtually everybody, agrees on that. I certainly do. The question is how do we operationalize that? In my view, the federal government is a pretty poor arbiter of what is reasonable and what is not, and it's exceptionally poor when it comes to having a track record of promoting innovation and investment in broadband networks. That's something the private sector has done a remarkable job of on its own.

reason: What are the instances that net neutrality proponents can point to where Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or other network operators have actually violated those open network principles?

Pai: There are scattered examples that people often cite: an ISP that nobody's ever heard of called Madison River almost a decade ago. MetroPCS, an upstart competitor of course, basically had no market power to speak of compared to the other carriers. [The company] wanted to make a splash in the market place, so it offered its consumers virtually unlimited data plans for $40. You could stream YouTube for example without it counting against your data cap, all for $40.

reason: But basically you could only stream YouTube videos, right? The rest of the Web, you really couldn't get on it?

Pai: Exactly. So critics called it a net neutrality violation, called it a "walled garden," which was bad for consumers. It's telling that they didn't go after one of the major incumbents, which now they complain about vociferously. They went after an upstart competitor.

reason: MetroPCS was saying, "We're going to give you less for less, but if you want it, you can have it."

Pai: [For net neutrality proponents,] you either get to eat all you can eat at a restaurant, or you don't get to eat at all.

reason: So that's the idea of net neutrality?

Pai: Essentially.

reason: So what do you think are the main drivers behind net neutrality? From my perspective, when I look at things from a kind of public choice economics idea, what I tend to see are companies like Netflix, Amazon, to a cer

tain degree Google, eBay, other players who are very big and have done very well with the way that the Internet works now, and they want to freeze everything in place. This, to me, seems a lot like the robber barons when railroads were starting to be regulated who were like, "Great, let's regulate things and fix our market positions." Is that wrong to think of that in those terms?

Pai: I certainly think there are particular companies that might see a strategic advantage in having the FCC inject itself for the first time into the nuts and bolts of the Internet's operation. For example, regulating the rates and terms on which ISPs and edge providers [such as YouTube, Amazon, and iTunes] have to interconnect. That's something that, if you're not getting what you think is a good deal through private commercial agreements, might be helpful to have an FCC backstop.

There are a lot of other people, smaller entrepreneurs and innovators that we hear from, that are worried that ISPs might end up acting as gatekeepers and keeping their content off the Web. While I understand their concern, I nonetheless think that (1) there's no existing example of that, and (2) the way to solve that is through case-by-case adjudication using the antitrust laws or Federal Trade Commission authority, or even FCC authority to the extent we have it. It is not imposing Title II regulations, which ultimately and ironically are going to limit the progress of this online platform.

All these startups and innovators are based here for a reason. It's because we have the best Internet infrastructure in the world. But that network doesn't have to exist. People don't have to invest in it, and ultimately, this could be counterproductive for them too.

reason: You've called out Netflix in particular, which has probably been the most vocal proponent of net neutrality and of Title II regulation. They apparently have a system where they gain an advantage by the way they code some of their streams. Essentially, you and others have suggested that they've created a fast lane on today's Internet. Why would that be wrong?

Pai: To be clear, I don't think that Netflix should be subject to regulation, but when it came to this question, we heard an allegation in the fall from people who are pushing open video standards-everyone from ISPs to [content distribution networks] Level 3, Limelight, and the like. They wanted to create a system in which essentially traffic would be recognized as being video traffic, and then you could optimize the network to deliver it more efficiently, [with a] better experience for the end user. Netflix, we heard, was encrypting some of that traffic to make it difficult, if not impossible, for that traffic to be recognized as video traffic. So I simply asked them: What's the gist of your response to these allegations, in particular allegations that they had done encryptions selectively, and they had picked in particular, encryption against the ISPs that were using open video standards before encryption?

If the interest is truly in a free and open Internet, then one could make the argument that what the company's arguing for when it comes to ISP behavior should apply equally to edge provider behavior.

reason: How did they respond?

Pai: Well, they responded that they employed an encryption to preserve the privacy of their customers; they didn't deploy it selectively. In any case, there weren't any ongoing FCC proceedings.

reason: Netflix was also involved in a kind of large battle that wasn't quite about net neutrality. But Netflix was saying that on Comcast in particular and a couple of other large ISPs customers were suffering through extended buffering times where the quality of the stream and its reliability weren't so good. The ISPs said, "Look, Netflix is generating a huge amount of traffic, and we need to build out our networks in order to handle this traffic and prioritize it." And Comcast in particular, they have a new deal with Netflix where Netflix basically pays them more so that they get a faster pipe into the ISP. Is that the way the system should work? Is there any reason to believe that ISPs were purposefully slowing down the stream of Netflix to their customers so that they could go back to Netflix and say, "You better pay the toll, or people are going to get a real choppy image?"

Pai: From a procedural standpoint, neither of those parties ever filed a formal complaint with us, so we don't have what you might consider objective evidence from the parties as to what exactly the nitty gritty of the situation was. All I can say is based on what I've read in the press. That said, I think the nature of the dispute illustrates the folly of involving the government in refereeing some of those disputes in real time. We simply don't have the ability to determine who was right and who was wrong.

Even if we had the legal authority to do it, which I don't necessarily think we do, but ultimately, if you look at the end result, these arrangements, which have been commercially reasonable according to both parties given that they signed it, have been good for consumers. Again, if there's some kind of systemic problem when it comes to peering and transit, and other kinds of interconnection, I'm certainly willing to have an open mind about it, but I think in the absence of that, we should let the commercial arrangements work themselves out.

reason: We're talking about this as if it's a battle between Comcast and Netflix or this company and that company, but ultimately, the measure of all kind of economic regulation, and certainly antitrust law, is how it affects the consumer. That Netflix has to pay more to deliver its service, or the ISP has to eat more costs, that's not the same thing as saying the customer is in a bad position.

Pai: Exactly. I'm an antitrust lawyer by training, and that's why I view everything through the prism of consumer welfare, and that's why I find it amusing when some of my coworkers say, "Oh, you're just shilling for ISPs or looking out for big business." At the end of the day, my sole concern is: What is going to produce a better digital experience in the digital age? And I truly believe that removing some of these regulations that are impeding on IP-based investment and getting rid of some of these antiquated regulations is the best way to promote competition, promote consumer welfare. Not over-the-top 80-year-old regulations that have been proven not to work.

FCC commissioner Ajit Pai
Todd Krainin

 

reason: Recently, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said that he's going to move forward with the FCC regulating the Internet under Title II regulations. That'll change the regulatory structure from that of an information service to a telecom. What is the most important thing that people need to know about that switch?

Pai: The most important thing that people need to know is that this is a solution that won't work to a problem that simply doesn't exist. Nowhere in the 332-page document that I've received will anyone find the FCC detailing any kind of systemic harm to consumers, and it seems to me that should be the predicate for certainly any kind of pre-emptive regulation—some kind of systemic problem that requires an industry-wide solution. That simply isn't here.

reason: So you're saying the Internet is not broken.

Pai: I don't think it is. By and large, people are able to access the lawful content of their choice. While competition isn't where we want it to be—we can always have more choices, better speeds, lower prices, etc.—nonetheless, if you look at the metrics compared to, say, Europe, which has a utility-style regulatory approach, I think we're doing pretty well.

reason: The FCC recently redefined what counts as broadband. But using the definitions in the agency's last roundup of the state of Internet connections, the FCC said that about 80 percent of households have at least two options for high-speed service. One of the things that people say is, "Well, we need to regulate the Internet because local ISPs like Time Warner or Comcast have an effective local monopoly on service." Is that accurate, and would that be enough of a reason to say, "Hey, we gotta do something"?

Pai: I certainly think there are a lot of markets where consumers want and could use more competition. That's why since I've become a commissioner, I've focused on getting rid of some of the regulatory underbrush that stands in the way of some upstart competitors providing that alternative: streamlining local permit rules, getting more wireless infrastructure out there to give a mobile alternative, making sure we have enough spectrum in the commercial marketplace. But these kind of Title II common-carrier regulations, ironically, will be completely counterproductive. It's going to sweep a lot of these smaller providers away who simply don't have the ability to comply with all these regulations, and moreover it's going to deter investment in broadband networks, so ironically enough, this hypothetical problem that people worry about is going to become worse because of the lack of competition.

reason: So do most people in America have a choice in broadband carriers, and do they have more choice than they did five years ago, and is there reason to believe they'll have more choice in another five years?

Pai: I think there are hiccups any given consumer might experience in any given market. Nonetheless, if you look on the aggregate, Americans are much better off than they were five years ago, 10 years ago. Speeds are increasing; the amount of choice is increasing. Something like 76 percent of Americans have access to three or more facilities-based providers. Over 80 percent of Americans have access to 25 mbps speeds. In terms of the mobile part of the equation, there's no question that America has made tremendous strides. Eighty-six percent of Americans have access to 4G LTE. We have 50 percent of the world's LTE subscribers and only 4 percent of the population.

reason: Many will say that part of the problem is that Europe, for instance, is so much more advanced than we are in terms of the speed of connectivity, the price of a connection, and the variety. Is that just wrong?

Pai: That is wrong. If you look at the Akamai State of the Internet report, for example, or other objective data, there's no question that America is better off, especially considering our relatively lower population density, in terms of deployment, speeds, prices, whatever metric you choose. Moreover, if you look at investment, in the U.S. it's $562 per household. In Europe, it's only $244.

reason: Why is that important?

Pai: It's important because we want to have a strong enough platform for innovation investment and online options as possible, but you won't get that if the private sector doesn't have the incentive to risk capital to build those networks. It's a pretty tough thing to build the nuts and bolts of the Internet, and if the regulatory system is one that second-guesses you every single step of the way, regulates your rates, tells you what service plans are allowed or not, regulates the commercial arrangements you have both within users and companies, you're going to have the European situation, essentially.

reason: You've talked about the proposal as being well over 300 pages. There have been accounts that that's mostly footnotes and addenda, and that the rules are about eight or 10 pages. Is that accurate?

Pai: The rules are eight pages. However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action-that alone is 79 pages. Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document there are uncodified rules, ones that won't make it in the code of federal regulations, that people will have to comply with in the private sector. On top of that, there are things that aren't going to be codified, such as the Internet conduct standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.

reason: What goes into something like that where you're saying, "We're the regulators and we're here now, and you've got to pay attention to us, but we're not going to tell you what you actually need to do"? That's passive-aggressive to the max, and is that a deliberate strategy, to say, "We want you to jump, but we're not going to tell you how high"?

Pai: I think part of the problem is that the rules don't give sufficient guidance to the private sector, regardless of whether they're public or not. Part of the reason I want them to be [made] public soon, in advance of the vote, is I think the American public and particularly the people who'd be affected by it deserve to see what regulations are going to be adopted before they're formally adopted.

reason: Why wouldn't the FCC just put the document out into the public when it was announced that it was going to be voted on? What is the history of the kind of secrecy of rule making or documentation in the FCC, and does this represent a break with that?

Pai: Under the rules, only the chairman has the authority to disclose this document, and he's said both to Congress and to the public that he's not going to do so, and he's cited the traditional practice of the FCC, which is to not reveal these proposals until after they're voted on. And he's absolutely right, that is the traditional practice.

reason: Is that a good practice?

Pai: In this case, it absolutely is not. If you look at how great the public interest is in this issue, the folks who have been advocating for net neutrality have told us repeatedly that the Internet is something unique among the FCC's responsibilities, that four million people have commented, the president himself has made specific comments about it, and so I think if ever we were to make an exception to the traditional practice, this is it. Moreover, it's not that big a leap to say that the FCC should be as open and transparent as the Internet itself. Simply publish the rules, let the American people see it, and I think they can make up their own minds.

reason: What role did the White House play in creating the Title II decision? A year ago, everyone was saying, "Well, Wheeler is not going to go with Title II. He's a former lobbyist or employee of the cable industries. He's not going to do that." So what role did the White House play in enforcing this decision?

Pai: I think the White House changed the landscape dramatically with the president's announcement shortly after the midterm elections that he wanted the FCC to adopt Title II regulations and said—and it's still on his website—"I ask the FCC to implement this plan."

reason: The FCC is technically an independent agency, right?

Pai: It is and always has been.

reason: So is it a break with past protocols for the president to be kind of demanding certain things?

Pai: It is a break, in my experience. I've served under a number of different chairmen during administrations of Republican and Democratic affiliation. I've never seen anything as high profile as this. There have been other examples of presidents weighing in with a letter or a phone call, that kind of thing. But creating a YouTube video and [posting to the White House website] very specific prescriptions as to what this agency should do, followed by the agency suddenly changing course from where it was to mimic the president's plan, I think suggests that the independence of the agency has been compromised to some extent.

reason: Mark Cuban recently said at a tech conference that in letting the FCC enforce net neutrality, "the government will fuck everything up." Do you agree with that?

Pai: Well, as an FCC regulator, I certainly can't say that I agree with his use of one of the seven dirty words. [Laughs.] But I will say that the gist of his sentiment is absolutely right. I mean, do you trust the federal government to make the Internet ecosystem more vibrant than it is today? Can you think of any regulated utility like the electric company or water company that is as innovative as the Internet? What Marc Andreessen, who developed the Netscape browser, and what other entrepreneurs are saying is that this is something that's worked really well and there's no reason for the FCC to mess it up by inserting itself into areas where it hasn't been before.

reason: You've also been critical of the idea that if the U.S. government gets involved in the regulation of our Internet, that sends a particular message to other countries that's not particularly good. Explain what you mean by that.

Pai: On the international stage, there was an effort at the International Telecommunications Union, which is an arm of the United Nations, and another for the current model of Internet governance, which has been multi-stakeholder or decentralized, to be changed. And a lot of foreign governments, especially oppressive governments, would love nothing more than to have more direct control over both the infrastructure of the Internet and the content that rides over those networks. The U.S., to its credit, has spoken with a single voice against such efforts, but I think to the extent that Title II and the FCC's plans to micromanage the same nuts and bolts of the network [come to fruition], it becomes harder for us on the international stage to make that case, to persuade other countries not to go down the same road. And I would note that this is the exact same position that the Obama administration itself took in 2009 and 2010 when one of our ambassadors at the State Department said specifically that he was concerned that Title II–style regulation would send a negative message to oppressive governments and would lead them to block or otherwise degrade certain kinds of Internet traffic.

reason: Where do your ideas come from? You're obviously very pro-free market. You mention you're an antitrust lawyer by trade. You're a Republican appointee by Obama, so what are the ideas that motivate your thinking process in terms of regulation?

Pai: Going back to college at Harvard and then law school at the University of Chicago, I was exposed to a view of the world through the lens of economics that recognized that when government is relatively restrained in terms of its intervention in the economy, there is unbounded possibility for the consumer or the citizen. And that's why I've been outspoken since I've been at the FCC in favor of policies that I think will get the government out of the equation to the extent necessary to allow innovation to flourish.

There's no question that capitalism, generally speaking, has been the greatest source of human benefit, much greater than any government program that's ever been designed. If you look at how many people have been lifted out of poverty by free market ideas, it's tremendous. And it's that kind of innovation that people often take for granted, because we live naturally in the moment, and so it's hard to see the sweep of history. But I can tell you that for people as old as me, I remember 20 years ago when the Internet was at its inception, it was hard to get news, it was hard to do certain things that we now take for granted on a smartphone. But now, thanks to people in the private sector taking the risk, investing the capital, and being able to count on a regulatory system that didn't micromanage them, that's delivered unparalleled value.

Advertisement

NEXT: University of Michigan Relents, Will Show American Sniper as Originally Planned. And Paddington Too!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why is this, of all topics, the one that Reason consistently has abject and unremitting blindness about? The reason we’re talking about net neutrality at all is because of efforts by people like Mark Cuban who want to provide special carriage for his own well-connected traffic (and screw everyone else), telcos that accept money doled out under Title II but then reject its strictures for carriage, and then of course the Verizon vs. Netflix disaster that presages an Internet converting to a cable TV payment model favoring large players, where ISPs get paid twice for the same last-mile carriage. These are monopoly rents, a fact that Reason steadfastly refuses to admit or address.

    1. When you have a fucking clue about how data prioritization works and the cost of maintaining bandwidth, get back to us. Until then, you’re just another “you didn’t build that!” shill.

      1. Do you have a clue about the cost of maintaining bandwidth is? Let’s just take mobile broadband. Are you going to defend the $15 per GB that Verizon charges? Or how about the $10 per 50 GB that Comcast charges if you use more than 300GB in home data charges in their “test” markets? They’re testing of course how much money they can sponge from consumers who often have little to no choice if they want high speed internet?

        Is that the clue you’re talking about?

        1. Oh god you’re whining about government granted monopolies and in the same breath asking for the government to become the biggest monopoly of all.

          I actually can’t believe how stupid you are. Please tell me you’re brilliant performance art so I know there aren’t people out there as stupid as you. Please, I’m begging you.

          1. It’s “your” not “you’re”.

            1. Not it’s not you fucking moron. Wow, you really are this stupid. You can’t even fucking read. It’s kind of scary.

              There’s nothing funnier than an attempted grammar gotcha where you utterly fail. Thanks for that at least. I suggest going back to grade school and taking English again.

              1. “you’re brilliant performance art ”

                Then you’re missing something in your sentence. Verb, adjective, something.

                1. “you are brilliant performance art”
                  What’s the problem?

                  1. Ah, he’s calling ME performance art. But I don’t think that’s what the troll was aiming for. Maybe if he used some more expletives I would have understood.

                    1. Oh my god, and now he’s calling people who dare fail to recognize his geeeeeenius, trolls.

                      Perfect, really. That’s so millenial.

                2. Oh my god you’re stupid. Are you actually, really this stupid? Please keep digging the stupid hole anyway, this is fucking gold.

                  1. Speaking of stupid – how many times and in how many ways does the government have to tell us that it’s none of our fucking business what they do and how they do it before we catch on that there ain’t no fixing this shit? If nobody’s defiling any corpses at the NSA then to hell with having the government merely spy on your internet usage, they’re just going to go ahead and control it outright. You wanna complain? There’s a completely (if secretly) legal drone with your name on it. And don’t worry about how much the drone program may cost, asset-forfeituring your terrorist ass pays well.

                3. He’s saying please tell me YOU ARE brilliant performance art, hence the contraction.

                  It’s always awesome when a really stupid person tries to get pedantic about grammar and fails miserably.

                  1. He’s too ignorant to know that he shouldn’t go around correcting other people’s English.

                    But, don’t worry: he knows all the details of exactly what ISP’s should be required to do. He can read the talking points, at least.

                    1. Someone around here once said people like this don’t have an opinion on NN. They have someone else’s opinion.

                      I really liked that. Rather accurate.

            2. “You’re” a fucking moron.

        2. Bailers77, please provide a table showing what the proper cost of bandwidth is per gigabyte. Show your work.

          1. “meh too lazy i’m sure the government knows”

          2. He doesn’t need to enact your labor, you cishetero shitlord!

        3. consumers who often have little to no choice if they want high speed internet

          I love this line from left-tards. I have 3 different services in boondocks PA without even having the option of a cable provider. The consumers you are talking about aren’t lacking choice, they are lacking intelligence.

          1. PA? I thought you were a West Coast bro.

            1. Escaped SoCal last summer. My only utility bill these days is electric, with an occasional visit from a propane truck.

          2. Indeed. There are very few places in the US that don’t have at least one, and probably two, satellite providers.

            More and more urbanized areas also have wifi internet access as a substitute for cable.

            There’s only a monopoly on cable. There are substitutes for cable.

            1. 1. @ rc dean and similar shills: you are not only wrong factually, you are wrong conceptually… virtually ANYONE has *potential* satellite service, BUT for exorbitant prices, obtuse bundling schemes, etc, etc, etc… THERE IS NO REAL COMPETITION, ANYONE saying otherwise is a LIAR…
              2. i CAN NOT get any competitive services because they all have cross-linked ‘non-compete’ agreements, i am LITERALLY transferred from their phone line to my present provider THE INSTANT i put in my zip code…
              you are a LIAR…
              3. sure i have a ‘choice’ of going with dish network, or going with directv; evil bloodsucking leech A, or evil bloodsucking leech B, some choice… you LIE…
              4. local cable company (cox) has SAID they have coverage MILES past our semi-rural area FOR DECADES, they are LIARS, too…
              i hates me some liars…

              1. I’m still confused about how denying ISPs the right to create new innovative services which might prioritize traffic to their users for various technical reasons will make your choice of providers “better”.

                I guess I just don’t see how a panel of five people with political science degrees deciding how switched packet networks and QOS issues will be decided makes anything you complain about improve.

                However, you got what you wanted so by this time next year you’ll be doing the Toyota Jump about how everything is better.

                1. It wasn’t even a panel of five, only the three democrats voted in favor.

              2. art guerrilla|4.25.15 @ 4:37PM|#
                “1. @ rc dean and similar shills: you are not only wrong factually, you are wrong conceptually… virtually ANYONE has *potential* satellite service, BUT for exorbitant prices, obtuse bundling schemes, etc, etc, etc… THERE IS NO REAL COMPETITION, ANYONE saying otherwise is a LIAR…”

                YoU’Re reallY a stupid SHIT who thinks your *choICES* have anyTHING to do with why we SHOULD tolerate gov’t interference.
                You have choices, including not using your shift key, but you don’t like them, so we should get stuck with whatever the gov’t decides to do.
                Fuck off, slaver.

              3. 2. i CAN NOT get any competitive services because they all have cross-linked ‘non-compete’ agreements, i am LITERALLY transferred from their phone line to my present provider THE INSTANT i put in my zip code…
                you are a LIAR…

                Market division is illegal.

        4. Do you have a clue about the cost of maintaining bandwidth is?

          Yeah–an OC-10 costs $10K per month, dipshit.

          Let’s just take mobile broadband. Are you going to defend the $15 per GB that Verizon charges?

          What, are you upset that you can’t buy an extra 10 boxes of Little Debbies each month?

          They’re testing of course how much money they can sponge from consumers who often have little to no choice if they want high speed internet?

          There’s always a choice, you mewling pussy.

      2. Oh, you were saying about the cost of maintaining bandwidth? You mean, like that time Verizon failed to deliver bandwidth even after Netflix paid them to do so?

        Unless de-monopolization is on the table — i.e. liberalizing access to rights-of-way, etc. — all this chatter merely serves to strengthen the hand of incumbent monopoly ISPs at the expense of everyone else.

        1. MUH PRESHUS STREAMIN VIDEO

        2. Now go back to fondling your My Little Pony stuffed animal.

    2. These are monopoly rents, a fact that Reason steadfastly refuses to admit or address.

      Bullshit. Reason recognizes that. We just don’t see government involvement resulting in market distortion, rent-seeking, and the like as an excuse for a much bigger dose of government involvement resulting in market distortion, rent-seeking, and the like.

      1. **************LAZY FUCKING INTERN ALERT*****************

      2. Bullshit, RC, only the government can fix problems that the government created. No one understands the problem more than they do!

      3. Sorry, it’s handwaved, as usual in this piece and all the others.

        There are a lot of other people, smaller entrepreneurs and innovators that we hear from, that are worried that ISPs might end up acting as gatekeepers and keeping their content off the Web. While I understand their concern, I nonetheless think that (1) there’s no existing example of that, and (2) the way to solve that is through case-by-case adjudication using the antitrust laws or Federal Trade Commission authority, or even FCC authority to the extent we have it. It is not imposing Title II regulations, which ultimately and ironically are going to limit the progress of this online platform.

        Again, as to examples, Netflix v. Verizon (among others). It’s pretty clear what Verizon wants, which is to screw over competitors for their cable TV business, and ditto AT&T. This is disingenuous.

        1. Perhaps the solution is for Netflix and other high-data services to set up their own proprietary ISP instead of mooching off of settlement-free interconnect. If Netflix in particular can afford to produce their own television series then they can clearly afford to establish their own data infrastructure and provide their customers with 500 GB/s at ALL times.

    3. “These are monopoly rents, a fact that Reason steadfastly refuses to admit or address.”

      Yes, they are. Having the FCC regulate the net does not address that problem, it creates others.

      1. My analogy is using net neutrality to fix issues of local monopolies is like demanding a 15mph speed limit because your car has bad brakes.

    4. “I’m complaining about multiple features of ISPs that are a result of government granted monopolies and interference in the first place. We need more government interference to fix this!”

      Net Neutrality advocates are literally the stupidest people on earth. You’re stupider than Juggalos. You’re stupider than Mets fans. You’re stupider than our trolls and sockpuppets. You’re the dumbest people on the face of the planet.

      Congratulations, you have achieved FULL RETARD.

      1. “Net Neutrality advocates are literally the stupidest people on earth”

        Hold on there! How about M/W proponents? Prohibitionists? “Free medical care” advocates?. I think you might be a bit hasty.

        1. To be fair, the overlaps for those groups on a Venn diagram are undoubtedly enormous.

          1. It probably looks like a perfect circle to the naked eye.

            1. I’ve got a 20X lens available, and you’re right. I’m STILL having a hard time finding the margins.

              1. 20x lens? Is that so you can see the menu?

                Sorry.

                1. “Sorry.”

                  No, you’re not.

                  1. I mean I felt bad after I said it.

                    I can’t control myself.

        2. Perhaps a bit hasty but can we all agree they should at least get a participation trophy?

          1. Try all you want, you aren’t going to be worse than Nicole.

      2. Says the poster who came to REASON to do nothing but hurl insults and make himself look like a horrible person. Congrats, you’ve succeeded.

        Maybe next time try and weave some thought, facts, counterpoints, and just a tad of class into your rants?

        1. Says the poster who came to REASON

          *downs shot of rum*

        2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Oh god watching the butthurt from the stupidest people on the planet is so amazingly delicious. Because deep down, you know how stupid you are. But you’re so bitterly moronically stupid about how much you hate Comcast/etc that you just. Can’t. Help it.

          Is there a special sort of self-loathing that retards like you have? Is that why you keep embarrassing the shit out of yourselves every single time this subject comes up? You like it in a masochistic way, don’t you. Come on. You can tell us, Rain Man.

          1. Yeah, well, you like the show Girls.

          2. You would think the trolls would be trying to hand out the butthurt, rather than trying to monopolize the butthurt.

            Welcome to the 21st century troll: perpetually, ideologically butthurt, and whining about it constantly.

            1. When your ideology is so stupid that it literally contradicts nature–both human nature and nature nature–itself, you’re going to be disappointed–and butthurt–a lot.

        3. bailers77|4.25.15 @ 12:27PM|#
          “Says the poster who came to REASON to do nothing but hurl insults and make himself look like a horrible person. Congrats, you’ve succeeded.”

          Thanks for the compliment, asshole. What bullshit did I call you on?

          1. You didn’t. You just called people names. Like a child or college age progressive.

            1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              Do you want to go get mommy? Oh wait, not mommy, daddy government!

              1. I think it’s Hihn; the non-vintage whine seems appropriate.

              2. Got banned from infowars again huh? Well, I’m sorry you lead such a miserable life that you come to Reason to do nothing but put your ignorance, hate, and ill mannered self on display for all to see. Goodbye.

                1. Bye bye! Don’t let the door hit you on your extra chromosome on the way out!

                  1. Serious question, when and why did you get to be the way are? So convinced of your superiority that you can toss every libertarian principle out the window and act like the worst spoiled little progressive that made college practically intolerable whenever they were around?

                    1. You’re quite the experienced whiner. You must practice a lot.

                    2. bailers77|4.25.15 @ 12:55PM|#
                      “[…]you can toss every libertarian principle out the window[…]”

                      A new judge of true Scots we have here! And we’ve been missing one for so long, too!

                    3. Am I wrong?

                    4. Apparently supporting free markets is throwing out libertarian principles. Huh.

                    5. Yes because COOOOOOMMMMMMCAAAAAAASSSSSSST.

                    6. Imagine that some car dealerships could get the occasional local monopoly.

                      So some dumb city in Iowa gave Yugo a local monopoly.

                      Then the people there are really unhappy because Yugo’s suck and they can’t go fast and are very unsafe at high speeds. They max out at 45mph. And they have no choice but to buy that car.

                      So, these people are so upset they demand a federal highway speed limit of 45 mph, even though people in other areas drive much better cars.

                    7. bailers77|4.25.15 @ 12:55PM|#
                      “Serious question,”

                      Why aren’t you gone?

                2. bailers77|4.25.15 @ 12:47PM|#
                  “[…”Goodbye.”

                  OK, which troll was it that kept promising to go away, and I guess finally did?
                  Regardless, just for you:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9-FOLG-iA

                3. Nice, the person wetting himself about corporate conspiracies is using infowars as a slur.

        4. Maybe next time try and weave some thought, facts, counterpoints, and just a tad of class into your rants?

          Maybe you should weave some self-awareness into yours, neckbeard.

      3. Don’t worry Epi, the federal government is going to force these bad local and state governments to be good and not be corrupt, just like the federal government. *snicker*

      4. You’re stupider than Mets fans.

        HEY!

        Looks like someone’s a little jealous of a 11-game win streak.

        1. Well the Mariners are…oh shit. I might be pretty stupid myself.

      5. I would agree with you IF the solution domain also included eliminating barriers to competition. That apparently is not on the table. So, I conclude the defective solution is less horrible than the one that ends the Internet operating as originally designed.

    5. To me it’s perfectly clear why Reason is so concerned about this issue. Because they don’t trust the government to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Do you?

      When I see Comcast eliminated by competition, my internet speed go up, my bill go down, and innovation on the web explode with new ideas, then I will say the government finally did something right.

      You know what I think the chances of that are? About the same as when the government tells me that they’re going to fix healthcare and my rates are going to go down and health care access and quality will improve. So, about as much as I believe in the Easter Bunny.

      1. lol, is this the old “prevent monopoly takeover” garbage ?

        Someone should tell these idiots that the state is the largest and most powerful monopoly in their country….not to mention a coercive monopoly.

        Anyone believing turning control over to them will accomplish anything is pretty nuts.

    6. The reason we’re talking about net neutrality at all is because of efforts by people like Mark Cuban who want to provide special carriage for his own well-connected traffic (and screw everyone else)

      Good thing the government got involved. No favors for the well-connected there!

    7. where ISPs get paid twice for the same last-mile carriage

      I don’t grasp the supposed awfulness of this. Magazines and newspapers get “paid twice” (by both subscribers and advertisers). That doesn’t seem to make either category unaffordable or corrupt or allow them to extract monopoly rents.

    8. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
      http://www.work-cash.com

  2. Well actually it’s fixing a problem of too much counter-MSM news coverage.

    1. Well isn’t that good news for Our Future Reptile Overlords? I mean, the MSM obviously won’t be covering the reptilian takeover…

  3. OK, one of the resident commies at the SF Chron is thrilled that the Comcast/TW merger didn’t happen and points out that the telecom de-reg has caused all our problems!

    “For consumers, the failed merger represents something of a muted victory. The FCC’s record on protecting consumers has been beyond abysmal since the federal government deregulated the telecom industry in the mid-1990s,”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/bus…..222851.php

    Full disclosure: I did not take (a full) one for the team. His drivel is such that I get a paragraph or so into it and decide to better improve my mind by reading Blondie.

    1. So.. you think the Comcast Time Warner merger would have been a good thing? Because Comcast is such a great company.

      1. It would have been a terrible thing. I think he’s saying that it probably didn’t have anything to so with this new net neutrality.

        1. And for what it’s worth. Comcast is the worst company in the history of civilization. You know why? Because they have a government enforced monopoly. Thanks government, can we have more?

          1. They have a local government enforced monopoly. With sometimes a state enforced ban on other forms of competition (like local Government offering their own fiber connections).

            The new regs will force local governments to allow competitors to access the same poles and cable runs that Comcast currently is preventing anyone else from touching. Despite local government payoffs in the form of franchise fees.

            1. Sure they will. The exact opposite will occur. There will only be 2 internet companies left in the USA. The 2 most evil crony ones. Government does not do things to help you, it does things to help themselves and their cronies. You have much to learn. Enjoy the class.

            2. Comcast owns very few poles. Power companies own most followed by telcos. The cable companies came in existence long after both and rent space from the pole owner or put it underground in the ROW (and pay the local jurisdiction for that privilege).

              1. And local governments prevent competitors from access to poles.

                Places where access agreements are reached sees competition. Google announced 1 GB fiber in Atlanta. Two weeks later Comcast announces 2 GB service. Go competition.

                1. Only when they own the poles. Municipalities cannot limit poles owned by other entities, which is most of them. And even then, existing FCC rules already open them up to any number of companies.

                2. Regulations that allow more competition is not Net Neutrality though. Its something different. So, really you’re not arguing for Ne Neutrality when you advocate this.

            3. “The new regs will force local governments to allow competitors to access the same poles and cable runs that Comcast currently is preventing anyone else from touching. Despite local government payoffs in the form of franchise fees.”

              That’s GREAT! I’ll bet you got a million of ’em!
              Folks, he’ll be here all week! Tip the veal or something.
              BTW, who are you? Tulpa? Bo? Craig? Which statist piece of crap took the new handle?

            4. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              You are literally stupider than dirt. Or rocks. It’s amazing. Can you breathe on your own?

              1. +1 respirator for stupid people

            5. Local governments are not sovereign entities. They’re creatures of their state government. State governments have always set out their role and powers. It’s entirely improper for a federal agency to decide what limits a state may place upon its own subsidiaries.

              Let me know when municipal providers pay full tax rates that private providers pay, use only their own entity for any debt issuance or credit and not the larger municipality, don’t use tax dollars or revenue from the municipality, and don’t use their municipal ownership to gain favored relationships in selling services or regulatory interactions.

            6. They have a local government enforced monopoly.

              Horses to water, liberals to facts…

            7. “The new regs will force local governments to allow competitors to access the same poles and cable runs that Comcast currently is preventing anyone else from touching. Despite local government payoffs in the form of franchise fees.”

              Is this true?

          2. We need to update the old Lilly Tomlin bit.

            Comcast, we’re your cable company and we don’t care – we don’t have to.

      2. Oh my god this is the best. You’re literally, no shit, doing EXACTLY what we mock you NN retards for in the first place. WAAAHHH COMCAST I HATE COMCAST WAAAHHH

        You dumb fuck, I hate Comcast too. But unlike mongoloids like you, I’m not so fucking stupid that I think that giving the government more power over the internet will actually “fix” Comcast in any way (hey lobbyists, how ya doin’?). You’re so stupid that it hurts me. I’m not even sure how you can figure out how to turn your computer on. Did your mom do that for you?

        1. I was trying to be nice. But yeah, pretty much what you just said.

        2. “your” you idiot. Oh, wait…

      3. It really doesn’t matter what Sevo or I or any think about the merger. Comcast and TWC’a owners thought it was good idea. That enough. No need for government parasites who’ve never worked an honest day in their life to substitute their judgement.

        1. Without government interference into the free market, a Comcast could not exist.

    2. Are any of the regs even in effect yet?

      It’s ok, I took one for the team today. See my comment below. I’m slowly recovering.

  4. Ok, I just folded space from WaPo. The topic was Ted Cruz and how this teabaglican ratfucker dared to meet with the owners of a gay hotel.

    I had to come back for a sanity check…

  5. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ?????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. You know which other Adolph had a best friend’s mother-in-law?

      1. Rupp?

  6. Where’s Tony these days? Is he lying in a pool of urine and his own vomit and tears over the implosion of his ‘it’s my turn’ candidate?

    1. I don’t know if they’re acknowledging that yet.

    2. He’s laying low until he receives his talking points from the progressive establishment.

      They’ll probably be something along these lines:
      1. War on wimmins!!!!
      2. FAKE SCANDAL
      3. What difference, at this point, does it make?

      1. They started with the fake scandal/attack the messenger move, and then the NY Times confirmed and extended Schweizer’s charges. (At least, confirmed some and didn’t debunk any.) So now Hillary’s winged monkeys have to claim that the Times is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. LOL

      2. They only need to wait out the scandals du jour. That’s it. The media won’t tackle them, will in fact only attribute any complaints to unnamed “critics,” and the GOP is going to thumb their navels while the primary campaigns get underway. With potential milquetoast contenders like Jeb Bush vying for the nod, the Clintons have almost nothing to worry about so long as they filter Hillary’s message through intermediaries and surrogates. As long as she stays out of the spotlight, they’re golden.

        1. At this point her only real political rival, assuming Warren doesn’t jump in spontaneously, is the sitting president.

  7. The Oberlin Review strikes again. It’s totally sexist to ask me to dress professionally for job interviews.

    How dare you. You laud yourselves as beacons of diversity and change, yet refuse to pull your heads out of the sand and face the winds of change. The concept of “professionalism” in terms of dress is outdated and oppressive from many angles. You cannot cherry-pick which parts of progressivism you embrace. You cannot stretch out your hand to those in need and yank it back on a petty whim.

    Who are you to say I can’t wear assless chaps to the office, man.

    For the curious: I was wearing a fitted black T-shirt, a red skater skirt, black tights (yes, with a run, the horror!) and a black cardigan. I wore fairly heavy makeup. But it doesn’t matter what I looked like precisely: If I had been a man, would it have mattered what I was wearing?

    If you were wearing black tights, yes, absolutely.

    There are too few of us in technology, and many others are finally starting to ask why. I can tell you. It’s because of things like this. It’s because even though the doors are finally opening for us, we are looking inside and are afraid of what we see. We can feel that we are not yet welcome here.

    We will not be truly free until tech startups are willing to hire women dressed likes street walkers.

    1. We will not be truly free until tech startups are willing forced by the government to hire women dressed likes street walkers.

      Fixed.

      1. Wait a minute… that posting name seems strangely familiar to me…

        1. From where?

          1. I’m thinking here. Maybe I’m confusing you with someone else. I can’t quite remember who I am thinking of, but that names sounds familiar.

            1. I do post here periodically… Probably one comment per day on average. There’s also an anime film called Akira.

            2. Are you thinking of Akira Lane, perhaps?

      2. hire women dressed likes street walkers.

        Depends upon their body, I could be all for this.

        1. In the tech industry it doesn’t matter what their body looks like. The nerd boys will slobber all over them.

          1. Not all of us nerd boys.

            1. When I say nerd, I don’t mean technically proficient.

              Nerds are the socially inept dupes who can’t figure out how to interact with others. The problem is that we have come to conflate that with IT skills. Just like the idiots who think they are Unix sys admins grow pony tails.

              Most of the really good IT guys wear dockers and piquet shirts.

              1. I want to wear jean shorts and sandals and a t-shirt to work every day in the summer, but I can’t. Waahhhh, mommy, they’re mean to me! Oh well, I do work at home part of the time, when I can wear whatever I want, so there’s that.

                But the only double standard that I see really, is that women get away with way more at work than the guys do. If they cry, they can get away with practically anything. Seriously. Management will even openly admit to as much. Women are sensitive and delicate. Men need to man up.

                1. Jorts?

              2. Just like the idiots who think they are Unix sys admins grow pony tails.

                There is a definite “uniform” in nerd culture They’re almost always big and fat or emaciated, and they’re often insular and insecure. I suspect, but can’t prove, that I’ve been passed over for several jobs because of swolescrimination.

            2. When I became and engineering student, there was a really hot gal in my classes who told me one time that she knew I was married because “all you married guys dress funny and won’t share your homework answers with me.”

              1. Sharing your homework = learning. Sounds like a fast track to a successful career. But I had classmates exactly like that. They wanted a degree and didn’t have much thought as to what would happen when they went out into the world with a piece of paper and not having learned much.

                1. Kim (the gal I was talking about) and I actually ended up in the same study group and were good friends.

                  My comment came off bad, I wasn’t trying to knock her for wanting to share homework. I was only trying to point out that I was dressed funny and that hot girls in engineering are not used to being told no.

    2. “[…]If I had been a man, would it have mattered what I was wearing?[…]”

      Yes.
      If you were interviewing for a industrial sales job and you came in wearing a muscle-T and flip-flops, it doesn’t make a bit of difference what you said.

      1. I’d like to think that it would get me hired on the spot.

        I look good in flip flops.

        1. Me too, but I don’t paint my toe nails (sometimes my wife tries to paint them but I always escape) and I can’t wear sandals at work. I don’t really like that policy, or the no shorts for MEN policy.

      2. What about my Vibram toe shoes? Or even better my Xero shoes?

        I wore Xero shoes at one company for 7 months straight. Even the nerds were appalled by them.

        At one point the Head Troll in Charge of HR told me that company policy was that if you toes were visible you had to paint them. I told her that it sounded sexist, but if that was the policy, what color should I paint my toes. She backed down because I think she knew that I had no hang ups about that.

        In fact for a formal work outing, I painted my toes black and wore the Xero shoes just to annoy certain coworkers. I spent most of my time in the bar that night, so the outrage was limited.

    3. So you think she’s a brilliant programmer but doesn’t seem professional enough? Hire her so you can mentor her and help her become a better working woman.

      Wat?! Why the fuck would they do that? These people are looking for an *employee*, not a ‘challenge’. And they did sort of mentor her – they refused to hire her and explained why. Now she knows, but instead of taking this information into account and creating a new plan of attack with the next interview she’s just whining about how she’s been ‘marginalized’.

      1. That’s also incredibly offensive to all the women who aren’t retarded (which, thankfully, is the vast majority of them) since it basically assumes that they can’t be asked to think ‘gee, is this professional attire?’ and have to have their hands held by their employer.

        Feminists like to whine about the patriarchy, but this woman actually seems to be arguing in favor of a patriarchy since she thinks it’s her boss’s duty to act as a father figure and teach her how to dress herself.

        1. They are very lucky not to have hired this person who reeks of Borderline Personality Disorder. This way, all they got was some whining on the internet. Had they hired her, it would have been an endless string of accommodations, complaints, losing other employees because of their experience working with her, and finally a very complicated and extremely well-documented disciplinary steps leading to termination, which would still result in a gigantic and very expensive lawsuit.

          The HR director of that firm should get a huge bonus for spotting this trainwreck and giving her the gentle let down of ‘not professional enough’ — by not hiring her the HR person may have saved the company. And I’m really not exaggerating.

          1. This poor stupid girl has accidentally given all her future prospective employers a great gift. No one is going to be insane enough to hire this walking lawsuit now.

    4. If I had been a man, would it have mattered what I was wearing?

      Yes, exactly this. This is why women where I work can wear shorts to work and even toeless shoes (sandals) at work, but this is expressly forbidden for men. Because war on wiminz!

      1. I have threatened to my boss to protest this policy because it’s discriminatory and I’ve been triggered and I feel unsafe and I might cry (which works for the wiminz folk that I work with when they get scolded for anything). You know what she told me? You’re a guy, man up!

        1. She’s a puppet of the Matriarchy. Brothers unite. We must stand against this…

          Oh, I just can’t do it.

        2. She? Your boss?

          That doesn’t make sense.

          1. Bank Clerk: (referring to Dennis’ poster) And what are those?

            Dennis: Uh, these are gorgeous women with heaving breasts.

            Bank Clerk: Why?

            Dennis: Uh, well, to be perfectly honest, we sorta thought we’d be speaking to a man today, so…

            Mac: Yeah, is there any way that we could talk to your boss because I think he would understand more better.

            Bank Clerk: My boss is a woman.

            Mac: Really?

            Dennis: Your boss is a woman. Now this is a strange bank.

            1. +1 milk steak

          2. Nothing makes sense anymore, Playa, nothing. If you try to make things make sense, you go insane. So you just ridicule everyone and everything all of the time, to stay sane. At least I enjoy being a smartass all of the time and pretty much getting away with it. That’s about as good as it gets.

      2. What about this guy

        I bet none of you had a problem with that shirt. There is a complete double standard in the STEM fields. You guys are completely oblivious to the, “casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields”. There is a complete double standard in the STEM fields which actively discourages women from entering.

        They see a poster of greased up women in a colleague’s office and they know they aren’t respected. They hear comments about “bitches” while out at a bar with fellow science students, and they decide to change majors. And those are the women who actually make it that far. Those are the few who persevered even when they were discouraged from pursuing degrees in physics, chemistry, and math throughout high school. These are the women who forged on despite the fact that they were told by elementary school classmates and the media at large that girls who like science are nerdy and unattractive. This is the climate women who dream of working at NASA or the ESA come up against, every single day.

        1. Fact: boys don’t make passes at girls who wear glasses.

          1. Oh yes we do. We certainly do. At least I do.

            1. This comes to mind.

              Don’t tell me you weren’t thinking the same thing.

              1. Rachael Leigh Cook is never a bad thing to be thinking about. But also this.

                  1. You like ’em floppy, huh?

                    1. Like warm bags of milk.

        2. Women are fragile little snowflakes. Got it.

          1. Women are fragile little snowflakes. Got it.

            Typical. Deflect this all back onto women. I am sure you were saying that it doesn’t matter what Matt Taylor was wearing, he just put a rocket onto a comet. However, you are completely unsympathetic to Elizabeth Bentivegna, who was denied a job based solely on her appearance. The hypocrisy displayed on this post is typical of what women, like Elizabeth Bentivegna, face everyday.

            1. bless|4.25.15 @ 3:42PM|#
              “[…]I am sure you were saying that it doesn’t matter what Matt Taylor was wearing[…]”

              I’m sure you’re stupid enough to conflate what someone wears when being interviewed regarding some achievement with what someone wears to a meeting to gain employment.
              Do I have it? Are you that stupid?

            2. One is accomplished, the other is not.

              Do you not see the difference?

              1. One is accomplished, the other is not.

                The difference is one is a woman and one is a man. It is well know that throughout academia men can dress however they want (like slobs) but woman are not afforded such a luxury.

                Being taken seriously: the double standard

                This double standard bothers me, because it’s evidence of some of the deep sexism in our society. Women are required to look like, to “take care of” themselves, to look “appropriate” and “professional”. Men, especially in academia, are seen as professional regardless of what they are wearing. In science, success and professionalism are supposed to be the result of what you DO. Not how you look. But it appears, at least to me, that this is only really true for men. For women, no matter what you DO, there’s also an element of how you LOOK.

                The double standard is on full display at this blog. When I tried to make a salient point defending Elizabeth Bentivegna viewpoint, several posters began responding with images of women with glasses that they found attractive. That is what passes for an argument on this site?

                1. Yes, it is.

                2. There are a lot of women posters here who are taken seriously. You’re not one of them, honey. Guess why? Think real hard with your little brain and you’ll come up with the right answer. I believe in you.

                3. There is no Elizabeth Bentivegna viewpoint.

                  She’s an awful person, so she didn’t get hired.

                  Keep in mind that tech companies are bending over backwards to hire women. And they passed on her. What does that tell you?

                  1. She’s an awful person, so she didn’t get hired.

                    Are you making that assessment because she had the audacity to challenge the double standard that exist in the business world. Gender Bias and the Sciences: Facing Reality.

                    A peer-reviewed report, published in September by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showed that science professors at American research universities demonstrated bias against women in hiring.

                    1. Peer-reviewed??? Golly damn, that means that whatever the person linking to the abstract wants to be true, is true, right?

                      So, tell me, bless, I’ve published in peer-reviewed journals. I’ve reviewed submissions for journals. You too, right?

                    2. You’re a tard. A mouth-breathing simpleton who spends time thinking up excuses rather than using your gray matter for more productive purposes. Your failure is self-inflicted, and pathetic.

                      No one cares that you have ovaries. They care that you’re a puerile incompetent.

                    3. No one cares that you have ovaries.

                      $20 says she claims to have PCOS. No, $50.

                    4. I’ll counter that with $20 that she skulks off without once having come up with a witty comeback.

                    5. I’m pretty dumb, but I’m not even code to dumb enough to take that bet.

                    6. She didn’t challenge shit. She was sloppy, arrogant, and lazy, and she was passed over because of it.

                      She can come up with whatever ex-post-facto rationalization she wants. It doesn’t change the fact that she was a shitty applicant. The company dodged a bullet, and they’re lucky to have passed her over.

                    7. She can come up with whatever ex-post-facto rationalization she wants. It doesn’t change the fact that she was a shitty applicant. The company dodged a bullet, and they’re lucky to have passed her over.

                      Maybe, but why does that make her an awful person? Most of the people on this site are arrogant jerks. For the few of you who aren’t and who genuinely care about equality but are ignorant of the issues that affect women, here is an important video you should watch:

                      Girls Do Science

                    8. Oh, precious. That’s just precious. We disagree with Bless because we are just not educated sufficiently on the subject.

                      That’s fabulous, that is. Do tell me more about my ignorance of women’s issues. I am agog.

                    9. And her evidence is a 1 minute and 44 second youtube video.

                      I especially love that her youtube video says things like ‘7 out of 10 girls are interested in science’ without bothering to tell us a) what ‘interested’ means in this context or b) where this claim originates. For someone trying to lecture us on science, Bless sure has a rough time understanding how science actually works.

                      So she’s trying to ‘educate us’ based on a short youtube video which is explicitly meant to be propaganda and which provides no sources for its various assertions. If bless would like me to educate him or her on how citations actually work and what constitutes ‘proof’ I’d be glad to do so, but they don’t seem sharp enough to take my lessons to heart.

                    10. Also:

                      Maybe, but why does that make her an awful person? Most of the people on this site are arrogant jerks. For the few of you who aren’t and who genuinely care about equality but are ignorant of the issues that affect women, here is an important video you should watch:

                      We’re arrogant jerks because every time someone shows up trying to prove to us how evil we are, they argue just like you – wild unsourced accusations, the posting of youtube videos as if a youtube video put out by a feminist organization has any validity outside the echo chamber, and proclamations that you’re here to ‘educate us’ despite the fact that you don’t understand how citations and sources actually work. Hint: Youtube videos which don’t provide proof for any of their claims don’t count and they certainly aren’t ‘important’ unless you’re incapable of rational thought and believe whatever propaganda videos tell you to believe.

                      I’ve watched your little video and I’ve come away a) unimpressed by the people who made it, b) more certain than ever that you don’t understand what you’re talking about and c) absolutely positive that one of us is ignorant but it isn’t me.

                    11. Speaking of dim bulbs and interview attire, I have a story! Gather ’round, my sons.

                      I royally pissed off a room full of male applicants in jeans by showing up in chef jacket with full shoulder kit and houndstooth pants. One of those guys was hired for the dish pit, and subsequently made ill-advised comments about me being hired over him. Apparently he was under the impression that four months of experience and a two-year culinary degree qualified him for $17 an hour, and the only reason he could come up with as to why 1) I was hired higher on the totem pole and 2) he was not is affirmative action.

                      Bless would have us think the moral of the story is the cruel oppression I received at the hands of a dishwasher.

                      Y’all already know that the real moral of the story is that one shows up professionally attired as if one already has the job, and all the losers go home, cry, eat ice cream straight from the carton standing in front of the freezer while calling their Mom to whine and self-justify.

                      The dishwasher. The girl in ripped tights. There isn’t enough difference between them to speak of.

                    12. wild unsourced accusations, the posting of youtube videos as if a youtube video put out by a feminist organization has any validity outside the echo chamber, and proclamations that you’re here to ‘educate us’ despite the fact that you don’t understand how citations and sources actually work. Hint: Youtube videos which don’t provide proof for any of their claims don’t count and they certainly aren’t ‘important’ unless you’re incapable of rational thought and believe whatever propaganda videos tell you to believe.

                      First off, the video was produced by Microsoft; hardly a feminist organization. Second, it offered plenty of facts, all coming from people who had actually experienced the biases society exhibits against women in science. Maybe you were “unimpressed by the video”, but I guarantee that *this video will change your mind.

                      *The video I have linked to is also not produced by a feminist organization so don’t even try to pull that bullshit excuse again.

                    13. A Verizon commercial. That’s what you call a game-changer.

                      So, tell me about this “guarantee”. What are you offering if you fail?

                    14. Dammit. You aren’t real after all. I’m disappointed.

                    15. Dammit. You aren’t real after all. I’m disappointed.

                      I’m leaning towards fake troll now too since that was too stupid even for the dumbest imaginable feminist.

                    16. Your second video is a Verizon commercial?

                      Sweet God. You have to be a troll. No one is so stupid that when asked for a source they say ‘well look at this commercial designed to sell phones! IT WILL OPEN YOUR EYES, MAN!’

                      It’s a phone commercial meant to manipulate people like you into buying data plans based on the idea that ‘Verizon gets it, man!’ and you’re apparently so gullible you fell for it.

                      Second, it offered plenty of facts, all coming from people who had actually experienced the biases society exhibits against women in science.

                      No, it offered opinions and assertions. For example, it offered the ASSERTION that 7 out of 10 girls are ‘interested’ in science but provided no sources for that claim. It also didn’t explain what interested even means. If you ask someone ‘are you interested in science’ tons of people will say yes, but the vast majority of them aren’t interested enough to actually go into a scientific field. If you don’t understand what’s wrong with these claims, then I don’t know what to say other than that you don’t know what ‘facts’ actually are and should probably go into a statistics course before you try to proclaim that people vastly more educated than yourself on this subject are somehow ‘ignorant.’

                    17. No, it offered opinions and assertions.

                      I was talking about the experiences of the girls themselves:

                      “I used to think technology was great? and then I started thinking it was more of a boy’s thing.”

                      “They think that inventing is for boys because they have Albert Einstein.”

                      “There used to be [another] girl in the robotics Class, but she quit. And so I’m the only girl left.”

                      These are the facts.

                    18. Okay…certainly troll.

                      Too bad.

                    19. Good god. And now, this internet is brought to you by… Always. Makers of fine feminine products.

                      It can’t be in earnest. That’s not possible. I’ve decided that this was a subtly played epic trolling by a fat guy in his underwear on a nice Saturday, sniggering the whole while. And I am impressed.

                      Well played, fat guy. Well played.

                    20. It rained all day where I live and I kept my pants on … most of the day.

                    21. Hi Tulpa.

                    22. You’ve got it backwards here. We care about equality. You care about group identity.

                      Just look at your mascot.

                    23. Want’s all the benefits without any of the responsibility. Man’s gotta make himself professionally presentable for an interview, but a women shouldn’t have to?

                      I have no problem whatsoever interacting with women who toe the line. But that’s not what you want, is it? You want it handed to you.

                      Equality? HA! You don’t have a clue what the word means.

                    24. Maybe, but why does that make her an awful person?

                      Because she demonstrated no self-awareness whatsoever. Because her stupid rant demonstrated an over-developed sense of self-regard. Because she’s an emotionally stunted drama queen that would have been completely toxic to the work environment.

                    25. Hey bless, how about this study which showed that attractive women are less likely to get job interviews because female HR departments bypass them since they view them as sexual competition?

                      The same study showed a bias against ugly men and in favor of attractive men – by HR departments which are predominantly female.

                      So is this bias against ugly men just going to get memory holed by you because it doesn’t fit the narrative of a vile patriarchy oppressing homely women?

                4. So, bless, tell me a little about yourself.

            3. TITS OR GET THE FUCK OUT

              I really hope you’re real. We’ll have fun with you. I hopez I hopez I hopez

              1. Can’t be real. Just a beginner troll.

                1. Playa — saw you asking about Gaylord Palms to Florida Man in the Jenner thread. If you mean the one near Disney World we just spent four nights there this week. Email me if you want to know more.

                  1. I will. Did you go down the waterslides?

                    Don’t disappoint me….

                    1. My wife and son did. I considered it, but the broken back made me hesitate, and we didn’t have much time before leaving for the airport the only day I went to the pool. Most of the days there I was in a suit. We did go to Universal for the Harry Potter stuff and I got tricked onto a very outrageous roller coaster there — still having back pain from that one.

        3. Different work places have different rules, idiot. That’s why you dress conservatively TO THE INTERVIEW and then later on you can dress to the specifications of the company.

          There are companies that wouldn’t care how she was dressed – this just wasn’t one of them, which is why she should have dressed conservatively until she was sure of the culture. If I wore the shirt that guy wore to a job interview, I would never get that job, which seems to contradict your overall point, doesn’t it?

          I’d also like to point out that the same feminists attacking that guy are the ones saying ‘I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WEAR WHATEVER I WANT TO ANY JOB INTERVIEW’ so if anyone’s engaged in a double standard it’s you and the feminist idiots you’ve chosen to defend.

          1. I found this for you. Do you feel better?

            1. ESB!!! Microagression.

          2. I’d also like to point out that the same feminists attacking that guy are the ones saying ‘I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO WEAR WHATEVER I WANT TO ANY JOB INTERVIEW’ so if anyone’s engaged in a double standard it’s you and the feminist idiots you’ve chosen to defend.

            No, idiot, it’s because that guy gets to wear what ever he wants that women are saying, “I should be allowed to wear whatever I want.” Idiot.

            1. that guy gets to wear what ever he wants

              Oh please be real. Please please please.

            2. No, idiot, it’s because that guy gets to wear what ever he wants that women are saying, “I should be allowed to wear whatever I want.” Idiot.

              *This should not have been in italics.

              1. Do you believe that men get to wear whatever they want at job interviews? Is that what you’re going with? Really? Really really?

                1. Every time I go to a job interview I wear a conservative suit, get a haircut, make sure I’m clean shaven, and shower right before I leave, even if I’ve previously showered that day.

                  That’s because those of us who aren’t morons realize that the way you present yourself at a job interview is a large part of whether you are hired. This is particularly true given that I work near the front of a law firm, so I sure as hell would not have gotten hired if I smelled like shit, was unshaven, and came to the interview in sweatpants.

                  For some reason feminists imagine that if they don’t have the laws of the workplace suspended on their behalf that’s evidence of misogyny, when what it’s really evidence of is women being treated exactly the same as the men.

        4. bless|4.25.15 @ 3:09PM|#
          “What about this guy
          I bet none of you had a problem with that shirt.”

          Yeah, what about that?
          Uh, WIH does this have to do with a job interview?

        5. There is a complete double standard in the STEM fields. You guys are completely oblivious to the, “casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields”. There is a complete double standard in the STEM fields which actively discourages women from entering.

          Sweet cheeks, cry me a river. I work in commercial kitchens. There’s more testosterone sloshing around the back of the house than you’ll find in a Navy ship five months into a deployment. Don’t talk to me about ‘casual’ misogyny – try a week when it’s absolutely deliberate and if you can’t hack it, you’re expected to quit and just go cook at home where no one will hurt your tender widdle feelers.

          And I do not – do not – intercede for female employees. I advise. I counsel. But never intercede, because I might as well fire her if I did that. Some battles you have to fight on your own, and gaining the respect of your co-workers is one of them.

          Speaking from experience, there’s not much men can do when you’ve got clanking brassies and the skills to back it up.

          1. Sweet cheeks, cry me a river.

            HoD…you are teh awesum!

            1. Someone had to say it. You guys are handling her with kid gloves. I mean, look at Warty. A model of restraint. Warty.

              There’s another troll upthread, and who wants to bet me she genuinely does not see how gentle y’all have been compared to that guy’s whuppin’?

              And she wants to cry about eeeeevil men. Wanker.

              1. Someone had to say it. You guys are handling her with kid gloves. I mean, look at Warty. A model of restraint. Warty.

                *hangs head in shame in the most masculine fashion he can muster*

                1. *fans self from the overwhelming manliness*

              2. I mean, look at Warty. A model of restraint. Warty.

                You think I’m capable of being half as cruel to a woman, as another woman? I’m…flattered.

          2. …there’s not much men can do when you’ve got clanking brassies and the skills to back it up.

            Yup. I once worked with a couple female programmers. They both knew their shit, so they didn’t get any.

            1. This. I’ve worked with several of them over the years and all of the good ones were treated in an exemplary manner, at least by me and in my presence. There was a drama queen who wasn’t a very good programmer, either — but she had a job, and just had to cope with the shit she caught from the male coworkers when she went off on the deep end (this one was in Eastern Europe, so the situation was somewhat different than in North America).

        6. “casual misogyny that stops women from entering certain scientific fields”

          This is not even true anecdotally. If you want casual misogyny, and someone as obsessed with the issue as you probably does, go to a workplace with a union.

          1. Anyone who’s ever spent any time in an engineering department knows how much they’re overjoyed to have women. And another thing I’ve noticed about women engineers – the ones who can do math don’t whine about sexist men oppressing them. Why do you suppose that is?

            1. And another thing I’ve noticed about women engineers – the ones who can do math don’t whine about sexist men oppressing them.

              This goes to something I’ve long noticed about American feminists, namely that the people who declare themselves feminist actually embody the worst, most misogynistic female stereotypes, whereas women who don’t self-identify as feminists do not.

              For example: None of the women I am friends with are hysterical, whiny crybabies who are incapable of reading a graph or understanding how statistics work. None of the women I associate with fly into fits of petulant outrage when criticized for something they have done. Instead, like most of the capable men I know, they take that criticism and attempt to improve.

              In other words, all the negative, misogynistic female stereotypes (that they can’t control their emotions, that they can’t do math, that they’re flighty and insecure) are not true about virtually any of the women I know…except for the feminists.

              Negative female stereotypes would basically vanish from the universe were it not for emotionally unstable, mathematically incapable, whiny, flighty, narcissistic feminists keeping them alive. Christina Hoff Sommers is an intelligent, rational, capable human being but feminists despise her for not letting herself be mindlessly ruled by her emotions like they are.

              1. Since Epi’s not here, I’ll say it.

                Projection, always and everywhere. All of their claims about the psyche of their hate objects are what they see in the mirror.

        7. I bet none of you had a problem with that shirt.

          Irrelevant. The prospective employer had a problem with it.

          And she was late to the interview, which in the real world and not “PreciousSnowflakeLand” will pretty much send you to the bottom of the pile. Grow up, you baby.

        8. There is an Anti-Male bias in STEM currently:

          http://www.pnas.org/content/ea…..1418878112

      3. I have done lots of consulting with companies doing business with Target. I have attended hundreds of meetings in Target’s HQ in downtown Mpls.

        For a long time it was fantastic because the gals were racing each other to the bottom of the street walker look alike contest. I had no problems cooling my heels in the main lobby watching all the young gals right out of college parade by in short skirts.

        Then HR put a stop to it and went to business formal for everyone. Even IT was expected to wear a jacket and tie to work. I knew lots of guys who said fuck it and left. They were bitter because it wasn’t them who were causing a ruckus, but HR didn’t have the guts to tell the women to tone it down so they punished everyone.

        1. For a long time it was fantastic because the gals were racing each other to the bottom of the street walker look alike contest. I had no problems cooling my heels in the main lobby watching all the young gals right out of college parade by in short skirts.

          I take it this was during the one month of summer, right? Because if not, my whole body just froze thinking about it…

          1. There’s no guarantee of that. I lived in Denver, and was constantly boggled by the women walking around in clothing unsuitable for Rocky Mt winters – because, y’know, skirts and bare legs are sexier.

            I… don’t even know, man.

        2. Are you responsible for my credit card being re-issued?

          1. No, but I know people who were involved (on the Target side of course).

            Unfortunately every large corporation in downtown Mpls knows people involved in that fiasco and everyone is extra paranoid now because they don’t want to have to go through that nightmare themselves.

            1. Their statistician was a genius, but they got sloppy with the credit card data.

    5. Saw that awhile back.

      Any employer that does any kind of net background check (and that’s more of them all the time) is going to delete her application, scrub any communications with her, fire any employees that had contact with her, and sledgehammer any servers that might have stored anything from her.

      Because she’s made herself just that toxic to any business.

    6. Huh, so she admits that there are relatively few women in tech because they choose not to enter?

      1. But they choose not to enter because they’re not allowed to dress like they just got through blowing a truck driver in a rest-stop bathroom, so really isn’t it the patriarchy’s fault?

        1. they’re not allowed to dress like they just got through blowing a truck driver in a rest-stop bathroom
          That’s how the guys who work for me dress.

          1. Only because you require it.

      2. Look, that doesn’t matter. Never mind the fact that most women do not enjoy tech jobs and so there are naturally a lot more men in those jobs. We must have women in those jobs whether they want to be or not, even if they suck at it or hate it, or both! Because patriarchy!

    7. “Essentially, I was denied a job on an all-male development team for what I looked like.”

      “If I had been a man, would it have mattered what I was wearing?”

      Does she mean all those times I wore a suit and tie to an interview I did not have to?

      I realize that what constitutes professional attire for woman is less rigidly defined than for a man, but I have never seen anyone recommend a man not wearing a suit to an interview for a professional position unless the interviewee was absolutely certain the potential employer’s corporate culture would not consider that level of dress acceptable.

      I can only believe this person is completely ignorant of how the other half lives.

      1. I can’t remember the last interview I went to without a tie. I suspect it was for a dishwashing position in junior high.

        1. If memory serves the only interview for a career type position I did in less than a jacket and tie was a golf shirt and khakis for a follow up. The interviewer specifically told me to dress more casually than I did for the initial interview (and I had seen in the first round that the office environment for that company was very casual).

    8. She’s getting a lot of pushback in the comments. Scroll down to see what she wore to that interview. It does seem a bit unprofessional to me, especially for a job interview, and maybe especially in Cleveland. In SF she probably would have gotten away with it.

      1. Keep in mind that she was called 4 weeks later with the news. So, I don’t believe that she put on the exact same outfit for that photo. I suspect it looked much worse.

        1. Ah, I assumed the photo taken that day.

    9. The dumb bitch was also late to the interview (“BUT I CALLED THEM AND SAID I WAS GOING TO BE LATE A BLOO BLOO BLOO!!”)

      So after not getting the job, she consumes a bucket of sour graps (as well as ten cheeseburgers and a gallon of ice cream).

      1. Tardiness would count more for me than her attire. I work in multiple buildings in New England, and therefore I tend to plan my day around when applicants will show up. If one calls the day of an interview and tells me they’ll be an hour late, it can affect not only that day, but subsequent days that week depending on where I need to be.

  8. Only four of the top 50 American colleges require a Shakespeare course for English majors. Thankfully, they’ve got a bunch of other great courses you can take instead:

    What today’s English departments do offer is the expected cocktail of popular culture and political correctness. Princeton’s “Literature, Food, and the American Racial Diet,” for example. Or “Punk Culture: The Aesthetics and Politics of Refusal” at Cornell, or “The Politics of Hip Hop” at Emory.

    1. Its an English major – does it really *matter* what you study? Its a ‘for yourself’ type of degree – you aren’t getting a job with it, no matter how familiar you are with Shakespeare.

      1. That’s a pretty bad argument. There’s value in the ability to express yourself and I personally think that if you want to be a writer, an editor, a journalist, or a member of any other field that requires a capacity to express yourself well, an English major could be very valuable, especially if you double major in something more practical.

        An English major ceases to valuable even for that when you’re being taught “Literature, Food, and the American Racial Diet” rather than the best writers our language has to offer. I’d also like to point out that the humanities are absolutely great at teaching people to think rationally and clearly provided the humanities are taken seriously and are a strenuous discipline. The problem with modern humanities isn’t that the humanities are inherently worthless, it’s that they’ve been made worthless through the death of legitimate standards.

        1. I’d also like to point out that the humanities are absolutely great at teaching people to think rationally and clearly provided the humanities are taken seriously and are a strenuous discipline.

          This is true. The study of logic, which is sometimes considered a subcategory of philosophy, is among the hardest of the hard sciences. I have no doubt that if everyone just read one simple book about the Trivium (logic, grammar, and rhetoric), then the world would be a much more rational place.

          The trouble with “the humanities” in the modern sense of the word is that somewhere along the way, it got lumped together with all the touchy-feely “no wrong answers” crap.

        2. Compare what a modern English major studies compared to what an English major would have studied in, say, 1900. An English major was expected to know Modern English, Middle English, and Old English (what English major wouldn’t be able to read Beowulf?). Because English had so many borrowings from French, it would be expected to know French as well (including medieval French). English being a Germanic language, a knowledge of German was important. And, of course, all educated persons at the time had already studied Latin and Greek in grammar school (that’s why they call it grammar school – that’s where you learn the grammar of the classics).

          Today they read “adapted” Shakespeare and take two semesters of Spanish. Progress!

      2. So, I think what Aga is saying is that any employer should regard an English major as the functional equivalent of a high school grad.

        Having a hard time arguing with that.

        1. I think English majors are beautiful people.

        2. The English major will believe that possessing that BA entitles them to a better job and compensation than the HS grad.

          Sad to think that the two of them would have an equivalent exposure to the actual canon of English literature.

          1. I would hire an English major in an instant, and then I would compliment them on how beautiful they surely are.

            1. Say, what’d you major in, CJ?

              1. What I majored in is unimportant. I am not one who judge others by what they may have accomplished in the past. I look to the future. I look for inner beauty. I look for grit. I look for heart.

                I am just saying I would hire and boink an English major (yes, probably in that order…they need the cash, that is what I am saying).

              2. Women’s studies.

    2. “Punk Culture”

      Shakespeare had to disavow this song to avoid a treason prosecution from Queen Elizabeth, but today, scholars generally give him authorial credit:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8fLOJswWtk

    3. Eh, you can always go through a liberal arts curriculum and find oddball courses meant for upperclassmen* and grad students. At least they aren’t required.

      *What’s the PC term for them these days? Also, how do you say “freshmen”?

      1. Also, how do you say “freshmen”?

        Sssprrringgg Scholars.

        Sounds PC to me.

  9. The concept of “professionalism” in terms of dress is outdated and oppressive from many angles.

    Guess what, Precious- if you think professionalism is a drag, just wait ’til you find out how awesome pvoerty is.

    1. So is the concept of a “job interview” and even a “job.” But that’s reality, toots.

  10. We will not be truly free until tech startups are willing to hire women dressed likes street walkers.

    “Hey, if you’re done making the coffee, it’s time for my eleven o’clock blowjob.”

  11. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

    1. Well, if you weren’t such a loser you’d be working for the Koch Bros like the rest of us here and your pay check would be much bigger, peasant!

  12. Okay, I broke down and tried to read that Oberlin thing.

    On April 1, I interviewed for a programming job at OnShift, a Cleveland-based tech company that makes medical shift scheduling software. Two weeks later, I received a phone call from the recruiter who had contacted me about the position, saying that they would not be hiring me. The hiring director had relayed to her that they would have hired me based on my personality and technical abilities, but would not be doing so because of the way I looked. I was informed that my appearance “looked more like I was about to go clubbing than to an interview,” and that the run in my tights, coupled with my mild lateness ? which I had informed them of earlier, due to my afternoon class ? suggested to them that I was “unprofessional and not put together.”

    Essentially, I was denied a job on an all-male development team for what I looked like.

    It’s bullshit, all the way down. I refuse to believe any such conversation ever took place. Nobody in a position to fill any job anywhere is dumb enough to say that out loud. They might think it…
    That conversation might have taken place in her head, but I don’t believe the guy would waste his time calling her up to tell her she didn’t get the job, much less offer up that lawsuit-on-a-silver-platter.

    1. My guess is that, basically, the recruiter told her why she probably did not get the job, and she extrapolated the rest. The recruiter said that she should have dressed more professionally and be there when she was scheduled to be there; what other explanation could there be that the interviewers thought she was perfect except for those two things and said as much? That’s how managers talk about these things, right?

      1. There are the reasons, and then there are the reasons they give you. Not always a whole lot of overlap.

        If you’re looking at hiring somebody in a protected class (and hiring a woman in tech definitely qualifies), you’re gonna give the applicant a lot of scrutiny, because once you hire them, you can’t get rid of them.

        I guarantee you that they discussed the likelihood that this woman was going to be a problem employee. Skills aside, if she shows up to the interview acting like she doesn’t give a fuck, is late, and has a run in her stockings, it’s a smart move to pass on her, even if they need more women in their company. Her response to the situation only confirms that they made the right choice.

        1. Dude, idiots like this woman aren’t even close to subtle. They actually don’t even know what “subtle” means. They have the tact and grace of a bulldozer. I guarantee you the instant she walked (late) into the interview the interviewer knew that she wasn’t getting hired no matter what. People like this radiate entitlement, resentment, anger, and bitterness. It comes off them in waves. She was probably in the “no fucking way are we hiring her EVER” bin before she even sat down.

          1. I don’t doubt it. But I’m sure they did the paperwork to make it appear as though they considered her.

            And she also looks like a bulldozer.

          2. “She was probably in the “no fucking way are we hiring her EVER” bin before she even sat down.”

            Prolly “Lawsuit in a skirt. How do I make nice enough to avoid the first one?”

        2. If you’re looking at hiring somebody in a protected class (and hiring a woman in tech definitely qualifies), you’re gonna give the applicant a lot of scrutiny

          Whoa whoa whoa! Protected class means the exact same scrutiny as anyone else, absolutely no way would there be extra scrutiny.

          I guarantee you that they discussed the likelihood that this woman was going to be a problem employee.

          Discussed? As in two or more parties where the conversation could possibly disclosed in a lawsuit? Strictly about her and the other applicants’ qualifications. She was a woman? Didn’t even notice.

        3. because once you hire them, you can’t get rid of them

          ^This. It’s an amusing side effect/paradox of modern civil rights activism. It’s no longer “I’m just as good as a man/white/straight/whatever and just want to prove myself.” It’s now “I might well be a lawsuit waiting to happen.”

          I knew someone whose office was thrown into turmoil by this sort of thing. They hired a young black woman, who some took exception to someone’s joke and got him fired. It was then discovered that she disappeared for hours at a time in the afternoon because she went to an unused conference room and took naps. She was not fired, at least not before my friend, her nominal boss, quit in disgust, because management chose to ignore my friend’s point of view and instead take the young woman’s side.

    2. At this point, any time an SJW or feminist or prog tells a questionable story that doesn’t make sense (such as someone relaying potentially actionable motivations that no actual HR department would ever say in a million years that fits too utterly perfectly into the SJW narrative), just assume they’re completely lying. I mean, they’ve earned it. Like, really really earned it, with Jackie, and Emma Sup…sup…whatever her name is, and Duke, and…

      I mean, has there been a major situation yet where they haven’t been caught lying? Talk about crying wolf.

      1. “and then the recruiter was all ‘girls can’t do stuff’ and I was all, intimidated, and like, I was like, no way. He probably wanted to bang me, I could see how he was looking at me. What a creeper.”

        1. Have you seen pics? NOBODY wanted to bang this girl.

          1. This is as adorable as a young woman can be. Plus, no glasses!

            1. You’re the exception.

              You did use my “ladies of the democratic party” picture, after all.

              1. She dressed like that for a professional job interview. That is hilarious.

                1. She came straight from her afternoon class and afterward she had a date or a funeral to go to.

  13. Is Bruce Jenner getting more coverage than the earthquake?

    BTW, it looks like a lot of people died on Everest at the base camp. Totally preventable.

      1. Will you sign my petition?

      2. Were there any famous people on Everest? That is all that matters.

    1. Is Everest identifying as something other than a mountain these days, because those kinds of transformations are what is really news.

      1. Everest wants to chop off its peak and put a canyon there instead.

    2. “BTW, it looks like a lot of people died on Everest at the base camp. Totally preventable.”

      Yes, it is. Sympathy is hard to come by for those whose hobby is finding risky activities. If you crave risk, you might find that risk has consequences.
      RIP, but those who had no choice to be ‘otherwhere’ get my sympathy.

      1. I know a few people who have done Everest. Mostly as part of a mid-life crisis. A nice sports car is cheaper and safer.

        If you have 6 figures of disposable cash, you can do Everest. That’s how the base camp is crowded enough for people to die in an avalanche.

        1. I once dated this girl who’s boobs I called Everest. I mean they were like majestical peaks. Does that count?

          1. As a mid-life crisis? Sure, Everest boobs work just fine.

        2. Meh, I’d totally do an african safari. I had a mentor who did that and ended up getting into a way hairier encounter with a leopard than he meant to.

          He accused me later of jinxing him because I gave him a bunch of Peter Hathaway Capstick’s books before he left. He claimed that spooked him.

          1. My uncle just got back from one.

            A safari is totally reasonable. Paying a sherpa to carry you up the highest peak in the world isn’t. And they’ve know about the dangers of commercial climbing expeditions since Sandy Pittman. Unskilled climbers are a danger to everyone around them.

  14. “And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.” 1 Samuel 8:13

    http://www.oregonlive.com/busi…..cakes.html

    1. “The proposed order is 110 pages long”

      What a fuckin’ racket.

  15. Sophia . I see what you mean… Cynthia `s bl0g is astonishing… yesterday I bought a great new Honda from bringing in $6283 this last month and would you believe, ten k this past munth . it’s by-far the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever had . I started this 6 months ago and almost immediately began to bring home minimum $74.. per hour . visit here… http://www.Work4Hour.Com

    1. Cynthia’s big what?

    2. My kingdom for a “Flag as spam” button!

  16. Quite frankly, I don’t think the nation has an “right” to a free anything, and I sincerely doubt anything qualifies as a natural monopoly ‘requiring” regulation. If the folks who build roads, fly airplanes, broadcast radio and TV, and string telephone lines can’t agree on what is in their best interest I think they will soon regret it, and I doubt they can do anything to monopolize existing infrastructure. Folks will just go around them. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, I don’t see any real harm in regulating what we have in place, even though I wouldn’t bother, because it’s not like forever. Reason’s concern strikes me, as in several other instances, to be a sort of socialism, not libertarianism, and more akin to democracy than to republicanism.

  17. Support for net neutrality is one of the simplest and most accurate litmus test to see if someone is a total fucking unthinking leftist moron.

  18. pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  19. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  20. Freedom of Communication, which includes oral communication, printed communication, and internet communication (and probably others), protects not only content of the communication but also CHARACTERISTICS too.

    For speech it covers your tone of speech and speed of speech as examples and for printed communication it covers font as examples.

    For internet communication , it would cover speed too . This makes it much clearer that Net Neutrality violates our freedom of communication.

    1. You
      are
      full
      of
      shit.

    2. Going full retard? Never go full retard.

  21. my Aunty Sophia just got a nearly new BMW X4 SUV just by some parttime working online with a lap-top
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  22. Ajit Pai is the child of rich Indian immigrants who is a Hindu himself but who recently married a Christian.
    “The couple first participated in a Hindu wedding ceremony, where Van Lancker wore an embellished cream and red sari. After a tea reception with Indian food, the couple returned to the ballroom — this time in a tux and white gown — for a Christian ceremony.”
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..03395.html
    Of course a man with no Christian values world be unable to recognize the dangerous hazard of free nternet pornography by wire.
    http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comme…..0001027404

  23. uptil I looked at the paycheck which was of $6898 , I have faith …that…my father in law was actually erning money parttime from their computer. . there neighbor had bean doing this for less than nine months and at present cleard the loans on there apartment and got a great new Nissan GT-R:…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  24. my roomate’s half-sister makes $71 /hr on the computer . She has been laid off for 5 months but last month her pay was $17321 just working on the computer for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.