More on the ban

A few bridge friends have asked me to post more of the context leading to the ban. Here’s what happened, along with my thoughts at the time.

On Wednesday, June 27, John McAllister posted an article on BridgeWinners regarding his podcast interview with me. BridgeWinners chooses to make it a “featured” article and helps him edit it before posting. Besides a link to the podcast and one to my Keller convention it contains these two links – I’ve pasted in John’s text:

The first article which we discuss by John Hodgman: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/magazine/ayn-rand-in-spades.html 

The second, an article penned by Adam himself which helped me to appreciate Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism: http://www.tameware.com/adam/bridge/AynRandAndBridge.pdf

John's article attracted a dozen or more critical comments, some complaining that a discussion of Objectivism is out of place on a bridge site, and BridgeWinners pulled it pending review. I noticed some of the comments before the article was taken down and, having seen how these things can proceed on BridgeWinners and other sites, send them a short note with an offer:

BridgeWinners has set itself a challenging task by resolving to adjudicate the suitability of any post that attracts too many negative votes. Before you hid John's "Setting Trick" feature article I was going to post the following, but I was too slow. Perhaps you can use it to good effect: 

"Ayn Rand often evokes powerful feelings, both positive and negative. I know from experience that a BridgeWinners forum may not be the best place to debate her philosophy, even in terms of how it relates to bridge. I'll be happy to discuss it with anyone via email, private message here, or on my blog."

BridgeWinners replied, noting that the site is intended for bridge-related topics only and asking me not to bring up Objectivism again on their site. They seemed to believe that I had used their site for some nefarious purpose. I wrote back:

I am confused. I have not mentioned Objectivism on BridgeWinners, certainly not lately. I did not even post to the thread in question!

BridgeWinners replied, asking me not to post about how I’d be happy to talk about Ayn Rand. They also note that there’s something about her in my profile, but that it’s not objectionable in and of itself. I understand from this that I should not mention Ayn Rand or her philosophy in a post. I respond:

I could word it differently, so as to have no mention of philosophy or philosophers! My intent is to try to satisfy those BW users who want to discuss further and BW itself which prefers that such discussion not happen on the site.

In posting this now, I realize that I should have clarified that I meant "discuss the interview further" and not "discuss Ayn Rand further." BridgeWinners likely assumed I meant the latter.

BridgeWinners replied “Sorry, no.” and noted that my views on Ayn Rand are well-known and that anyone who wanted could send me a private message. I remain puzzled. I cannot figure out what they object to. But I know I should post only links related to bridge.

By now it’s Friday morning, June 29. Seeking clarification I write:

BridgeWinners users have no way to know that I'd be willing to correspond, for a couple reasons. One is that John's post is no longer visible – I don't know whether you plan to restore it. Another is that they don't know that you've asked me not to respond publicly. 

Have you considered posting a list of topics that are considered off-limits?
I could post something like this: (post elided…)

BridgeWinners had not responded by Friday evening. I took the lack of reply to mean that they had no objection to my proposed post. In any case, I could not imagine what they might object to. They had requested no comments or links unrelated to Bridge. While they had not identified any such unrelated links in John's post I presumed that a link to an episode of a bridge podcast was so clearly related to bridge that it had to fit within the BW community guidelines. I still think so.

I do not make a regular practice of asking for permission before posting, and BW would not be tenable if such permission were required on a routine basis, but I knew that this was a sensitive topic for them. I ran the post by them so that they would have a chance to object and explain how it would violate their guidelines. Their subsequent take was that I ought to have waited to hear from them before posting. In retrospect, it seems likely that I would never have heard from them.

My further thoughts

BW is a wonderful service. Its attempts to promote civil discourse, though, seem likely to me to lead to the opposite. In effect, they provide a "heckler's veto."

BridgeWinners' moderator indicated that he did not wish to discuss the matter further and that there was no avenue for appeal. Subsequent correspondence with BridgeWinners' principals indicated that they believed that John’s original post generated bad will and that reposting a link to the interview could cause "negative associations". This I at least understood, though I don’t think it’s a sound approach.

We seem to live in a society where anything anyone claims to be offended by is automatically deemed offensive, and we are urged to bend over backward to avoid the possibility of giving offense. This is analogous to what would be known as a “chilling effect” were the government involved. By my lights, BW as a private entity has the right to do as it pleases, but I find their policy shortsighted and I will have no part of it.