Well, I feel like I’m trying to explain my logic in how it is linked and you keep resetting each time to the beginning without processing what I’ve said.

You don’t seem to want to understand and you’re hyperfixating on a few words and ignoring the other parts of the argument I’m making.

Costco is, in part, responding to public opinion on how tasteless the ads are. I’m not expecting Costco to organize a boycott of a media company for showing the ad and I’m saying they should.

What I’m saying is that NO ONE is going to organize a boycott against a company for showing an ad in bad taste, especially if the ad meets standards and practices for the FCC. They’ll go after the company paying for the advertisement.

And I’m not saying it is written in the Constitution that this protection explicitly exists. I’m saying that the culture surrounding that free speech protection gives broadcasters and publishers far less ownership of what the ads they serve say compared to other countries.

I bring it up because you asked the question about why didn’t anybody else stop this ad from being broadcast. Why? Because the risk to everyone else was near zero.

I bring it up because companies which broadcast and publish material are generally given greater deference by the public for showing material they disagree with. As long as the standards are adhered to evenly, the broadcaster isn’t going to be boycotted for an ad. No one is boycotting the television stations and streamers for airing this ad; all the attention is going to Calloway.

The consequences of free speech are felt by those paying for it in public opinion, not those serving it.

While the topic was abhorrent and in bad taste, I don’t think there was ever a time when the FCC banned jokes about spouse/family abuse.

The Honeymooners regularly joked about the husband finally breaking and beating his wife. I Love Lucy had an episode where Lucy tried to get a sunburn so Ricky wouldn’t beat her as hard for buying an expensive dress. The Simpsons had Homer choking Bart as a running gag. All these shows were on Broadcast TV.

Yes, the company that made the ad. Unless something happened that I’m not aware of, nothing has happened to the marketing firm who made the ad nor the various companies who served the ad to audiences.

The question was phrased in a way asking if an ad platform ran it across their standards and practices to see if the ad should be aired. The ad was in poor taste, but it could be shown on network television so no one stopped it. The risk for showing a controversial ad is near zero. The only company dealing with a boycott is the company that was advertising its product.

No one is boycotting the companies which showed the ad.

I get the feeling that the golf is just the structure to get wasted and do mild exercise with tangential friends under the guise of career networking. It beats having to deal with the family.

Nope. Free speech.

Yeah. You can question the quality of beef for export, but Argentina has been a beef exporter for over a century so it has the quantity.

I get that you are supposed to get prestige from peer review, but the system is breaking down.

What I’m asking is if an independent group got together where they would peer review the research for a fee that can get built into a grant. Or maybe a grant giving research organization builds it in house, where all research performed under a grant goes through their internal peer review with qualified reviews.

Dumb question, but what would happen if the act of peer review was a cost that had to be paid? I assume that’s the reason why journals have such high fees to read documents, that’s how they fund peer review.

All the southern Italians. I point this out because standard Italian settled on a northern dialect as the standard. So the Italian those immigrants brought has some differences.

You know how some people have imposter syndrome? More people should have it.

Target figured out when shoppers are pregnant, so this tracks.

Yeah, we had a warlock meet his patron. It was not a good time.

Maybe not. After all, who is attending?

I control all apps, so yes.

Good thing I air gapped my TV.

The hiring is done mostly by professors, who are usually highly competent in their field.

But being competent in your field doesn’t make you a good manager or leader. The problem is that you have valuable technical experts with poor leadership abilities put into power. If there is an HR problem, the institution is usually incentivized to defend the expert and their atrocious behavior over junior staff.

And it doesn’t end up being a problem for academia if researchers leave the toxic workplace because spots are desirable and there isn’t an issue replacing those who leave.

This isn’t really enshittification, though. People used to always have the right to self repair. That right got curtailed once it became a threat to profit margins.

This is a law issue.