Friday Q&A

Questionable Submission

Greetings, crickets and trolls! Welcome to another fabulous edition of the Friday Q&A. This weekly feature often includes complete sentences and a minimum of misspelled words. Unlike certain other bloggers, I care enough to spell check my rants before posting. Does that mean that I'm a better person? Of course it does. Join me once again, as I take some time to answer the questions no one is asking.

Q: Does negativity have a place on Fark?

A: Absolutely not. One point where the Critic and I always disagreed was Fark's policy on negative comments about PS entries. I fully support free speech, but I'm glad the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to Fark. While the occasionally draconian tactics of our beloved moderators have led to the punishment of a few well-meaning users, I'm always happy to see a troll get banned. You can say what you want about the way our mods handle things, but I rarely see the same offender twice. That means they either learn their lesson or move on.

Q: What about our rights?

A: The civil rights argument falls apart when you realize that freedom of speech is not actually being abridged. Fark is a business, not a government. A business can refuse service to anyone. Try going in to your local grocery store, insulting the manager, clerks and other customers, then insisting on your "right" to shop there. The first amendment does not apply if you're creating a disturbance.

There are plenty of places on the Internet to troll. Nobody is saying you can't be a dick, just don't be one on Fark. This is the new Fark, the kinder and gentler news aggregate. Negativity has no place here. Except in the political discussions. And the classifieds. And occasionally the Caturday threads.

Q: Does a cleaner Fark mean that it's being prepped for sale?

A: The ridiculous rumor of a Fark sale has been floating around for months now. While I'm not sure who started it, I can tell you that it will never happen. I know how much Drew wants for the site, and trust me, no company will ever pay it. Why would they, when it's easier to just steal the idea and make a Fark clone?

What would be so bad about a Fark buyout, anyway? If the site was sold to Newscorp or Viacom, everyone assumes that Photoshop contests would be the first thing on the chopping block. Why would the hypothetical new owners seek to eliminate a staff of talent that creates free content for the site, and pays a monthly premium for the right to do so? I've heard the argument that our contests would be problematic from a legal standpoint, but I'm pretty sure that most large media conglomerates keep lawyers on staff. Besides, user-created content isn't made for profit, and thus is considered fair use. There are no fabulous prizes, after all.

That's all for this time, gentle reader. Thanks so much for stopping by. Keep watching for new features and commentary, all with the unbiased perspective you've come to demand from your hate blog of record.

Stay tuned for more unflinching integrity from the Doctor!