Wampum

i've also had trouble with all the flak barry is taking for selling his domain. if i were faced with having to choose between financial disaster and selling my domain to a porn merchant, i'd probably sell the domain, too -- despite my personal and political distate for pornography.

if barry's sale of the domain was affecting what he or anyone else was able to write on 'alas', it would be another matter. but since (as i understand it) the sale only affects ownership of the domain -- not the content of the blog -- i really don't understand the uproar.

i have far more objections to blogs that accept advertising, but that's a whole different can of worms ....

Magpie,

It's just such a bad business decision. It just drives me nuts that lefty bloggers have so many issues around money. It what kills us because it makes what we do unsustainable.

What's up with that?

Yeah, MB, I'm with you on this one. Without taking any stand on this or that content type or internet philosophy, it does seem to me that only Barry is properly positioned to say which personal, financial, and creative decisions are best for Barry's life.

Yet I don't want to downplay the importance of respecting readers and commenters, whose clicks, after all, gave Barry the eyeball-capital to attract a domain buyer offering a payday.

Maybe one of the weaknesses of current internet subculture is that it allows and even invites people to feel close without being close. This seems to lead to all manner of cultural miscommunications and false expectations. It's pretty clear that we haven't figured out what we're doing yet, but at least we're working on it.

Peace.

I'll 2nd the thought that Chris Clarke's suggestions on blogging sound fairly reasonable to me. This is not a 'cost free' enterprise. It never has been. It's not a 'frictionless market' either. People pour their hearts and souls into these projects, only to have people who barely 'know' them take cheap pot shots at them for 'selling out' on one aspect or another.

This is not only silly, it's juvenile and severely counterproductive on too many levels to count. This is akin to the disastrous decisions behind the the 20 year hiatus of many from 'progressive politics', thinking they were all too 'pure' to engage in such matters. Our hopeful candidates were always somehow just too compromised on this or that single issue to be supported, or even folks bothering to vote. The evangelical right, playing a counter role from most of their 20th century history thought otherwise, organized themselves as a bloc vote, and the rest as they say is how we would wind up in the disasters we all now face as a nation and world community of living creatures.

Yes, it's that seriously silly. Now lets say some kind words about porn shall we? Is there a feminist worth their salt willing to admit that yes, they enjoy 'erotica' AND porn, and as often as not, what separates these is a matter of taste and production values? A few actually, Susie Bright being one of the older folks familiar to me in this regard. [http://susiebright.blogs.com/] Learn some history here folks. Not for nothing did the anti-sex, and severely anti-women Comstock laws outlaw porn AND any erotica, Including adequate medical descriptions for any 'social diseases' or simple functioning of both genders sexual organs & relationships between same for much of the 20th century. Geez, how many more times do we have to teach basic history here? There's sex, and then there's anti-sex. Deal with it.

So sorry kiddies, porn DID help Build the net. Yes it did. For years, perhaps even as long as the first decade of it's existence, just about the only sites regularly returning any sort of money from investments on the Net were, yes the porn sites. Yes, some of them of late can be quite nasty. But yes, most of the really offensive and actionable items involving children have been removed from commercial sites, and even mere possession or distribution of same is now a serious federal offense. As well it should be. But please, let's not get our knickers in a twist and lift the hoop skirts skyward on the shocking revelation that yes, sex AND porn does go on in here. Lots of it. In every conceivable variety. Some of it good, some of it bad, and some of it as nasty as some hypocritical tight lipped Congressmen like it.

This is neither good Nor bad. It CAN and Has been educational to many. It has given a few others some bad ideas, but books and printing in general have been doing that for centuries. Let's not be so ready to condemn anyone for what they feel like they have to do to earn a living. Not everyone blogging is independently wealthy or a trust fund baby who can waste his/her days in front of the key board dreaming up mostly drivel with occasional brilliance for the masses to consume or be variously outraged, titillated or amused. The enterprise takes money, talent, smarts and guts to pull off anywhere near successfully. And no, selling out to a porn site is not all that unusual nor all that reprehensible given the facts. OWNING the porn or distribution channels as a media corp is another matter, and at last glance that last distinction applied to all too many of our major media & cable conglomerates. Your newspaper makes money off of porn, why attack a speck in the media universe for trying to get by the best way they know how? And isn't there more important 'stuff' to argue about? Like the fate of the earth, humanity, the Rule of Law, our Constitution, and perhaps our Democracy? Hmmm? Just askin'. Cheers, 'VJ'

One version of the way it was, Times (UK) edition. Believe it or not, most of the works named in the piece have been banned at one time or another by American authorities. Way back when you had to actually work hard for both your porn and any accurate information on sexuality. Cheers, 'VJ'

[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2403938,00.html]

As the Count would say, "One more once..." Just to be certain to generate sufficient heat, part of a porn positive position might be generated here via SSRN: [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013]. I'm sure if we had some harder numbers like S. Levitt et al had on abortion, we could generate some interesting debates. But it is a complicated topic, and one that is only tangentially related to the issue at hand. Which is of course money, stupidity, ownership and the complicated relationships between all interaction terms. And yes, much of your adult life will be spent in this same territory with even more interactions from and with various parties, for purposes much less fun yet more consequential. Cheers, 'VJ'