Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Shocked by Segregation



By Kevin D. Williamson
Wednesday, August 24, 2016

The headline was familiar, and predictable: “U.S.’s most economically segregated schools aren’t where you might expect.” Maybe not where you expect if you’re a Cambridge-dwelling headline writer for the Christian Science Monitor, but more or less exactly where you’d expect if you spent much time in the actual United States of America.

Underline: “Only one Southern state made the top 10 list,” gasp and exclamation point implicit.

Economic segregation, like racial segregation, is a condition that certainly exists in the South but that is much more pronounced in our large, Democrat-dominated northeastern metros and in West Coast cities such as San Francisco, where the spotlessly progressive municipal authorities have for a generation used restrictive zoning laws to drive out the sort of people who aren’t on a first-name basis with any venture capitalists. From the pitiless Romans we received the term “to decimate,” meaning to eliminate every tenth man in a military unit, usually as a punishment for mutiny or desertion. Since 1990, San Francisco has outdone Crassus and eliminated every third African-American resident, though to be fair San Francisco’s policies are not intentionally designed to drive out black people but to drive out poor people. Black billionaires are welcome in San Francisco, as they are in most places.

Racial segregation and economic segregation are different phenomena, but they are related, which probably is inevitable given the very different economic situations of different American demographic groups: Indian Americans have household incomes on average in excess of $100,000 a year, whereas African Americans have a median household income of around $35,000 a year. “African American” was never a particularly useful term — Africa is a big, diverse place — and it is becoming less useful by the year, inasmuch as some African-American subgroups, notably Americans of Nigerian background, have incomes that exceed the national average by a large margin, a fact that is no doubt related to the fact that Nigerian Americans pursue advanced degrees at four to six times the average U.S. rate. Jay Nordlinger relates a story about a high-achieving Lumbee Indian whose pursuit of academic and professional advancement had his sister accusing him of “acting white,” to which he replied that “acting white” wasn’t enough, that he intended to act Jewish or Chinese. He could have added “act Nigerian.”

Cities such as San Francisco are in part victims of their own success — a great many people want to live there, so there’s a great deal of demand for real estate. That’s one side of the equation. Policy comes in on the supply side, with political barriers to building keeping the stock of housing artificially limited, which is great for homeowners (who have lots of political clout) but stinks for younger, lower-income people looking to buy or rent (who don’t have very much political clout).

Part of that is a general American phenomenon: We simply will not endure ordinary urban population density — never mind comparing it with Lagos or Taipei, New York City’s density is well under half that of such ordinary cities as Barcelona, Buenos Aires, or Warsaw. New York is remarkable among U.S. cities for its tall buildings – and remarkable among world cities for its lack of them. Only a tiny number of New York City residences — less than 2 percent — are located in tall buildings, meaning those 20 stories or taller, far less than in comparable cities around the world. The number is even lower for cities such as Los Angeles (which actually has a higher population density than New York) and San Francisco. Building taller buildings makes urban residential real estate less expensive per square foot — you can have higher buildings or higher prices. New York, where the nice progressives want to put caps on tall buildings, has chosen higher prices — and, therefore, economic segregation, pushing the poor farther into the Bronx or New Jersey. (One Manhattan doorman of my acquaintance commuted from Pennsylvania.)

And in terms of building restrictions, New York is the Wild West compared with San Francisco.

Local reform is needed in places such as New York and San Francisco, but we can be reasonably confident that Wall Street and Silicon Valley will, in the end, take care of themselves.

We have examples to guide us. In Harris County (the greater Houston area) the median monthly household income is three times the median monthly homeownership cost for a family with a mortgage. In San Francisco County, where incomes are higher but housing prices are also much higher, the median monthly income is only twice the median monthly cost of housing. That’s before taxes. For the median-income family in San Francisco County, earning just shy of $80,000 a year, that $3,200 a month in housing expenses does not leave a lot of wiggle room in the rest of the household budget, especially considering the higher taxes and other expenses they’ll pay. The median Houston family earns only 70 percent of its San Francisco counterpart, but its housing expenses are less than half as much. The math here is pretty ugly: Using the old 2.5-times-your-income guideline, the median San Francisco family cannot begin to afford the median home there, which costs more than $765,000, or nine times the median family income.

That’s the median family. How much less room for error do the families in the below-the-median half enjoy? Mr. and Mrs. Average have a pretty tough time — but things are a lot worse for Mr. and Mrs. Below Average.

The racial aspect is easier to track, thanks to the Census: In 1970, there were nearly 100,000 African Americans in San Francisco. In 1990, there were about 78,000 black residents. Today, there are about 51,000 black residents. African Americans once were the majority population in San Francisco’s Bayview; today, at less than 6 percent of San Francisco’s population, they make up a majority of the population only in its jails.

There is a great deal more to what ails the poor, and long-suffering African-American communities, than housing policy. And most of those economically segregated and shockingly non-Southern cities that worry the gentle people at the Christian Science Monitor are not victims of their own success. They are Detroit, St. Louis, Cleveland, etc., which also are among our most racially segregated cities (those being New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland). Housing is pretty cheap there. The problem is in the demand side of the market: Nobody wants to move to Detroit, and few people are leaving Texas or California for a great new job in Cleveland. We know how to fix bad housing policy; in truth, we know how to fix a great many bad policies (education, public safety) afflicting Detroit and Cleveland, too. But the problems in those cities are not entirely unlike the housing problems that beset San Francisco and New York. The bad public policies that keep those cities down benefit somebody – somebody keeps those cities’ failed institutions in place, somebody resists reform, somebody evades accountability and helps others do the same.

Who? Would it be too much to suggest we take a real hard look at who’s running those cities?

The Great Ignored Agenda



By Ian Tuttle
Wednesday, August 24, 2016

At a glance, it would seem a lousy time to be a politician with ideas. Republican voters tossed aside thoughtful conservative candidates in favor of an entertainer with no particular governing philosophy, whose campaign is pitching a range of policies that, when not flatly impossible, are inchoate. Democratic voters, meanwhile, opted for a candidate whose ideas — more-expansive social programs, mainly — were already collecting dust in the 1960s. (To their credit, Democrats rejected the openly socialist candidate peddling ideas that came of age with the radio altimeter and the Model T.)

For Paul Ryan, though, the desert of ideas in American politics is an opportunity. In early December 2015, Ryan, just weeks into his tenure as speaker of the House, gave a speech at the Library of Congress entitled, “Confident America.” “If we want to save the country,” he told an audience that included House and Senate GOP leaders, “then we need a mandate from the people. And if we want a mandate, then we need to offer ideas. And if we want to offer ideas, then we need to actually have ideas. And that’s where House Republicans come in.” “Our number-one goal for the next year,” he announced, “is to put together a complete alternative to the Left’s agenda.”

The result, rolled out over this June and July, is “A Better Way: Our Vision for a Confident America.” Comprising six different areas of focus — poverty, national security, the economy, the Constitution, health care, and tax reform — the agenda aims to articulate not what Republicans stand against, but what they stand for. In Ryan’s preferred terms, it aims to turn the GOP from an “opposition” party into a “proposition” party.

While Ryan’s penchant for big ideas has been a staple of his congressional career — he authored the “Roadmap for America’s Future” in 2008, and was largely responsible for the party’s 2013 “Path to Prosperity” — the effort to create a comprehensive policy agenda began in earnest in January, at the House GOP retreat in Baltimore. What followed surprised many. As Politico wrote at the time: “Retreats like this week’s pow-wow at Baltimore’s Inner Harbor are typically contentious affairs. For the past four years, lawmakers used it as an occasion to scream at John Boehner and Eric Cantor. During their last session here, however, Ryan got a standing ovation as he made commitments to [pursue] big ideas.” At the retreat, members settled on five major areas of focus (tax reform and the economy were later split up). In February, six task forces, headed by the House’s committee chairmen, were established to explore each issue area. Over the next four months, the task forces held “idea forums,” in which members gathered to identify problems and brainstorm solutions. The forums were open to all House Republicans. Some task forces, such as the Task Force on Tax Reform, held hearings with policy experts to gather more information. Task-force leaders met regularly with Ryan to provide updates, and he set the timetable, but the task forces had wide latitude to tackle the issues as they saw fit. Ultimately, each task force drafted an extensive white paper detailing specific prescriptions.

That the famously fractious House Republican conference has coalesced around a single agenda is an accomplishment in itself, made possible, members insist, by Ryan’s “bottom-up” approach. “This is real,” says Kevin Brady (R., Texas), who is the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and led the Tax Reform Task Force. “Each piece — six major challenges and solutions — was developed by the conference, bringing the best ideas from all Republicans regardless of which committee they serve on or their region.” He notes that the final tax-reform blueprint incorporates ideas from more than 50 members. “It’s the first tax-reform proposal that reflects the consensus of House Republicans since Reagan’s reforms in the ’80s.”

That sense of common purpose holds across the board. “This is the first time that as a conference we’ve offered an alternative,” says Tom Price (R., Ga.), who chairs the House Budget Committee and co-chaired the Task Forces on Health-Care Reform and Poverty, Opportunity, and Upward Mobility. “This agenda is much more specific in every arena than we have been in the past, and it’s been embraced by the entire conference. We’ve come together and rallied around specific solutions.”

The six parts of the “Better Way” agenda constitute a whole, but at its heart is the issue closest to Ryan’s: poverty. It’s in part a product of Ryan’s private convictions; it’s in part a product of his professional formation under late House member and housing secretary Jack Kemp, who the New York Times once said had “brought more zeal to America’s poverty problems than any national politician since Robert Kennedy.” In January, speaking to National Review Online, Ryan noted that “there was a gaping hole [in conservative anti-poverty efforts] when Jack left [Congress], it just fell off for 15 years maybe — for an era, it just fell off for an era.”

In 2012, Ryan tried to turn the Republican party in that direction as Mitt Romney’s running mate. But the Romney team was not interested. The Washington Post reported in a 2012 post-election autopsy that “Ryan had wanted to talk about poverty, traveling to inner cities and giving speeches that laid out the Republican vision for individual empowerment. But Romney advisers refused his request to do so. . . . As one adviser put it, ‘The issues that we really test well on and win on are not the war on poverty.’” But in mid October, the Romney camp permitted Ryan to give an anti-poverty speech in Cleveland. It ended up being the first stop on a nationwide tour.

On October 24, 2012, Ryan met with 20 grassroots leaders at Cleveland State University to learn about anti-poverty strategies that were working in their communities. The gathering was made possible by an old colleague of Ryan’s, Bob Woodson, a former Kemp hand who, in 1981, had founded the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, dedicated to renewing distressed, low-income communities. At the end of a series of testimonials — people telling stories of redemption after bouts of drug abuse or stints in prison — the activists asked Ryan if they could lay hands on him. “I could see the tears in Paul’s eyes,” says Woodson, “and also in the eyes of the Secret Service agents, who were uptight when we came in.” (Ex-felons pow-wowing with the Republican vice-presidential candidate had made some of the agents jumpy.) Two weeks later, the Romney-Ryan ticket went down. “When they lost,” recalls Woodson, “Paul wrote personal notes to each of those people, and that impressed me. But then he called a month later and requested I take him across the country to meet others like we met in Cleveland.”

And that’s what Ryan has been doing, at least once a month since the end of 2012, traveling across the country to visit with leaders working in their communities to combat poverty and its associated problems. He’s spent time with Pastor Darryl Webster of Indianapolis’s Emmanuel Missionary Baptist Church, who created the Men’s Spiritual Boot Camp. He’s become friends with Pastor Omar Jahwar and Antong Lucky, who lead Dallas’s Urban Specialist program, which deploys former gang members to intervene with at-risk populations in Dallas’s roughest neighborhoods. He’s gotten to know Bishop Dr. Shirley Holloway, who runs House of Help City of Hope, which provides housing and treatment for 250 people suffering from alcohol or drug dependency in Anacostia, a neighborhood in Washington, D.C. (Says Woodson, pointedly: “Paul has probably visited more low-income black communities than any member of the Black Caucus.”)

It was at House of Help City of Hope that Ryan rolled out the “Poverty, Opportunity, and Upward Mobility” plank of the “Better Way” agenda, with Holloway at his side. Ryan has visited her facility several times since Woodson introduced them in 2013. Holloway insists that that’s the only way to really understand how to address poverty. “People from all over the world come to see what we do, because there’s no book, there’s no recipe; you have to come and see it.” She notes that other members of Congress who have ventured out to Anacostia to visit her organization have had rather transparent motives. “A lot of them want to take a photo; they don’t listen, they don’t want to understand. But Paul’s easy to talk to, he listens, and he asks questions; you know he’s trying to get it. That’s why I’m a Paul Ryan fan.” She says she supports Ryan’s efforts and the “Better Way” agenda, and she’s hopeful that it will change the way people think about poverty. “It’s not a black thing, it’s not a white thing, it’s not a red thing, it’s not a Puerto Rican thing, it’s not a Mexican thing; it’s a poverty-mindset thing. It’s a hopeless thing; it’s when people give up hope.”

For Ryan, the blight of poverty — especially the way that it has been entrenched by irresponsible, even corrupt, government — is a betrayal of the American dream. “The American Dream,” the “Better Way” agenda reads, “is the idea that, no matter who you are or where you come from, if you work hard and give it your all, you will succeed. But for too many people today, that’s simply not true.” The “Better Way” agenda is intended to make that dream a reality again.

House Republicans believe that that is possible. “We’ve addressed issues we believe are of utmost importance to the country,” says Price. “Clearly the administration and Secretary Clinton have not addressed these issues in a positive way, or a way that has resulted in any solutions, so I think the country is ready, willing, and able to embrace these.”

The challenge, he says, is to get the word out that there are solutions. That’s not easy at the moment — not least because of Republicans’ own presidential nominee, who has eschewed a coherent policy agenda and has not hidden his personal distaste for Ryan. Ideally, the “Better Way” would have been the cornerstone of a reform-oriented agenda articulated by a conservative standard-bearer. Instead, members of Congress are using the agenda to give themselves an identity not warped by Donald Trump’s gravitational pull.

If a Republican is elected in November, House members hope that the vision outlined in the “Better Way” agenda can be moved, bit by bit, into law. That is, of course, the ultimate goal. But they insist that even if that does not happen, the agenda is not a dead letter. Certain elements might be agreeable to a Democratic White House. But, more important in the long term: The agenda offers serious solutions to serious problems — and Republicans are confident that the public will come to see that. Members say that, little by little, they’re already seeing it. “It strikes a chord, almost with every audience I’ve spoken to in the last two months,” says Price. “A lot of heads nodding, a lot of agreement about these being issues that need to be addressed. It’s very heartening.”
                                                                              
The ultimate fate of the “Better Way” agenda is still to be determined. As the authors of the “Poverty, Opportunity, and Upward Mobility” report write: “This is the beginning of a conversation.” That is certainly the case. House Republicans will have to formulate the agenda’s aims in concrete, legislative language — then guide those bills into law, potentially against serious headwinds. Policy experts on both sides are sure to have much to say. And so will voters, many of whom — particularly in the wake of this topsy-turvy year — are likely to want more specifics on subjects such as immigration, which the “Better Way” treats comparatively briefly.

But none of that undermines House Republicans’ accomplishment. They have put forward the Great Ignored Agenda of the 21st century. It shouldn’t be.

Have Lots Of Children. It’s Good For The Planet



By David Harsanyi
Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The problem with environmentalists isn’t merely that they have destructive ideas about the economy, but that so many of them embrace repulsive ideas about human beings.

Take this recent NPR piece that asks: “Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?” If you want to learn about how environmentalism has already affected people in society, read about the couple pondering “the ethics of procreation and its impact on the climate” before starting a family or the group of women in a prosperous New Hampshire town swapping stories about how the “the climate crisis is a reproductive crisis.”

There are, no doubt, many good reasons a person might have for not wanting children. But, certainly, it’s tragic that some gullible Americans who have the means and emotional bandwidth — and perhaps a genuine desire — to be parents avoid having kids because of a quasi-religious belief in apocalyptic climate change and overpopulation.

Then again, maybe this is just Darwinism working its magic.

In the article, NPR introduces us to a philosopher, Travis Rieder, who couches these discredited ideas in a purportedly moral context. Bringing down global fertility rates, he explains, “could be the thing that saves us.”

Save us from what, you ask? The planet, he tells a group to students at James Madison University, may soon be “largely uninhabitable for humans” and it’s “gonna be post-apocalyptic movie time.” According to NPR, these intellectual nuggets of wisdom left students speechless.

The room is quiet. No one fidgets. Later, a few students say they had no idea the situation was so bad.

Oh, no! Did someone forget to tell them that the megatons of greenhouse gases their cell-phone charging has emitted into the atmosphere is going to create a dystopia? That’s an unforgivable oversight by our culture and public schools, which almost never broach the topic of climate change.

What can we do? Well, Rieder says: “Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.”

The idea that we should have fewer children to save the planet hasn’t been provocative in about 50 years. It would take these students five minutes of googling to understand that doomsayers have been ignoring human nature and ingenuity since the eighteenth century, at least.

They might read about Paul Ehrlich and our “Science Czar” John Holdren, who coauthored a 1977 book suggesting mass sterilizations and forced abortions to save the world (we’re decades past the expiration date); or about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who not long said that she always assumed Roe v. Wade was “about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Did she mean poor people? Did she mean people who recklessly use air conditioners? It’s still a mystery.

It’s a serious failure of our society that the intellectual offspring of frauds like Ehrlich, rather than Julian Simon, are the ones lecturing students about the future. But “overpopulation” is regularly cited by journalists — who quite often live in the densest, yet somehow also the wealthiest, places on earth — as one of the world’s pressing problems, thrown in with war and famine and so on.

It’s got bit of a new twist these days. As Rieder tells it, Americans are responsible for more carbon emissions per capita than anyone; and since the world’s poorest nations are most likely to suffer from “severe climate” it all “seems unfair.”

Agreed. Let’s make the world fairer and stop pressuring emerging nations to stop using the cheapest, most effective energy. It’s immoral. Let’s also stop worrying about population growth. The biggest spikes in population growth in our history coincide with the greatest growth in wealth and innovation for a good reason. Best of luck to everyone else.

So far, so good. According to the World Bank, because of the spread of trade, technological advances, and plentiful energy, the number of people around the world living in extreme poverty has fallen below 10 percent. We also have fewer hungry people than ever in the world; fewer people die in conflicts over resources, and deaths due to extreme weather have been dramatically declining for a century. Over the past 40 years, our water and air is cleaner, despite population growth.

As Johan Norberg notes in The Spectator:

If you think that there has never been a better time to be alive — that humanity has never been safer, healthier, more prosperous or less unequal — then you’re in the minority. But that is what the evidence incontrovertibly shows. Poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, child labour and infant mortality are falling faster than at any other time in human history. The risk of being caught up in a war, subjected to a dictatorship or of dying in a natural disaster is smaller than ever. The golden age is now.

Everything is headed in the wrong direction for environmental scaremongers. If we’re already experiencing the negative force of climate change — which I’m told we are every time we have ugly weather somewhere in the country — shouldn’t things be getting worse? Well, the real trouble is always right over the horizon.

Take India. Not only do they have to deal with Americans despoiling the earth, its population has exploded from 450 million in 1960 to 1.25 billion today. Yet by every tangible measurement of human progress the Indian people live better now than they did before the colonialists started using refrigerators. And it’s not just India.

images.washingtonpost

A lot of this explosion is reliant on affordable fossil fuels. More than any time in the history, in India — China, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia — children have a better chance than ever to avoid extreme poverty. Now is the best time to make some.

Even the United Nations estimates that the nine billion people expected by 2050 could be supported with the technology we already possess. What Malthusians never take into consideration are the efficiencies and technology we don’t have yet, which continually amaze us and undermine their dark vision of humankind’s future.

Also, imagine how history would have played out if humans “protected their kids by not having them” in times of calamity and tragedy? Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe it’s the best time in history to have children.

The real problem we face is sustaining population. The replacement rate is 2.1, and in places they fail to meet this threshold — parts of Europe and Japan, for example — they’ve suffered economic and cultural stagnation. Here in the United States we have, for a variety of reasons, long struggled with this problem, as Jonathan Last has argued. The success of developing nations also portends a similar slow-down for them.

Prosperity is not just about selfishness, it’s about health, peace, happiness, and community. I’m not sure what economic plan philosophers and environmentalists have to help grow an economy that will take care of the ballooning older population. Unless they subscribe to the Ezekiel Emanuel school of thought, which is to say treat the notion of the elderly the same way some devout environmentalists treat the notion of children.

Social Media Speech Police Need Clear Rules



By Cathy Young
Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Did Twitter censor hostile user comments during Q & A sessions with President Obama and television personality Caitlyn Jenner last year? A Buzzfeed report claiming that “hateful” and “abusive” tweets were removed both manually and with an automatic filter on secret orders from then-company CEO Dick Costolo has been flatly denied by Costolo himself and downplayed as containing “inaccuracies” in an official statement from Twitter. But the controversy has revived the ongoing debate about free speech and fairness in the social media. Conservative publications have accused Twitter of censorship and systematic left-wing bias. Meanwhile, Buzzfeed charges that the platform allows rampant “abuse and hate speech,” especially toward women and minorities, while safeguarding a few high-profile users.

Last month, the culture wars around harassment and free speech flared up when Breitbart News writer and right-wing firebrand Milo Yiannopoulos was permanently banned from Twitter for allegedly inciting racist harassment against comedienne and Ghostbusters star Leslie Jones, who is black. While many on the left praised the ban as a step toward curbing abuse, other commentators, conservative and liberal, saw it as a worrying move to muzzle unpopular speech.

Yiannopoulos is a habitual provocateur who almost certainly crossed the line in the attacks on Jones by tweeting fake screenshots of her supposed bigoted tweets, and Breitbart’s defense of him included some dubious assertions — for instance, that Jones herself incited harassment when she urged her followers to “get” a user who had sent her a string of racist insults. Yet some of the site’s claims of bias are hard to dispute.

Twitter did nothing last month when rapper Talib Kweli and his followers attacked black Breitbart reporter Jerome Hudson with racial slurs to mock him as lackey to white supremacy. When female Breitbart contributor Kassy Dillon complained about a user who sent her abusive and sexually harassing tweets and messages, Twitter took no action except to make him delete a tweet suggesting someone should “shoot [Dillon] in the head.”

Is this a pattern? In January, attorney and blogger Marc Randazza wrote that, after tracking actual Twitter users and his own “decoy” handles, he found conservatives were much more likely to be disciplined for offensive messages than “social justice” or feminist accounts. To be sure, this was not a rigorous study. But even some users who doubt deliberate left-wing favoritism by management agree that mostly liberal staffers are probably biased in evaluating complaints.

What’s more, social media’s anti-abuse initiatives are conducted in close collaboration with left-wing activists with a clear agenda. A model anti-harassment code for digital communities that has been used as a basis for policy at Google, Yahoo and Facebook explicitly favors “marginalized people” over the “privileged” and rejects complaints about “reverse” racism or sexism. A roundtable discussion on anti-harassment efforts published by Wired magazine last October, featuring several activists as well Twitter “trust and safety” vice president Del Harvey, reflected an assumption that such efforts should help advocates for progressive causes and prioritize abuse toward “women, people of color and LGBT people.” (In this mindset, conservative women, minorities and gays probably don’t count as “good victims.”)

The same slant is found in coverage of online abuse — such as the recent Buzzfeed article on Twitter harassment, which focuses mainly on female (and feminist) victims of misogynist trolls. Yet Internet harassment cuts across gender, racial, and political lines; sometimes, it targets conservative white men. Public shaming of people accused of racial or gender insensitivity can also turn abusive. Buzzfeed never mentions, for instance, that British comedian Stephen Fry was driven off Twitter by attacks for jokes some saw as offensive to women and transgender people.

The bias problem is compounded by vague rules and non-transparent enforcement. Thus, Twitter does not disclose what specific posts trigger sanctions. In Yiannopoulos’s case, it appears he was blamed for indirectly goading others into harassing Jones. Can people with a large following be accused of incitement simply for criticizing another user?

Private corporations such as Twitter or Facebook have every legal right to restrict speech on their platform. But if they see themselves as socially responsible, that responsibility should include promoting free expression and open debate — especially given their lack of effective competition. In a February interview, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai warned that the “cultural values” undergirding the First Amendment are imperiled when social media abandon “the idea of the marketplace of ideas.”

Harassment and abuse can be bad for open discourse. Anti-abuse policies that fail at fairness and accountability are even worse.