I am once again receiving the accusation that I "set up redirects" or "block" access to posts I don't want people to see on my old site. Given that I've just reproduced the post in question here, this belief is a little odd. Nonetheless, let's put this, too, to rest once and for all, because it does pop up over and over.
My former host's method of dealing with comment spam was to use fairly stringent permissioning on old posts. I have no idea what the permissions regime is, but whatever they did frequently causes linked old posts to come up with 404 errors. This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the post--you will get the same effect on posts about cooking equipment or music. It is also not, as some conspiracy-minded folks have theorized, related to where you are--it happens to me all the time. The problem almost always goes away if you refresh.
The propensity to construct vast frameworks of malfeasance and sin where simpler explanations will do is not one of the more helpful traits of the political blogosphere. Here is the sort of simple thought experiment that should help you sort through the likelihood of this kind of thing:
Q: as the author of the blog, does Megan have control over the administrative interface?
A: Yes, probably she does
Q: Does the administrative interface allow her to delete old posts?
A: Given that it's Movable Type, why yes, I believe it does so allow.
Q: If that's true, why didn't she just delete the post instead of wasting fantastic amount of time manipulating the permissions so no one could see it?
A: Oh. Right. Maybe there's another explanation.
I think deleting old posts, or blocking access to them, or radically editing them, is, ahem, chicken guano. I've taken down things I shouldn't have written because they accidentally brought someone into the public sphere who hadn't asked to be there. But I've never deleted a post for any other reason, except for a rare few that I accidentally published while still considering whether they deserved to see the light of day, and those all within a minute of publication. If there's anything you're having trouble seeing on my old site now, it's technical trouble, not blogger malfeasance.
I always bet on malfeasance. Especially if it's you or the Vatican's motives involved.
You should have seen the comment I was just about to hit 'send' on...
By the way Megan, your words are forever preserved on servers you can't alter over on the internet archive. www.archive.org. They're fantastic for finding old defunct sites.
Between Amanda Marcotte, and the conspiracy theorists, you've attracted quite a little following here.
Believe it or not, some of us actually enjoy reading this blog, though. It allows me to save all my vitriol for Douthat.
peter's right...the complex series of tubes never forgets...
I think you are proving that appeasement never works.
The next time the confederacy of dunces complain about some nonsense just get on Bloggingheads TV, bite your lower lip and say "that kind of rhetoric never fed a child".
C'mon, admit it. This is about as plausible as Jews attempting to prove they're not somehow running the world.
Just come out and confess your omnipotence over the www and be done with it. Everyone already knows that those who insist they are innocent are the real perps.
Hmm... This explanation makes too much sense and is too reasonable. It must be a conspiracy.
The accusation is, I think, merely a reflection of a larger phenomenon in our culture. We have moved more and more to answer the question "Why do things go wrong?" with "It must be someone's fault. More than that, they must have done it deliberately."
Another example would be Conspiracy Theories. Or the ever-growing enthusiasm for law suits over everything and anything. And it is also why Libertarian philosophy is not visibly winning the national war for heart and minds.
A better view is the one I grew up with: if something goes wrong, bet on stupidity rather than malice. 90% of the time you will be correct. And you will have a lot better chance of figuring out an effective way to reduce future occurrances.
It's funny that you should post this today, specifically this bit:
I think deleting old posts, or blocking access to them, or radically editing them, is, ahem, chicken guano.
The free speech radicals over at BoingBoing were caught yesterday with their pants down because folks noticed them feeding records into the
memory hole, and they had to carefully parse what the definition of 'is' is - excuse me, they had to explain with great nuance how the memory hole is not really the memory hole. 800+ comments on that thread right now ... wow.
My own commentary on the Boing Boingers and the memory hole here.
How do I know you're really Megan McArdle, assymetrical or otherwise?
I've met Megan. She looked pretty symmetrical.
Megan,
You are attempting to break with the first commandment of the blogosphere "Never let reality interfere with perception."
I've met Megan. She looked pretty symmetrical.
That was the mind-altering Holgram Ray. You saw exactly what she wanted you to see. She controls more than just the Interweb Tubez, you know.
I also suspect Megan is involved in a number of strawberry disappearances.
Sigh, Megan, redirects are common as hell and myself and others actually did do a little digging and found that what we saw was just as consistent with a redirect as it is with your explanation that it was... about.. something. oh, er, someone else's fault. Yes.
Also, it's quite easy to think of a situation where you block traffic directed from other sites but not your own so as to say "look, the links work fine" when people accuse you of having removed it. Again, it's quite common.
I actually don't care enough not to disbelieve you, but again you go on about how vile everyone but you is. It's absurd at this point.
Nutella, umm, no. What you're describing is classic confirmation bias--you looked for confirming evidence, but never tried to think of tests that your theory would fail. I'm no web geek, and I can think of several. When you accuse people of acting in bad faith, the right standard is not "is it possible?" but "have I ruled out all the other possible explanations?" You didn't. You didn't even try.
You could also have, like, asked me if there was an alternate explanation. I would have been happy to forward you the emails between me and Kathy, my old site administrator, on the topic, or indeed put you in touch with her if your curiosity took you that far.
Toast, this ain't absurd at this point. It's creepy. Seek help.
To the first part, what??!?! I did so tyake steps to check.
Links from Kathy's site didn't work. Cutting and pasting into a new window did. This is what got me suspicious.
So I posted in her comments "is anyone else seeing this" and other people replied that they were.
Given that the only explanation for this I've ever heard (including now, as you didn't explain but muttered something about how you didn't know what it was but that it wasn't you, honest.) is a redirect, I assumed that it was. As I've said, I believe you that it's not but the fact that I thought otherwise doesn't prove how awesome you are and how bad I am.
Second, you're just flat out lying saying why didn't I ask you. I did ask you write in your god damn comments section. You've posted a response and I've stated, for the third time now, that I believe it.
When was the last time you responded to any of our criticisms of you? Sure, we use the F-word but you always just flat out ignore us even when we engage your ideas.
So, yes, I admit that I was wrong. It happens. that doesn't mean there is something wrong with me. Good decisions aren't determined by whether or not you're a psychic or can predict the future. I made an assumption that was consistent with every other case I've encountered. That's not a sign of my bias.
that doesn't mean there is something wrong with me.
It doesn't mean there isn't.
haha, touche
Megan said: When you accuse people of acting in bad faith, the right standard is not "is it possible?" but "have I ruled out all the other possible explanations?"
This is a poor standard for truth seeking as any economist undoubtedly knows. That said, the explanation offered by Megan sounds a lot more plausible than the allegations of her detractors.
So what's the story with you changing your name from Jane Galt? Your bio here doesn't say, and I couldn't even locate a bio at Asymmetrical Information. Jane Galt doesn't rate a Wikipedia page, and neither does Megan McArdle, at least not directly. A search for just "McArdle" brings up a list of people, including:
However, trying to click through on the link goes nowhere. Have you been deleting stuff at Wikipedia, too? :)nutella,
No, Megan has actually never reviled me. What I've done to deserve this shocking degree of neglect is far from clear... I suppose there's some vast Irish neocon conspiracy going on here. At any rate, I demand equal vilification!