Finally, fourth: As ad platforms consume larger and larger portions of advertising spending, the proposition that advertising is a positive force in society, through funding the news, is rightly being questioned. Advertising historically has gotten a free pass from government regulation based on the economic consensus that it’s a positive externality, since it funds the news. Advertising, of course, has always funded both good and bad media. And platforms, of course, provide some utility — we can stay in touch with our friends, we can find out the news more quickly. But the “bad” media — reality TV, perhaps, or violent police procedurals — were of a different ilk than the negative externalities that come with platforms. Harassment, racism, fake news — these attendant negative externalities of the platforms vastly change the calculus regarding advertising’s net positive or negative impact. The negative effects of the platforms arguably outweigh the negative effects of Survivor in Paradise, once again calling into question whether advertising should be regulated. And as more money migrates from media to platforms, the problem will get worse.
…ible to thoroughly document a history which has been intentionally erased over the years. To start, there are stories we will never hear from the 100,000 New Yorkers who have died of AIDS. This project can’t be complete because of those missing voices. The aging queers who were there — including the thousands of long-term AIDS survivors — need to have their stories told right away.
…ns, simulating part of a coming-of-age ritual that has happened in queer neighborhoods for decades. Even the most open-armed straight society isn’t going to tell a young queer the story of the parties and battles that were fought, nevermind teaching young queers (of every gender status) to cruise, navigate still-difficult prejudices and understand their place in history. If our dating is going online, then the queer intake ritual should, too.
Post-marriage-equality gays and straights normalizing to each other sets up a very possible scenario where queer culture is lost in a flurry of mixed straight-gay clubs and same-sex couples with strollers. Lesbians just lost their last space in San Francisco, the Lexington Club, a wonderful spot that my gay sister and I frequented in the 90s. Take into account that street cruising has now also gone online to the dating/hookup apps, like Grindr and Scruff, and you start really questioning what queer neighborhoods will look like in 20 years.
…ed-up dinner parties, proposing on one knee (in 1985, a declaration of a hetero-only forever love). It makes sense, if he’s just on another hustle, as his ex and actual computer genius Cameron has sussed out: he’s not out to pass to his fiancee, but to her father, and by extension, to his wealth.
…y business the same way he constructed himself: on lies, on avoidance, and in retreat from himself. He will not “find himself” if he just “stops lying” and “comes out.” Even if his sexuality is supposed to be understood as a kind of deception, Joe is involved in other…
… dreading, as the show likely rounds its final few episodes, is some sexuality reveal, some ending. What makes Joe’s sexuality compelling isn’t his identity, but his expression, where he aims it, how his applies it. I don’t need it to be complete.
This is a book where a character may mislabel themselves, at least according to the current dominant theories. It’s a book where a character may learn they prefer one label to another as they progress. It’s a book where a character may take on a label, before realising that their initial label was more right than wrong. It’s the sort of book where a character may identify as straight even if they fuck people of the same gender. This is about people rather than moral lessons. This is a book about discovery and fucking up and flux.