Chase Bank Slutshames Their Adult Performer Customers

from the which-of-them-is-more-dirty? dept

Porn. It’s what the internet is for, as they say. Also, it’s very hard for some people to avoid. Entire governments, too. But what about the little people with big parts that make all this wonderfully ubiquitous smut possible? It’s easy to forget about the hard (ahem) working individuals that make these small businesses and big industry spurt out their wares like (insert grossest applicable analogy here). And now it’s apparently difficult for those mostly-young laborers to get paid, since some banks seem to have adopted a rather convenient moral code when it comes to who can open accounts with their institutions.

Chase Bank has reportedly sent out letters to hundreds of porn stars notifying them that their accounts would be closed on May 11. Teagan Presley confirmed to XBIZ that her personal account was one of the ones shut down.

“I got a letter and it was like please cancel all transactions, please fix your automatic pay account and make sure everything’s taken care of by May 11,” Presley told XBIZ. “I called them and they told me that because I am, I guess, public and am recognizable in the adult business, they’re closing my account. Even though I don’t use my account, it’s my personal account that I’ve had since I was 18, when it was Washington Mutual before Chase bought them out.”

In other words, Chase Bank is slutshaming adult performers and closing their personal accounts, whether those accounts are associated with the adult businesses in question or not. It’s apparently something of a morality play. That may find some support with the more conservative and/or religious factions in America, but I’d say it’s an interesting move by the same bank that has, among other transgressions: financed the Nazis, engaged in fictitious trades, wrongfully foreclosed on active US soldiers, financed other Nazis, bankrupted American towns through changes in their debt-rate programs, violated the Sherman Act, refused to return funds to Jewish families that were victims of those same Nazis they financed, lied to people trying to finance automobiles, and financed the damned Nazis. To invoke a morality clause with all of that on one’s resume would be a bit like having Donald Sterling fire an employee for being racist.

Unfortunately, because the banking industry appears to have rules all its own, it’s unclear whether anything can be done about this kind of blatant discriminatory policy.

Adult industry attorney Michael Fattorosi told XBIZ that Chase and other banks have “notoriously closed adult accounts or people in the industry’s accounts, but nothing like this.”

Whether legal recourse for those whose accounts were nixed is plausible — and, if so, which path is optimal — remains unclear, given that the situation is novel and that banks generally have the prerogative to do business with who they choose (yes, that often means flagrant discrimination).

And, yes, private businesses can choose with whom they do business, but I would suggest that if Chase wants to apply morality to their business, we should as well. That would mean they need to be paying far greater repercussions for their transgressions than the wrist-slapping they’ve experienced thus far.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: chase bank, jpmorgan chase

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Chase Bank Slutshames Their Adult Performer Customers”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
117 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Times are changing

“And, yes, private businesses can choose with whom they do business, but I would suggest that if Chase wants to apply morality to their business, we should as well.”

I am not sure that is true anymore. The recent story of the bakery that did not want to make the wedding cake for the gay couple says that you cannot make that choice.

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Times are changing

In that case, the bakery violated non-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a cake for gay customers.

The bakery opened itself to the public. It had to play by the same rules (i.e. follow the same laws) as all other public accomodations. It did not and got smacked down for its discrimination as a result.

There exists no law that prohibits a business from discriminating against customers on the basis of said customers’ choice of career.

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Re: Re: Times are changing

Chase couldn’t legally close your account because of your sexual orientation (so long as you lived in a state with proper non-discrimination laws).

Chase could legally close your account because you did porn and it doesn’t want to associate with porn stars. Whether you starred in straight or gay porn doesn?t much matter.

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Re: Re: Times are changing

Public accomodations must all play by the same rules in regards to non-discrimination laws.

If you open a hotel in an area where laws prevent you from discriminating against gay people, you must either allow gay people to rent rooms or prepare to pay fines for flaunting the law.

And besides, civil rights laws such as non-discrimination ordinainces don’t exist for minorities. They exist to remind the majority that minorities count as people and deserve all the same protections of law.

A business owner could refuse service to anyone, sure. But making a pattern out of refusing specific groups of people won’t help when it comes to legal matters. Neither will admitting to discrimination under the guise of ?freedom of religion?. When your doors open to the public, you either serve the whole public or you face the consequences.

Gay Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Times are changing

Not really the same thing.. being gay (or straight) is not the same as being a porn star: one’s an identity and the other is an occupation.

Turning away business based solely on one’s identity (man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, and inexplicably/weirdly, religious affiliation) is increasingly illegal. Turning away business based on one’s occupation or business (e.g. Western Union not accepting business from adult industry, this) remains legal (and entirely dumb).

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re:

SOSOBS – Support our sons of bitches.

Seriously, what a bunch of hypocrites. I’m glad I don’t bank with them. If we spread the word and encourage everyone else to move their accounts, perhaps they’ll change their censorious ways.

To be honest, I’m down with people choosing who they will or won’t serve*, but these are lying, conniving, Nazi-lovin’, hypocritical douchebag people and they need to be called on it.

*Where there’s enough competition so it’s their loss. “Freedom” to me means the freedom to be a jerk ? but not to be allowed to get away with it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Stretching it much?

That may find some support with the more conservative and/or religious factions in America

Love how to try to link Christians to this move and then name all sorts of things the bank has done that is not Christian in the least. Seems like you have taken a page right out of the left wing playbook. Fortunately the whole name calling by the left is starting to lose its impact. Seems if you cry wolf enough, people start ignoring you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Stretching it much?

Yes, I know that, you bash conservatives and Christians every chance you get. Notice I didn’t even mention conservatives in my statement? Almost feel bad for you that you allow something you don’t even believe in to stick in your craw so much. But that is how it goes for bigots.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Stretching it much?

Sorry your reading comprehension is lacking, but notice I said that his swipe at “conservatives and religious people” is a thinly veiled reference to Christians as can be surmised by his frequent comments about them in his articles and comments to his articles.

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Stretching it much?

?Conservatives and religious people? exist as two separate groups. One can exist without the other. That doesn?t make his comment on those two groups (one with an actual basis in reality, considering how often members of both groups tend to demonize pornography) bigoted. It merely points out the reality that members of those groups might now respect Chase for de-linking itself from porn (in a roundabout way).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Stretching it much?

Let me see if I understand you…Tim is bigoted because Chase bank is doing something that would appear to appeal to conservatives/Christians (who typically would side against anything porn-related)?

I’d imagine the same rationalization that allows them to believe a magical man lives in the sky allows for that conclusion.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Stretching it much?

The line is drawn when someone posts a quote that does NOTHING to detract from my statement, yet thinks it does.

If I need further explaining: a quote from Arthur Clark doesn’t change the fact that Christians basically believe in a magical man in the sky.

If you don’t like the analogy, then feel free to change your story.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Stretching it much?

Ummm, I’m an atheist…if you think some quote is going to make me rethink my lack of beliefs, then I think it’s YOU that have missed the point.

But again, feel free to dispute anything I said about believing in a magical man in the sky…funny how you mention lack of intellect while promoting a belief that has ZERO foundation in science.

RD says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Stretching it much?

“Ummm, I’m an atheist…if you think some quote is going to make me rethink my lack of beliefs, then I think it’s YOU that have missed the point.

But again, feel free to dispute anything I said about believing in a magical man in the sky…funny how you mention lack of intellect while promoting a belief that has ZERO foundation in science.”

I’m not doing any such thing. I’m asking a valid question. Where is the line between “super advanced tech” and “magical man in the sky?” But you go right on ahead with your foaming anti-god screed, missing the point entirely, as you seem to have your agenda fixed in attacking anything that might even be slightly related to religion at the expense of any reason, arguments, or conversation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Stretching it much?

Where is the line between “super advanced tech” and “magical man in the sky?”

The ability to PROVE what you’re seeing is real.

Protip: Don’t discuss religion AND use the words “reason” “arguments” or “conversation” – religion allows for NONE of these.

James Jensen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Stretching it much?

“Protip: Don’t discuss religion AND use the words “reason” “arguments” or “conversation” – religion allows for NONE of these.”

This would come as quite a surprise to Thomas Aquinas. You may have heard of him: he wrote some fairly lengthy books about religion that were full of arguments and reasoning.

Protip: Don’t tell people discussing a topic what they can and can’t say about it when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Stretching it much?

Wow…another “thinker” who fell for the “if I have someone to quote, it must make my argument sound..”

Aquinas, like many Christian “philosophers” STARTS with God, and bases any further thoughts on that premise. That’s not an argument, has no basis in reason, and steers the conversation based on a faulty premise.

Bertrand Russell: Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.

Seems like you were in such a hurry to quote him, that you fell for his argument.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Stretching it much?

That contrast and question makes no sense whatsoever on two counts. First, there is no evidence of any kind of magic (or sufficiently advanced technology) being in play in the first place. So the contrast is really comparing two things that only exist in people’s imaginations.

Second, the implication you’re making with that contrast is that God is not, in fact, magical and is just a being who is using incredibly advanced technology. In which case he’s not actually a god at all.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Stretching it much?

“Yes, I know that, you bash conservatives and Christians every chance you get.”

Well, I have a lot of chances, since I’m married to a wonderful Catholic woman, who doesn’t seem to think that’s true….

“Notice I didn’t even mention conservatives in my statement?”

Um, you said I was leftwing, indicating I was attacking the right wing. But, ooooooh, you so got me? Mmmm, no….

“Almost feel bad for you that you allow something you don’t even believe in to stick in your craw so much.”

Interesting. Since you seem to know, please tell me exactly what it is that I believe?

“But that is how it goes for bigots.”

What have I said that’s bigoted?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Stretching it much?

Its your pattern of attack on Christians that indicates you are a bigot. I have been reading this blog for several years and used to really enjoy it. In fact, I have come about 180 degrees since reading here and have greatly revised my views of patent and copyright law. But constantly reading articles, most especially yours, that take swipes at Christians and linking them to things where no links exist is tiring and it shows your true colors.

Please, by all means, continue but you do realize you are no better than the people you claim to be against and for the very same reasons why you claim to be against them. You are only a hypocrite.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Stretching it much?

Sure they have, but there was nothing in this article to indicate they have done that here. So linking them to this in some made up way is just his bigoted attack on them.

By the way, what would you say about your daughter saying she wants to be a porn start or move to Nevada and become a legal prostitute? It is all well and good to talk a big game, but let your daughter attempt this and that conversation will go completely differently. Careful, your hypocrisy is showing.

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Stretching it much?

Ah, the old ?what would you say in this situation? trick. The last gasp of a dying argument.

You felt offended at a tiny implication that conservatives and religious groups like companies that don’t link themselves to porn. You blew a single comment way out of proportion. You would probably do well to examine your own biases and your own hypocrisy.

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Stretching it much?

Decry a group for your dislike of their stance against these things while disproving of your loved ones participating in these things.

I don?t decry conservatives or religious groups for disliking porn. Let ?em. Their position doesn?t matter to me unless they try to criminalize porn.

And I didn?t say if I?d approve of my loved ones participating in porn because I don?t need to say if I would. That has nothing to do with the fact that a not-zero number of conservatives and members of religious groups often disapprove of porn.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Stretching it much?

And I didn?t say if I?d approve of my loved ones participating in porn because I don?t need to say if I would.

Of course you didn’t answer the question because we already know the answer. So it makes you no different, except the hypocrisy part, than the religious groups.

That has nothing to do with the fact that a not-zero number of conservatives and members of religious groups often disapprove of porn.

And a non-zero number of liberals, non-religious, etc disapprove as well. But we didn’t see them linked in here, did we? Which was my whole point which you seem to completely miss.

S. T. Stone says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Stretching it much?

Of course you didn’t answer the question because we already know the answer.

I don?t see how you know. You don?t know me on a personal level and I never said what I felt on the subject. Unless you have psychic powers, you can?t know based on my refusal to answer your hypothetical.

And a non-zero number of liberals, non-religious, etc disapprove as well. But we didn’t see them linked in here, did we?

I hear about conservatives and religious groups decrying porn all the time (up to and including the desire to ban/criminalize all porn). I don’t hear as much about liberals and agnostics/atheists doing the same. I know people in the latter situation exist, but those people don?t often try to enforce their disapproval of porn on others.

dc says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Stretching it much?

You should know by now that you can never win an argument against a conservative. They just keep throwing back more and more nonsensical arguments at you, ad infinitum. They have perfected the art of living within their own little anti-reality, fact-free force field that has no room whatsoever for any kind of rational discussion. I would just quit responding with rational responses before the poor guy has an aneurysm trying to come up with his next ridiculous point.

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Stretching it much?

I’m basically conservative, PRMan. However, the Far Right has managed to take control of the conservative narrative and have positioned themselves and their views as actual conservatism, as opposed to radical right-wing authoritarianism, which it is.

Therefore, since I know that he’s actually referring to Far Right authoritarians, not to moderates like me, I’m not offended. Unless you’re of the “What War On Women?” persuasion (which I doubt), there’s no reason for you to be offended.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Stretching it much?

Actually he doesn’t attack Christians. He once called me his “favourite Christian on the internet”.

He attacks people who misunderstand what Christianity is about.

In this case the relevant text is from St Matthew’s Gospel Ch 5:

“44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?”

Clearly implying that regardless of how much you may disapprove of what someone does denying service to them is not an option.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Stretching it much?

I hope you treat your wife with more respect than you do your religious readership. I can about bet you make snide comments to her constantly about her religious beliefs all the while feeling smug that you are somehow better than the religous nutjobs.. That kind of mental abuse is not funny, its not clever, its not witty, its cruel.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Stretching it much?

Oh, yes, I abuse my wife all the time. Nice smear job, there, chief.

And my wife is a talented, intelligent, moral and religious person. If I were making snide comments and “abusing” her mentally, she’d first kick my ass in an argument and then leave me, as she should in that scenario.

Fortunately, not all of us that have a version of faith are as ignorant and morally repugnant as you. It would taint all people of faith if we were. We are not.

PeriSoft says:

Re: Stretching it much?

Hey, they just said ‘conservative / religious factions’, not Christians. They could have been referring to anybody.

It’s not Techdirt’s problem that you automatically associate intolerance and hypocritical self-righteousness with Christians. And that strikes me as quite a prejudiced and unfair view; if I were Christian I’d be quite offended!

Pragmatic says:

Re: Stretching it much?

I’m pretty sensitive to anti-Christian sentiment. I get annoyed when I try to disown bad actors and have the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy thrown at me for it.

I don’t buy that because using it is an appeal to authority and a genetic fallacy. It also assumes a low bar for entry, but that’s another issue. However, Tim didn’t mention Christians. Not even once. So don’t get your panties in a wad.

There’s a multiplicity of conservative-minded religious groups in America, many of which are not Christian and many of which are politically active. You might find yourself rubbing shoulders with them at an anti-porn rally, or something, one day.

The funny thing is, it’s likely that many of the most apparently hardcore people there will turn out to bet the most frequent users of some very nasty stuff. Seriously, don’t get me started on right wing hypocrisy. As the Liberals say, “Don’t like it, don’t use it.” I don’t always agree with them but I think that’s fair.

zip says:

odd legal quirk

Something I’ve never understood is how prostitution can be illegal — unless it it being filmed. However, this “rule” seems to work both ways, depending on the situation. Filming a not-illegal act between consenting minors is a crime (as teenage “sexters” have surprisingly discovered) but with adult prostitutes, the exact opposite happens.

But then maybe the difference between what’s legal and what’s illegal depends, as usual, on who is throwing money at politicians, judges, and lawyers.

zip says:

Re: Re: odd legal quirk

“From what I’ve heard, supposedly paying people to have sex in porn videos is legal as long as the person paying isn’t one of the people having sex. Otherwise it’s suddenly prostitution.”

Jenna Jameson got away with it. She owned the production company, signed the paychecks, as well as fornicated with the people she paid in a quid-pro-quo arrangement. That would seem to fit the very definition of “prostitution” — unless maybe women can’t legally be charged as “johns”?

Christenson says:

Motivation -- Where is Chase going next? China?

Look, you’ve got a bunch of amoral whatevers running the bank…which *ought* to be declared a place of public accomodation…calling morality of a rather peculiar form.

Remind me to keep my sex life and toys completely separate from my bank!

So what might they achieve by this? Are there really a bunch of Christian wingnuts that are suddenly going to do business with them? Quick, someone show me I’m wrong! But China *IS* busy having a porn crackdown…so this looks awful good to the chinese…or the saudis…or a big republican, like the next president of the US? who is it being buttered up for the big kill???

Buster (profile) says:

Husband orgies and un-well known "stars"

My first thought was Chase is trying to come off as a squeaky clean family oriented bank.

Then I thought “Who’s really out there researching bank account information and says ‘oh no porn stars use this bank, my husband might walk in there and end up in an orgy.'” I mean, REALLY??

My final thought was “I guess the girls in porns who STILL have their Chase accounts and DIDN’T obtain these letters are realizing how unknown they actually are”

Anonymous Coward says:

How do they know?

How on earth does Chase know whether or not someone is an adult performer? I assume performers would not be opening accounts under their stage name. Is there some division of Chase where the employees watch massive amounts of porn trying to recognize their customers, and if so, can I get a job there?

Ninja (profile) says:

Hah, if it happens here it’ll be a judicial shitstorm. Prejudice is a no-go from the start for the law. The best they could try is to deny serving those customers based on something wrong they did to the institution (ie: not paying their debt on time and things like that) but for working in the porn industry? Hell no, not a valid excuse for a public place.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Did you just compare adult industry employees to Nazis?

Yes, but not in a bad way. Article poster says the bank served Nazis, but refuses to serve porn stars. The obvious implication is that the bank thinks porn stars are worse than Nazis, and the article poster disagrees. By the same token, I could say that construction workers are not worse than Nazis. Neither are accountants, or food service workers, or any of a huge number of professions that people legally conduct on a regular basis. Yet the bank has taken the position that it will decide, based on criteria that it is legally permitted (obligatory http://xkcd.com/1357/ – read the title text) to discriminate on, that it will decline service to these people. That’s legal, but it’s not good business. Worse, it sets a precedent for their account managers to close accounts based on criteria other than what is best for the business. Today they refuse to maintain accounts for people who work in porn. Maybe tomorrow they decide to refuse accounts to people who regularly buy pornographic movies/videos, or who make purchases at known sex toy retailers. Or maybe they decide to get involved in politics and refuse accounts to people who support causes that the account managers oppose. Even if you like all these ideas, do you also like the idea that your account gets flagged for closure because it made a transaction that the bank incorrectly decided matched one of the new “evil” transaction types? Perhaps you had a transaction with a group whose name is too similar to a blacklisted entity, even though the actual vendor is one the bank likes?

HegemonicDistortion says:

Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point

This is thought to be part of DOJ and other agencies’ Operation Choke Point.

Here are a couple of articles about it:
?Operation Choke Point? harmful to flow of commerce
DOJ’s ‘Operation Choke Point’ May Be Root of Porn Star Bank Account Closings

To see the list of may be a “high risk” account, see this page from the FDIC (scroll down about halfway). It includes many legal but “socially undesirable” operations, as:
Ammunition Sales
Coin Dealers
Dating Services
Drug Paraphernalia
Get Rich Products
Money Transfer Networks
PayDay Loans
Pornography
Racist Materials
Telemarketing
Tobacco Sales

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point

I hate to defend the government here, but in the larger context of the linked page, those entries make a perverse sort of sense. Most dating services will not involve you visiting a specific store to fill in the application and pay for membership, but would be done online or possibly over the phone. Coin dealers might have a store presence, but again could operate without any face-to-face interaction. In the context of businesses which conduct their business remotely and offer a product that could be easily misrepresented, dating services (maybe it only offers a very limited number of first dates per month, or misleads about how many potential contacts are within reasonable travel distance) and coin dealers could legitimately be included there. I wouldn’t knowingly sign up for a dating service that had almost all its members located hundreds of miles from where I normally go. Meeting those members would be too inconvenient.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Justice Dept: Operation Choke Point

“To see the list of may be a “high risk” account, see this page from the FDIC (scroll down about halfway). It includes many legal but “socially undesirable” operations, as:
Ammunition Sales
Coin Dealers
Dating Services
Drug Paraphernalia
Get Rich Products
Money Transfer Networks
PayDay Loans
Pornography
Racist Materials
Telemarketing
Tobacco Sales”

Wait! How about my bribes taking Congressman?

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

So legal = moral?

The implication in this action is that Chase will discriminate as it pleases, so long as doing so is legal.

Much like Abercrombie & Fitch not producing larger size because it only wants skinny people wearing their clothes.

Chase believes it is acceptable for it to discriminate if it doesn’t like your career.

What’s to stop them from discriminating against unattractive people?
…or jobless people?
…or crazy people?
…or gun-owners?
…or people recovering from drug problems?
…or people with poor driving records?
…or gamers?
…or goths?
…or furries?
…or bronies?
…or people who are opinionated on the internet?

There are countless fringe groups, minorities and countercultures that are not popular with the mainstream but are not specifically protected by our anti-discrimination laws. Just because it is legal to refuse them business doesn’t mean it is moral or ethical.

Seems there’s a lot of confusing those sets, what is legal and what is right.


As of this posting I have not received a US National Security Letter or any classified gag order from an agent of the United States
This post does not contain an encrypted secret message.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
pea indian hostpital padlock entrance fever crisps cockroach

dc says:

Re: So legal = moral?

Ah… there we go. Now we have a post that points out something that will drive the people on one side of this argument nuts. So, let’s say a big bank, whose pres and upper management just happen to be in favor of strict control laws (never mind the fact that there probably doesn’t and would never exist such a bank, it’s called an a-na-lo-gy people), decide to close the accounts of anyone who writes a check to a gun dealer to buy an assault rifle? Or more than a certain amount of ammo at a time? Ohhhhhhhh… There we go. NOW the same peeps who are defending the bank’s doing this to adult performers, would be out in the streets demanding that bank president’s head. mmm-hmmm.

Rita Real says:

Let's See Chase's Real Colors

Tonight the execs at Chase can go to Comcast and watch “Teen Moms Love 12 Inches” or any of a few dozen cultural flicks. Lets see if they send a letter to Comcast saying your account is closed. One must ask what is worse “Earning a few bucks acting in these films” or “Pushing it over the internet to millions of viewers”?

Another AC says:

2600+ Uses of 'Slutshames' on TechDirt?!?!

Awesome!

No wait, boooo… the sites’ search indexer is indexing every page where this story appeared at least once under Essential Reading-> Hot Topics.

So 2600+ hits… of just this one article :S You should get your intern to fix that Mike, would make it much easier to find stuff on your site 🙂

Leave a Reply to S. T. Stone Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...