I will be tied up today in the Harvard debate over free speech, but I wanted to share our current traffic figures. This morning, Res Ipsa passed the 85,000,000 mark in views on the blog. We have used these moments to give thanks for our many regular readers around the world and share our traffic data to give you an idea of the current profile of readers around the world. We do not have a running data page so these periodic postings allow our community to see the traffic profile of our blog. Because of the growth of the blog, we have gone from million to five million view markers. So let’s get at it.
As always, I want to offer special thanks to Darren Smith, who has continued to help manage the blog and help out folks who encounter posting problems. I also want to thank our editors Kristin Oren and Hartwell Harrison for their amazing work proofing posts on a daily basis to remove my embarrassing typos (as well as others who alert me to typos or any violations of the civility or copyright policies on the blog). They have greatly improved the quality of this blog.
In 2023, we posted another record year in traffic and appear likely to exceed that number in 2024.
So here is our current profile:
As of this morning, we have 22,063 posts.
We also have over 1,400,000 comments. In the interest of full transparency, we are having a debate over what to do about trolls who are impersonating others in the comments, including false postings from me (I generally leave the comment sections for our community and do not post comments). This is obviously a small number of unbalanced individuals who tear down sites or disrupt discourse. There are no great options, which is why many sites have eliminated their comment sections. As a free speech blog, I have resisted that option, but malicious trolls may force a change in the section. In the interim, I can only ask that people respect the civility rules of our blog and allow us to maintain a forum for substantive opinions on contemporary issues.
We have also continued our steady rise on X with 800,000 followers. We have over 21,100 people who follow us on WordPress (doubling the number of followers in roughly the last six months) and by direct emails (which you can subscribe to with the box on the right side of the blog home page).
In the last month, our ten biggest international sources for readers came from:
- United States
- Canada
- Australia
- United Kingdom
- Germany
- New Zealand
- Italy
- France
- Japan
- Netherlands
The top five posts in terms of readership in the last 30 days were:
- Letitia James May be Winning the Lawfare but Losing the War
- “No Kidding! No Joke!” Liberals Call on Biden to Commit Unconstitutional Acts in his Final Days
-
- Liberals are Losing their Minds over Elon Musk
-
I throughly enjoy reading every word of this blog and have been from its inception.
First time commenting!
Congrats Jonathan.
Get rid of obvious trolls by deleting the comment and banning the number or email forever. Make people use real names. No parents name their kid anonymous or anon. I use my real name everywhere excite where the site gives me a new one. It has caused me real life problems but so what. But you have to be careful. You can’t talk free speech, then stifle it.
Congrats Jonathan.
Get rid of obvious trolls by deleting the comment and banning the number or email forever. Make people use real names. No parents name their kid anonymous or anon. I use my real name everywhere excite where the site gives me a new one. It has caused me real life problems but so what. But you have to be careful. You can’t talk free speech, then stifle it.
oops
I have on several occasions attempted to find a way to register a pseudonym for permanent use on this site, with no success. I tried to do so at WordPress, but that appears to only be viable for someone who also wants to publish a web page – I have no such aspiration. It also disallows registration by anyone using a VPN. I use one for legitimate privacy and security purposes, and have no intention of compromising those goals to obtain a WordPress account. I have in the past seen posters mention an alternative to WordPress that might be used, but there is no mention of that (or even of WordPress) that I can find anywhere on this site. For that matter, I have on more than one occasion posted a request in the comment sections here asking how registration could be accomplished, which yielded zero constructive answers (one vile individual who frequents this space did take the trouble to hurl the same vitriol at me for asking how to register that he typically employs to slam anonymous posters – talk about insufferable hypocrisy!). The alternative is to rely on manually typing a name and email address for each posting, which is error-prone, and itself ripe for impersonation and other abuse. I gave up that practice. If Turley, or Darren, or anyone else who serves this site in any official capacity, wanted users to register, or was even willing to allow users to register, it would be more than reasonable to expect “how to” instructions to be published somewhere on jonathanturley.org. The obvious conclusion is that the principals of this site favor the completely chaotic, nasty, free-for-all that is the comments section, whatever their motivation might be. So be it. I can play it that way as well as anyone.
Congrats Jonathon!
Congratulations. Keep it up.
The number of websites that require subscribing with a Username to be able to post comments well exceeds the numbers that allow a free-for-all where people can post anonymously – or post using the name of the website owner and moderators. I moderate a dual sport motorcycling forum; we simply require anyone wanting to post to register their chosen Username if they want to ask questions or comment.
It is impossible to fraudulently post on that forum with the forum owners name or my moderator name. If anyone did figure out how to do that and did so, it would be one and done – they would be gone. That wouldn’t stop them from registering again with a new username, but they’d also have to supply a new email address to do that.
It isn’t censorship by any kind of stretch to simply require registration with a Username, and then all posts appearing under that Username.
Go a step beyond that: think of how much derision, mocking, jeering, etc that Gigi, George, FishWings, and Dennis McIntyre along with other trolls could be spared if software allowed them to be put on permanent ignore? They might claim that interferes in their successful efforts to win other readers here over to their point of views, of course… and maybe Christmas will come twice this year.
And using forum software that allows editing posts for a few minutes after posting to correct spelling errors, grammar, etc is also not any kind of censorship.
“Registered users only” as a condition for posting should be given serious consideration. It still allows pseudonyms (which have played a huge role in fostering candid political dialog going back to before the Founding).
It adds a layer of “soft accountability”, whereby the most aggregious violators of the Civility Rule (e.g., impostering as another poster to discredit him/her”, issuing veiled death threats) can be de-registered (both timed-suspensions for lesser violations, and permanent revocation for the worst).
I admit I wouldn’t want to participate if my real identity had to be published, and much of the spontaneity and exploratory thinking would no longer be possible.
Bottom line, keeping this forum going is worth it, whatever it takes.
Congrats, Turls. Ahh, the challenges of writing to whip up the trolls and then having to deal with the fallout of the trolls being trolls!!
@Anonimi
I would be most grateful if a paid registration spared us you every day, and I suspect it would. You are an idiot.
Way to sheet on a legitimate accomplishment and a sign that your idiocy is being seen for what it is. Asking you and your ilk to grow up is asking far, far too much. You are a child. We all think you are a child. The ramifications of that, unfortunately, extend far beyond this blog into the realm of your actual child life. Someday that will be very much abundantly clear, and we will not pull the weight for you like your parents/grandparents have into your 40s. And that is a promise, the kind your parents lied to you about. You change nothing.
I posted a comment yesterday to the column about Liz Cheney’s ethical violation in circumventing Hutchinson’s counsel during the J6 inquiry. That comment was quite critical of lawyers in general, and undoubtedly would be viewed unfavorably by anyone in the legal profession. However, it did not violate any of the terms of service published here for comments. It did appear, lasted for about two hours, then disappeared. That was not the work of any automated script or AI bot – those either prevent a post from appearing at all, or take effect nearly immediately. Nor was it a subordinate comment that might have been deleted along with the comment preceding it. Someone with edit authority deleted my comment because he or she disliked the content. At about 4 PM EDT, I posted another comment to that column protesting the deletion of my first comment. That was also deleted. I will repeat what I wrote in my second post yesterday. This space is private property, therefore Turley and his designees have every legal right to delete what they choose. However, in light of Turley’s insistent and expansive defense of free speech in a very wide ranging variety of circumstances and contexts, I regard this conduct as the basest form of hypocrisy, and it results in drastically lowering my opinion of the honesty and integrity of all who are officially associated with this blog. Other readers may also want to take this behavior into account. YMMV.
Congratulations, all. 😊😊 I would be happy to pay a small amount and register to keep the discourse alive, I think it’s very important.
Congratulations professor!
Thank you to Darren Kristin Oren and Hartwell Harrison as well!
I like the idea of a paid subscription like The Free Press does to comment. But use the money to fund a college scholarships for poor high school children program. They can apply by writing a essay on the Constitution, The Bill of Rights or one of them, SCOTUS, or other legal issues. Depending on how much money is raised, could be one large scholarship award or several smaller ones.
And professor, good on you for calling out the trolls who impersonate others!
^^This sounds like the fake Upstate again.
No mention of Judge Judy, his sister, being ‘sane and normal’, etc.
No OT links for confirmation bias, or even a ‘Well Said’.
Treat the comment section like a town hall. The public are invited in for free. ID’S required to comment. If someone wants to comment without an ID, then allow those comments to be made in a parallel comment section. This way the choice is up to the commenter how they are read.
Congratulations on this incredible achievement!
I love your commentary on Fox! You’re a straight shooter at a time when there aren’t very many of those either in the commentary or political business!
This is a longshot, but I would love to have you come on my podcast, Do You Ever Wonder (https://www.youtube.com/@DoYouEverWonder943/videos), to discuss your journey to Fox and the state of the law in the US.
Let me know if you have any questions or might like to discuss it. It would be 20-30 minutes on Zoom at a day and time of your choosing.
Mike
Michael Haltman, CEO HallmarkAbstract Service
Host Do You Ever WOnder podcast
Board Chair Heroes To Heroes Foundation
(516) 741-4723
mhaltman@hallmarkabstractllc.com
The blog is like the book. They are both, well, Indispensable.
Totally agree! Blog and book are indispensable! Many thanks, Prof. Turley and the team! Love you all!
Congratulations JT (and DS).
Jonathan, in regards to the trolling of this great site, wouldn’t it be be a conspicuous failure of free speech principles if a small number of malevolent actors destroyed this forum? Those of us “regulars” who value the daily meritocratic give and take want this unique blog to prove itself as having figured out (in practice!) how to uphold its aspirational culture of civility. No topic could be more pivotal to how a free society discovers and weighs its policy options. In this epochal challenge, there are great ideas to be discovered, or rediscovered.
Let’s start with anonymity. Where in the tradition of the New England public meeting is there a right to speak hidden behind the veil of concealed identity? Every psychology experiment comparing human behavior with and without authentic self-identification brings out the darker side of people. Before motorized vehicle operators were licensed and vehicles tagged, a significant minority of drivers acted out recklessly “for sport”, and escaped responsibility when they caused a collision. Why don’t scientific journals accept anonymous manuscripts?
The unraveling of responsible behavior under conditions of anonymity are widely understood.
Where does the idea that “free speech” has to include anonymous speech come from? You might think of Publius.
Or, you might have been around when the internet was first taking shape the ’80s, and witnessed young techies’ playfulness in adopting pseudonyms and erecting whimsical online personas. If you were a tech executive, you understood that it could delay the rollout of your app by DECADES to enforce “trusted actor architecture” (TAA) on users — fraud-proof identities that would institute what our grandparents generation did to reign in reckless driving. Arguments at the time that bad actors (criminals) would have a field day with the internet were both prescient and common-sense – and summarily brushed aside with “we’ll figure that out later”. And yes, in war-torn regions and totalitarian dictatorships, anonymous and encrypted forms of expression are essential protections for peacemakers and reformers.
You’d like to impose a measure of responsibility so that freedom with order can sustain itself — knowing that responsibility becomes too complicated to define once order breaks down.
So, why not consider the tradeoffs of Res Ipsa Loquitor eliminating anonymous postings, and requiring attribution for commenting (no pseudonyms)? We know this will make people speak more responsibly. Would the readership have to be similarly “permissioned”, so that posters could trust they wouldn’t face retaliation?
Would be interested to see a video of the debate at Harvard. Love this blog and even with the occasional classical liberals, progressives, and trolls mainly on the left but some on the right. Kind of like a marketplace of ideas mixed in with a free for all. We can learn, no matter who is talking. The trolls who try to impersonate are sad souls. Come out into the sunlight and voice your view. I can usually be civil but like everyone else i can turn very nasty if I have to but I prefer not to do that.
Two things: For years I’ve followed you on TV/Print because you’re one of the smartest men on the planet, leveraging reason over emotion. Good. Second, I love the first sentence – a Freudian slip perhaps? You’re “tried” up at Harvard today? 🙂 It will be a trial indeed – thank you for going to battle for free speech. You’ll be awesome. Congratulations on all the success – you’ve earned it.
May those that oppose the idea of free speech on any grounds, have ears to hear the truth during today’s debate, if not always.
I’ve had doubts about Kristin Oren since first hearing that name. Does she wake up before noon? Here’s what grammarly says:
Correct your spelling
… ‘ll be
triedtired up.The word tried doesn’t seem to fit this context. Consider replacing it with a different one.
“ In the interest of full transparency, we are having a debate over what to do about trolls who are impersonating others in the comments, including false postings from me (I generally leave the comment sections for our community and do not post comments). This is obviously a small number of unbalanced individuals who tear down sites or disrupt discourse. There are no great options, which is why many sites have eliminated their comment sections. As a free speech blog, I have resisted that option, but malicious trolls may force a change in the section. In the interim, I can only ask that people respect the civility rules of our blog and allow us to maintain a forum for substantive opinions on contemporary issues.”
So they have indeed noticed. Interesting. Well…one solution would be to eliminate the ability to post anonymously. Trolls rely on the ability to post as “anonymous” because it allows them to ignore responsibility for their posts. But as a free-speech blog, it will also ding the ‘free speech’ part a bit.
Free speech is free speech, trolls and all, just like heckling and shouting down speakers. They are all free speech. Civility rules are barely enforced here, and to do so would require a full-time moderator to monitor the blog constantly. Letting automated filters and third-party algorithms handle it is not enough or adequate. That is why it’s rare that real lawyers, scholars, or even professional journalists don’t post here. It’s just the same riff-raff every day. Free speech is messy, uncivil, and complicated to moderate. It also involves misinformation, disinformation, and malisinformation which is why there are trolls who enjoy exercising their free speech rights and engage in those activities. The solution, as always, is…more speech.
The moment Turley decides to “filter out” trolls or “moderate the content,” he will be engaging in the very “censorship” he claims social media platforms conduct.
Free speech is messy.
How is moderation to rid OFF-TOPIC comments anti-free speech?
The sad thing about this blog are the the commenetrs who think their comments is worthwhile. Admitedly a many are here to insult and attack. If that isn’t OFF-TOPIC, what is it then? Would the site be better off? Yes.
Off-topic comments IS free speech. The whole point of free speech is to be able to engage in any type of discussion. An off-topic post can lead to an interesting discussion or hash out a previous disagreement. It happens here all the time. Sometimes the topic is boring and people prefer a more interesting topic and it takes off. It’s still…free speech.
George, free speech as per the 1st Amendment is relative to the government not privately owned blogs. Do you get that? You do not free speech on this blog.
BTW folks there is a moderator on this blog (I tested it several times) who gives the know-nothing a lot of leeway. It seems to me George wnats to be a target.
To equate “moderation” with “censorship” is to throw into question whether groups, or society as a whole, has the right to uphold norms of civility and authenticity. Do you imagine a free society able to self-manage and sustain itself over decades after abandoning standards and norms of public behavior? When I was growing up, we learned in school that FREE societies and economies depend upon a culture of trust — let that trust unravel, and you get despotism, corruption and misery as the default human condition (Soviet Union was the exemplar).
“Free speech is messy”??? How messy can it be allowed to get? Answer: When it begins to destroy trust, it’s gotten too messy. Allowing a person to imposter as someone else to malign that person’s credibility?….a repugnant betrayal of trust. If you’re unwilling to draw the line on pernicious impostering, then you don’t care about trustworthiness. You don’t appreciate its necessity. Or, maybe you’re the type who just gives up in the face of a complex, daunting challenge? Our grandchildren will judge us on this.
pbinca says: Do you imagine a free society able to self-manage and sustain itself over decades after abandoning standards and norms of public behavior?
You don’t have to imagine pbinca; we certainly don’t have to here in the real world.
Before the last decade, when did our standards and norms allow men to claim they were women and go into little girls’ change rooms and bathrooms to put their wedding tackle on display?
When did our standards and norms celebrate pervert “drag queens” dressed as cheap street hookers, not like somebody’s mother or grandmother, to read sexually explicit stories to young children who still believe in Santa Clause? You don’t notice they never offer to dress up the same way and read the same stories to veterans and seniors in retirement homes? Only children?
And your excuse is what? You see yourself as the type who sees a political party advancing and supporting this doing so to face up to a complex, daunting challenge?
And so, once again, here you go again.
And just think if you charged a small prescription rate, erect a (low) paywall. If you are too principled to accept dough-re-mi for your opinions, you could donate the proceeds to some worthy cause. It would also reduce the troll traffic, or at least make the DNC and Ukraine pay for their posts. Or perhaps you should just charge a fee for posting comments, a penny a letter, something like that. Some of these prolix trolls might become a little more pithy. Congratulations on the milestone and good luck in the debate.
Why not just moderate to get rid of off-topic comments.
Anyway, the cost of setting up a paywall exceeds using a volunteer to moderate. It creates an overhead that can’t pay for itself. Then … the TAXES! Who needs the headache and time investment.
So, a commenter like you thinks charging for a comment is the perfect (donate everything – how liberal) way to help society and ward off the stupids.