So I’ve read through this thread and this controversy seems to revolve around two issues:
(1) About
@readalot pressuring sources to perform additional analytical testing (i.e “Enhanced Testing”)
(2) About how
@readalot responds to members who are criticizing his promotion of Enhanced Testing.
I am only going to focus on the first issue because protecting sources from Members who criticize and pressure them to perform additional analytical testing is antithetical to MESO’s harm reduction objectives.
Readalot mostly applied his pressure indiscriminately, targeting both big and small, popular and unpopular sources. However, he did show explicit favoritism toward sources that complied with his Enhanced Testing recommendations. There's that.
The most obvious and natural detractors of Readalot’s push for additional testing are the Sources themselves.
Sources clearly hated what Readalot was doing. And they made it known. They insulted and harassed him, complained publicly and privately about his behavior. At least 5-6 sources reported him hoping to get him banned for spamming or harassment.
However, the most vocal detractors of Readalot’s push for more testing have been those who identify themselves as regular Members.
To be fair, many Members say they support the testing but but oppose Readalot’s methods due his alleged harassment and spamming in threads dedicated to specific sources. I get this. But the practical consequence of “shutting down” Readalot’s Enhanced Test is the protection of these Sources from community pressure to perform additional testing,
There have been a several Members who pushed back against Readalot’s efforts, trying to discredit him at the least, if not worse. Obviously, it’s always interesting when some Members join Sources on the same side to attack a Member. Certainly, there is some nuance here and all Members and Sources don’t necessarily have the same motives.
The criticisms of his Enhanced Testing that I will address took several forms and they are all worthy of discussion:
1) Sources should be protected from Readalot’s “spamming” and “harassment” in pushing his Enhanced Testing agenda.
2) Specifically, smaller sources should be protected from the Enhanced Testing agenda because it would create an unnecessary burden for them when competing with larger sources.
3) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because it added little value for consumers.
4) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because it wouldn’t make any difference even if it uncovered any problems.
5) Enhanced Testing was unnecessary because even if it uncovered problems, consumers would still assume the risks anyway.
As far as protecting Sources is concerned, come on! This is MESO and MESO doesn’t protect Sources. Why would anyone ask to protect sources from additional analytical testing?
If the community encourages low-effort posts using name-calling and insults (for better or worse), encourages posts demanding “tit” pics, and encourages posts seeking to limit source introductions to specific days of the week all in the name of “holding sources accountable”, it seems disingenuous to discourage the targeted/focused pressure to perform additional analytical testing.
To address the FIRST criticism on harassment and accountability: I mean pressuring sources to perform testing is not harassment; harassment is apprarently just pejorative term used to dismiss pressure for accountability. This type of pressure is one of the most reasonable expectations for Members to use on a Forum dedicated to transparency and harm reduction.
To address the SECOND criticism on the burden for smaller sources: Harm reduction just doesn’t prioritize maintaining this low barrier of entry for wannabe steroid dealers. Big or small, all sources profit from selling products that introduce health risks to consumers. And they all have an ethical responsibility to minimize that risk and no one should feel guilty about holding them accountable for it.
(If anything, harm reduction advocates should want to discourage any tempted Members to avoid risking legal harm through participation in illegal drug distribution.)
To address the THIRD criticism on the “limited” value of additional testing: Analytical testing is perhaps the best harm reduction tool we have at our disposal. Just because the testing may reveal there are no obvious problems with a given sample doesn’t mean the testing is useless. This information as part of ongoing surveillance of the products we get from an unregulated marketplace is the whole point of testing. The information about product quality and safety is useful when the results are bad OR good.
To address the FOURTH criticism on the supposed lack of impact from testing results:
Even if consumers don’t change their behavior, just having more info about product safety and quality is a good thing. Because some consumers will change their behavior. This incremental positive impact is the goal of harm reduction.
To address the FIFTH criticism on the willingness of consumers to take risks: Sure there are consumers who are willing to assume considerable risks anyway regardless of what they learn from additional testing. The issue here is making sure these risk takers don’t face hidden dangers without their knowledge. Making informed decisions is always better than operating out of ignorance.
The bottom line is Sources do not need to be protected from this.
This so-called controversy comes at a time when MESO is overrun with Members developing and basking in parasocial relationships with Sources, defending Sources, providing customer service for Sources, and displaying other obsequious and sycophantic behaviors towards Sources.
And apparently, there are also a lot of secret sources and established sources that are using alt accounts to deceptively masquerade as Members.
Sources secretly masquerading as regular Members should not be tolerated by anyone. Tolerance for these duplicitous behaviors undermines the fundamental principles of transparency, harm reduction, and trust that define the MESO-Rx Forum.
(This is not to say they can’t make contributions towards harm reduction. This is to say they should be completely transparent with their conflicts of interest just like every other source is required.)
So with this as a backdrop, shutting down someone seeking greater source accountability with additional and more thorough analytical testing isn’t a priority.
