Now as gunshots echo across the wind-swept snow-covered reaches of the Wild Northwest, Quakerpuff wheat and Quakerpuff rice, the breakfast cereals shot from guns, present the challenge of the Yukon King. It's Yukon King, swiftest and strongest lead dog of the Northwest, placing the trail for Sergeant Preston of the Northwest Mounted Police in his relentless pursuit of lawbreakers. On king, on new huskies! Gold, gold discovered in the Yukon, a stampede to the Klondike in the wild race for riches, back to the days of the gold rush, with Quakerpuff wheat and Quakerpuff rice bringing you the adventures of Sergeant Preston and his Wonder Dog Yukon King as they meet the challenge of the Yukon. When it comes to breakfast, I'll skip it.  Say, just listen to this. Nutrition authorities say breakfast should furnish from one quarter to one-third of the day's total food requirements. You mean folks should eat a good breakfast? That's right, and lots of folks should eat a better breakfast. Yes, cereal. You can't go wrong if you eat plenty of cereal, fruit, milk, bread and butter. So tomorrow, enjoy a heaping bowl full of delicious Quakerpuff wheat or Quakerpuff rice topped with milk or cream and fruit. It's delicious. What's more, for added health benefits, natural-grade amounts of vitamin B1, niacin and iron are restored in wheat and rice shot from guns. Yes, and talk about good. Just try them. Thanks, mister. That sounds terrific. Yes, everyone loves to eat Quakerpuff rice and Quakerpuff wheat. Jesse Trent had remained in the mining community known as Big Tree for three years after the death of her husband. She stayed there simply because there was nowhere else to go and earned enough to support herself and her 12-year-old son by making bread and pies and other things to eat, which sold in the Big Tree restaurant. Hey, Mom, look out the front window. Here come King and Sergeant Preston. Look at that, man, Dave.  I'll go and open the door. Oh, Dave. All right. Hello there, Sergeant Preston. Hello, Dave. How are you? Hello, King. Hello, Golly. I'm glad to see you. How do you do, Sergeant Preston? Hello, Mrs. Trent. Come on in, Sergeant. Golly, you're just in time for dinner. Isn't he, Mom? Well, I would be pleased to have you. I'll step in for just a moment. I have a letter for you. You'd better wait outside, King. No such thing why he's just as welcome in this house as anyone. Come on in, King. Hello there, King. Hello, Bella.  You say you have a letter for me? Yes, it's from the States. Maybe it's from Uncle Harry. Here you are. What? It is from Harry Trent. He's my brother-in-law. Sergeant Preston, will you excuse me? Go ahead, Mrs. Trent. I can't imagine why he'd be writing to me. I haven't heard from him since before it... Well, since before my husband was killed. I hope it's not bad news. You'll drop something. I'll get it. There you are. What? It's a mess. Sergeant Preston, look, it was drawn by David. Your husband? Yes. Here's his name on it. I'd better see what the letter says. King, better lie down, boy.  Lie down now. Well, that's better. Sergeant Preston. Yes? What? I don't know what to believe. Listen to this. Let me read this letter to you. Very well. You may remember a pair of mittens sent to me as a Christmas gift by your husband. Shortly after that Christmas, David perished in the landslide. I saved the mittens, but had no occasion to wear them until just recently. When I put them on, I found in one of them a map on the back of which was written a brief message. After these years of delay, I shall act in accordance with my brother's wishes. By the time you read this, I shall be on my way to join you and it is hardly necessary for me to say that you must exercise extreme caution. Say nothing to anyone about the man. Mom, is Uncle Harry coming here? Yes, David. Oh, golly, that'll be great. Gee, I'll be glad to see him. He's the only relative we have. Hush, dear. Son, will you go to the kitchen and shake down the fire? Sure thing. Here, King. Here, Sergeant Preston. Here's the message on the back of the map. It's written by my husband. You read it, please. I'm so nervous. All right, I'll read it. Dear Harry, I have a secret which I dare not share even with Jesse.  I have found one of the richest gold deposits in this part of the country and I shall tell no one about it until I've staked my claim. I anticipate no difficulty, but one can never be sure of what the future holds. I am therefore sending you this map showing how to reach my El Dorado. Join me at the earliest possible moment so we may work this claim together. Affectionately, your brother David. You know nothing about this? No. My husband set out on what I thought was just another prospecting trip. Soon after he'd sent the Christmas package to the States, he never returned. I see. Oh, dear, now I am worried with this map in the house. Why, there's nothing to worry about, Mrs. Trent. No one suspects that your husband found gold? No. Oh, I'm so confused. I don't know what to say. It seems to me I had an invitation to have dinner with you. Oh, please do stay, Sergeant Preston. I want to talk to you now that... well, there's so much to talk about. I'll go get it on the table right away. Perhaps I can help? Well, it's almost ready. It was on the stove when you came. Well, perhaps I can bring in some wood. Where has Davy gone? Davy? Davy, where are you? Dear, where is that boy? Davy had left the house by way of the kitchen door and had hurried to the restaurant of his mother's best friend, Kate Carlson. He was bubbling over with excitement. Mrs. Carlson, Mrs. Carlson. You've come out without a hat or coat. Is something wrong with your mother's sick? No, ma'am. I came to tell you the good news. Good news? We're going to be rich and we've got a gold claim. You have? My nine has just won. Dad found it. What's that, Davy? Your dad found it. Yes, but me and Mom didn't know it until just today when we had a letter from Uncle Harry. Dad said on the map in a pair of mittens, but he didn't find it until just now. Sergeant Preston brought it with the mail. Uncle Harry sent the map and now he's coming here. Davy, you'd better come with me, Davy. You'll have to wait until I return, Mr. Scott and Grant. Ouch! Hey, Mrs. Carlson, you're hurting my husband. Come with me, Davy. But you needn't drag me. Come with me. Mrs. Carlson, where are you taking me? Home. And I wish to give you the stay there.  Imagine where the boy's gone, Sergeant. He didn't even stop to shake down the stone. Your wood box is low. He may have gone for firewood. I'll find out. But there he is now. Kate Carlson's with him. Sure enough. Oh, dear, in spite of all I said, he went out again without a hat or a coat. Hello, Kate. Hello yourself. Oh, you better keep this boy locked up. What? Hello, Sergeant Preston. Hello, Kate. What's the matter? Mommy, I didn't do anything. If I had a map to a gold claim, I'd try to keep it a secret. What? What do you mean? Oh, you can't blame Davy. He didn't understand the importance of it. Oh, I just wish the restaurant had been empty when he came in shouting your good fortune. Oh, Davy. That's too bad. Who was in the restaurant? Oh, usual bunch. Including some who'd stop at nothing to get hold of a map of a gold claim. Mommy, I never mind, honey. I just wanted Kate to know. Yes, I understand, dear. We'll have nothing to worry about while Sergeant Preston's in town. Sergeant, I hope you can stay in town until Harry arrives. I wish I could. You can? No, I must be in White Falls tomorrow. I have some business there. Oh, I see. And you, if what's happened, I don't like to leave you without protection. Mrs. Trent, I'm going to leave King here with you. I'll return as soon as possible. And I'll stay in Big Tree until your brother-in-law arrives. King didn't want to remain behind. But after Sergeant Preston had left, the great dog sensed his responsibility. That night, he curled up in the snow outside the front door of the small Trent House. And that night, a man named Snodgrass met with two men in his home. You had handled this myself if it weren't for the fact that I was at the restaurant when the Trent boy came in. You wouldn't have heard about the map of the gold claim if you hadn't been there. That's right, Joe. But the very fact that I was there would make me a suspect. That's why I must have an alibi for tonight. So you want me and Red to go and steal the map? Is that it? Yes. What's in it for us? Well, there may be a few other assignments read. The assignments you and Joe will have to carry out. You follow my instructions, and we'll make it a 50-50 split. 50-50? You mean you take half and we split the other half? That's what I mean. Why not a third to each of us? You heard the proposition. Take it or leave it. We'll take it. You can get going. Mrs. Trent and the boy will no doubt be asleep. Now, if you're careful, you may not have to wake them. I don't want any violence. If it can be avoided, is that clear? Yeah, that's clear. All right, I'll go over to the cafe and provide myself with an alibi. When you're through, go there. We'll meet in the back room. Okay, snog-grass. Come on, Red. Joe and Red made their way through the moonlit night toward the small house at the edge of town. They didn't see King in the shadows of the doorway. They were just 10 feet away when they heard a growl upon him. Joe, there's a dog by the door. They didn't know Mrs. Trent had a watchdog. Look how he stands there watching us. King caught the scent of fear, and his keen instinct told him that the men who had stopped a few feet back were not on a friendly mission. You know what, snog-grass said about violence. Joe, get your gun out. We can't shoot. We'll bring the whole town here. No, don't shoot. Use the gun as a club. Like that dog on the head. Come on. When King saw the guns appear, he charged. Red, look out! Get him! Get him away from me! I'm trying to. I can't get close. Look out. He's going for you.  Get him! Leaping, charging, ducking, King kept both men busy until the struggle roused the woman inside the house. She hurried to the door with Davie at her heels.  Call him back. Get down here.  Hey, something. Give me a point. Yeah, that's better. You got no right keeping a vicious curl like that. He's not a vicious curl. And why do you attack us when we're walking past and minding our own business? You'll hear from us. You just wait. You'll hear plenty. Come on, Joe. Let's get going. A few minutes later, Joe and Red reported to Snotgrass in the back room of the cafe. Sure you didn't get the map. We didn't even get to the house. Something must be done about that dog. In the morning, we'll visit Jesse Trent with the Constable. I'm sure there'll be no dog to interfere with you tomorrow night. We'll continue our story in just a moment. Man, old man, here's a breakfast treat. It's got them all beat. It's Quaker Puff Rice or Quaker Puff Wheat. These famous ready to serve breakfast cereals are shot from guns. Yes, Quaker Puff Wheat and Quaker Puff Rice are choice premium wheat or rice grains shot from guns. They're giant size, king size, colossal. They're actually exploded up, up, up to eight times normal size. That makes them bigger and better tasting. Yes, wheat or rice shot from guns are crisp and tender as nuts in November. Shot through and through with swell nut-like flavor too. What's more, Quaker Puff Wheat and Quaker Puff Rice are nourishing. Yes, both delicious kinds furnish extra food values of restored natural grain amounts of vitamin B1, niacin and iron. They're quick and easy to fix for breakfast, lunch or supper, or after school snack. Just pour them out from those big Quaker red and blue packages and milk or cream topped with your favorite fruit. And there you have it, a nutritious economical deluxe taste treat by both delicious kinds. For variety, eat Quaker Puff Wheat one time, Quaker Puff Rice the next. Just remember they're never sold in bags or bulk. To get the original crisp, fresh wheat or rice shot from guns, always look for the smiling Quaker Man on the front of each big red and blue packet. He's your guarantee that you're getting the one and only delicious Quaker Puff Rice with Quaker Puff Wheat. They're shot from guns. Now to continue our story. On the morning after King had thwarted an attempt to steal a map from Mrs. Trance House, Dave was looking out the window. He saw four men approaching. Mom, it's the constable and Mr. Snodgrass and two other men. Dave, you'd better take King into the next room. We don't want a repetition at last night. Come on, King. This way, boy. I'll stay with you. Come on, King. You must have seen us coming. Yes, constable, I did. How do you do, Mr. Snodgrass? Good morning. I think you know these gentlemen. Red Bates and Joe Teane. Sorry, but I don't remember meeting them. Won't you come in?  It was an unprovoked attack. Joe and Red were walking past your house, minding their own business when that vicious curve went after them. I can't believe King would do anything like that. And furthermore, he's not my dog. He was left here by Sergeant Preston. You mean to say it's Sergeant Preston's dog? Yes. Gosh, Mr. Snodgrass, that sort of changes... It changes nothing. The fact remains that my clients were attacked by that dog. This woman is guilty of negligence by permitting the dog to be at large. My clients will certainly sue her for damages. No, Mr. Snodgrass... Sir, from that constable, you have a court order. But Mr. Snodgrass, when the judge issued that order, he didn't know that the dog in the case belonged to Sergeant Preston. The order describes the dog as the one in the care in keeping of Jesse Trent. I don't care whether the animal belongs to Mrs. Trent or Sergeant Preston, anyone else. You ought to take it into custody. Keep confined. But the judge didn't hear my side here. Well, he figures no harm will be done by locking the dog up until he can look into the situation, Mr. Trent. But, Mr. Snodgrass, Sergeant Preston's going to be downright provoked. You have no choice in the matter, constable. It's your duty to carry out the order of the court. But you can't take King away from here. You can. Mrs. Trent, I'm sorry, but it looks like I got no choice. Here's the paper signed by the judge himself. Where is the dog? Here's the dog in back there, Mrs. Trent. Yes, he's back in the other room with Dave. I'll go get him. There's a chain back there. I'll show you. You'd better fasten it to his harness. That's the right spirit, Mrs. Trent. There's no use of you trying to fight against the court order. I'm not sure that the dog will be well taken care of. I'll see to that myself. Dave, we'll have to... I don't see the dog. Where is the dog? Where is it, I say? What's this on the door? Looks like a note. What is it, constable? It's for you, ma'am, from your son. What does it say? Where is he? Where's the dog? He's gone away. He went out the back door and took King with him, so King couldn't be taken away by the law. Yes, he's out of here. He's gone. Constable, you'll find him. Find him, I tell you. He's too small to be on that wilderness alone. He'll be lost. You've got to find him. You've got to find my boy. Darkness closed in early in the day, and the rising wind brought snow. The afternoon found Davey breasting the wind, with King walking obediently at his side on the end of a chain. The boy was tired, but he kept on toward the community of white falls. I wish I knew how much further to white falls. We've got to get a Sergeant Preston King. We've got to do it. King kept his eyes on Davey during the next half hour. The great dog knew that the boy was close to exhaustion. When Davey spoke, his face was thin and broken. Gotta keep going. Gotta find Sergeant Preston. Gotta find him. In the meantime, a number of townsmen had been out searching for the missing boy. Group after group returned to Big Tree and reported that new snow had blotted out all tracks. Snodgrass was pleased with these reports. We have nothing to worry about, boys. The dog is gone. Just to say, Mr. Snodgrass, that feels safer if the critter had been locked up by the constable. Me too. What's the difference? As long as he won't be around to interfere with your work. He was locked up. We'd know where he is. We wouldn't have to be concerned about his coming back to the Trent House. Don't worry about that, Red. Now go on over to the Trent House and get that map in. Let's wait a while. For what? Some of the men are still searching for the boy and the dog. Let's wait till they're all back. Joe's right. Besides Kate Carlson of Jesse Trent, let's wait till she's gone. It'll be safer if Mrs. Trent's alone. Hey, I don't like delays. There'll be nothing lost by waiting a few hours. If we wait till midnight or so, Mrs. Trent may be asleep. Hardly. If her son is lost. We'll wait anyhow. Hey, Joe? Yeah. Very well, suit yourself. Davey Trent was cold, tired and hungry. He had been moving mechanically and wandering aimlessly in the dark Arctic wilderness. When King knew that the boy was hopelessly lost, the great dog took charge. He went ahead, leading the way, with Dave clutching the end of the chain, following blindly. King knew he must take care of Davey. Instinct told him to go on toward Sergeant Preston, rather than to turn back to Big Tree. When Dave's numbed hand could no longer hold the chain, the great dog pushed and nudged the boy forward, trying desperately to keep him moving. Progress was painfully slow. Then Dave fell face down in the snow. Here was a new problem for King. Should he lie down next to the boy and supply heat from his own great body to ward off death by freezing, or should he go for help? After a moment of indecision, King took a firm grip on Dave's Parker, then hauled the boy to the base of an overhanging cliff, where there was a measure of protection from the driving wind. Unhampered then, King raced ahead. Meanwhile, Sergeant Preston had camped for the night. The mountain had started back from white falls and traveled far that day, when overtaken by heavy snowfall. He had stopped in a cave. It was warm and snug beside his fire. His dogs were curled up in the snow beside the sled outside the cave. Preston was almost asleep when he was roused by his dogs. Now then, fellas, what's the trouble? Hard to see into that storm after the firelight. Some other boys! That's the son of a wolf! The mouthy stepped back into the cave and got his gun. Then he stood in readiness. Presently, he saw a dark figure against the snow. It was coming on the run. Doesn't that look like a wolf? But it's King. King! King boy, what are you doing here? What is it, fella? Why did you leave big tree? Here now, steady. Let go. Stop pulling like that. A chain. What are you trying to tell me, King? Want me to go with you? Is that it? Well, you stay here with the rest of us till morning, and I'll start out. Come on, King. I had some food inside the cave. Hold it back, eh? King knew that food and rest were waiting inside the cave, but he and his master understand that these were unimportant. A much more urgent matter was at hand. Come on, now. He pulled back with the mouthy, tried to pull him into the cave, and then he grabbed his pocket and tugged. Then, while Sergeant Preston watched, King scurried among the sled dogs, crowding them into position, looking at his master as if to say, Hitch up! All right, King. I'll take your word it's urgent. Hitch up right away and shell on. Midnight found Jesse Trent, red-eyed and sick with worry.  Oh, Jesse, you mustn't give up hope. But, Kate, Dave is such a little fella, and this storm, if he'd been anywhere near one of the men would have found him. They've given up. Don't you know what that means, Kate? They've given up search for Kate. Oh, now, Jesse, they start searching again in the morning. Remember, Davey's not alone. That dog, that dog was with him. He never would have left if it hadn't been for King. Now, listen, honey, if I was to be out in this wilderness, I'd rather be guarded by King than any three men in town. Well, that dog's an old campaigner. Oh, here now. You drink this warm tea. It'll settle your nerves. I'm gonna stay here for the night, and then you get some rest. Now, you just drink your tea and lie down. Rest? There'll be no rest as long as my boy is gone. I'll drink your tea. Come on. Someone's at the door. Maybe it's word of Davey. It's time to keep quiet. What's this mean? Who are you two glutes? We wanted you to know we wouldn't have our faces covered with bandanas. Put down those guns, you tinhorn rats. This is a fine time to come here waving guns at the boy's mother. You didn't pick the time. What do you want? Oh, nothing much, Mrs. Trent. All we want is a hunk of paper you got by mail. A map. Yeah, a dead man's map. Oh, so that's it. How'd you rats know about that? We've got ways of knowing things. Kate. Kate just told me Dave was talking too much. It doesn't matter now. To think I scolded him for it. I'd give a hundred maps to every bank. You two must have been in my restaurant when the boy was talking.   I can do that too. Watch her. I'll see you about the map. Where is it?  Stop right now. Let's you have her with my gun barrel. No, come on. Don't hurt Kate. Where's that map? Hand it over quick. I'll get it. I'll get it for you. I hear dogs. They're stopping outside. Hey, you two women, get over there. Over against the wall. Come on, quick. Here it is. We'll cover him and hold him here till we're clear. Help! Help! I want you... One of the crooks fired at Sergeant Preston, but he fired too fast. Shoot, Joe! Acting on the split-second warning, the bounty dropped low as he drew his gun. That dog! Look out! Keep him away! King identified the scent of man he had learned to hate. He charged before his master could fire. He leaped it red, knocking him off balance. Then turned his attention to Joe. In the meantime, Sergeant Preston closed in. This is for you. Kate grabbed the pot of scalding tea. Try this, you skunk! That's enough, Kate. I'm King. On guard, boy. We'll see who's behind these handcuffs. So it's you, Agent. I'm scarlet. I'm scarlet. That dog! You're not hurt, too, if you don't move. Who's your partner? Listen, Sergeant Preston. Listen to me. Well, Rad, you dodged the law a long time. I guess this is the end of your trail. They came to steal that map, Sergeant Preston. Snodgrass sent us. It was his idea. He made us do it. No, wait a minute. Listen here, Sergeant. That's King. Where'd you find him? King found me. He made me hitch up my team, and he led me to Dave. Dave? He's all right. He's on my sled. Oh, my boy! Sergeant, is he really all right? Dead tired. He's sleeping, but he's all right, Kate. I don't know what he was doing on the trail with King. It's all clear now. These crooks came last night to try to steal that map, but King chased him away. The whole thing was Snodgrass's idea. Yes, Snodgrass came with a court order. He wanted to get King out of the way. Well, Dave slipped out the back door with your dog, so the law couldn't touch him. Good for Dave. Come on, Davey. Oh, Sergeant Preston, he is all right, I'm sure of it. He was as warm as toast beneath those robes and your sled. Mom, Sergeant Preston brought me home. Yes, dear. Sergeant Preston and King brought you home. We'll tie these two, King. Then we'll go get Snodgrass. Well, look at that dog. Oh, his wagon is tailed. He sure looks happy. Yes, Kate. He knows the case is closed. In just a moment, Sergeant Preston will give you a preview of Friday's adventure. Ask Mother, she knows. Yes, Mother knows that quality comes in a food. That's why Quakerpuff wheat and Quakerpuff rice are made from only premium grains of wheat or rice. What's more, Mother likes the fact that wheat or rice shot from guns makes it easy to fix economical deluxe family breakfast with milk or cream and fruit. For added health benefits, natural great amounts of vitamin B1, niacin and iron are restored in Quakerpuff wheat and Quakerpuff rice. Buy both delicious kinds tomorrow. These radio dramas, a feature of the challenge of the Yukon Incorporated, are created and produced by George W. Trendle, direct by Fred Flower Day and supervised by Charles D. Livingston. The part of Sergeant Preston is played by Paul Sutton. They are brought to you every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at the same time by Quakerpuff wheat and Quakerpuff rice. The breakfast cereal shot from guns. Sergeant Preston and Yukon King meet the challenge of the Yukon in the case of the knife-throwers. Charlotte Brown and her husband Sam were knife-throwers. They were good friends of mine and I couldn't believe either one, guilty of murder. You see, I had put Jack Barlow in jail for the night to keep him out of trouble, not realizing that I was playing right into the hands of his mysterious killer. Even King was stymied in this adventure. Be sure to hear this exciting adventure Friday. Boys and girls, does your dog like to play? Is he a good watchdog? Well, if you want to keep him happy and healthy, then have Mom feed him kennel ration. Because kennel ration is made with lean red meat, choice cuts of U.S. government-inspected horse meat, and it's packed with vital minerals and vitamins dogs need daily. Have Mom get three cans at her favorite dealer today. Look for the blue and yellow can. Kennel ration, first in canned dog food. This is Jay Michael wishing you good bye, good luck and good health from Quaker Pop Wheat and Quaker Pop Rice. So long. This is ABC, the American Broadcasting Company.


This is nothing new. Cases of using sound to achieve healing and supernatural results can be found in almost all ancient civilizations. Even today, there was much electromagnetic power in the specific instruments and sound-based rituals performed by ancient civilizations. They're not some voodoo tricks. They are pure science used by the ancients. Besides the applications of this knowledge for healing, there was also evidence of how the ancients used sound. Vibrations and frequencies to carve and levitate heavy stones and objects and use them to build megalithic structures. It's believed the Egyptians had a device that could be tuned to a specific frequency, and with it, they were able to cut massive stones, just as if they were cutting butter.


Alex, you have about 40 minutes. The floor is yours. OK, thank you, Junje. And thank you all for being here. Thanks for the organizer. Thanks to the organizer for the opportunity to present. So thanks to Chengzi for agreeing to discuss the paper. So this is joint work with Andrea Montovani, who I saw is in the room, and Shiva Shekhar from Tilburg University. Third-degree price discrimination in two-sided markets. So what are we talking about? So we're talking about price discrimination by platforms, which is a practice which is quite common. So let me give you a few examples. For instance, if you consider the Amazon Marketplace, you will see that Amazon charges different transaction fees depending on the category of products that is sold. So here you have a table. So you see that it goes from 8% for appliances to something like 45% for the accessories to Amazon devices. And other platforms also charge different fees depending on the sellers or developers' characteristics. So for instance, Apple or Google's app stores charge different commissions depending on the revenue of the seller. So it used to be only 30%. But since last year, they've changed, and now Apple and Google charge 15% commission if the revenue per year is less than 1 million, 30% if it's above. You have other examples in the video game industries. For instance, Microsoft is going to charge different fees depending on whether what you sell is a game or not. In other industries as well, credit cards also charge different fees depending on what kind of merchants we're talking about. So the very basic questions that we ask are what are the effects on welfare of such practices of price discrimination by a platform? And what we find interesting is to actually contrast these results with the traditional price discrimination, so in markets which are one-sided, so without network effects. So just to make it clear what we are looking at. So here's the standard setup of third-degree price discrimination. So in third-degree price discrimination, you would have a firm that faces a group of consumers when it cannot discriminate. So it has to charge the same price to everyone. So here we call it FU. You're going to see why we use F because later on it will be the developers that pay a fee. But so you have this market. So under uniform pricing, you charge a single price to everyone. And you contrast that with a price discrimination where you can actually distinguish between the strong market and the weak market and you can charge different fees where usually the fee or the price in the strong market would be higher than in the weak market. So what we do instead is we add another side to the story. So we're going to add the consumer side. So there's going to be a population of sellers, we're going to call them sellers and buyers on the right. And so when the platform cannot price discriminate, it's going to charge the same price for every seller and the same price to every buyer. And then there's going to be network effects across the groups, right? So the buyers like that sellers, the more sellers they are, the happier the buyers are. And we're going to contrast that with the situation where the platform can actually distinguish the sellers based on a characteristic. And so separate them into a strong market and a weak market, charge different prices. We're going to maintain the assumption that buyers pay the same price for now but it's not very important but it makes our life easier, right? And so you're going to have network effects as well. Okay, so before I state what our main results are, I think it's interesting to go back to what we know from the classic results in the early literature on third degree price discrimination. So the first papers go back to the early 20th century, the first half of the century with the Pigu or Robinson who had the first important results. And in particular, so there are two cases to consider. So first, there is a case where absent price discrimination, the weak market would not be served. So in that case, price discrimination allows to serve a new market. And so it's going to lead to an improvement in terms of welfare and also parietal improvement, a weak parietal improvement in the sense that the consumers in the strong market, the price that they pay will not change but the weak markets, they can be served under price discrimination. So something to keep in mind, this is not what I have on the slides. What I have on the slides is the other interesting case where under uniform pricing, both markets would be served. So in that case, there's an important result which is that when you have linear demands, then price discrimination is going to lead to the same quantity overall. So the aggregate quantity is going to say the same and that means that welfare goes down because there's a misallocation. So some consumers in the weak market are going to buy even though their willingness to pay is lower than some consumers in the strong market who are priced out. The welfare goes down. Later on, this kind of work has been extended to more general demand functions. So I think the latest paper, the more general approach is by Aguirre, Cohen and Vickers who provide conditions on convexity of the demand for the quantity or the welfare to go up or down. Okay, so what we're going to do for tractability, we're going to focus on the case with linear demands because what we do is we add network effects so it makes things quickly intractable. But I'm going to discuss, of course, the robustness to how general the results are, but this will be quite informal. And later on, there's a big literature also on price discrimination and platforms. Maybe I'll come back to that later on. Actually, I should have put this slide first. The main results, what we find is that when demand is linear on both sides, so that is both on the buyer and the seller side, we find that price discrimination is going to lead to increased participation on both sides. So we're going to have more buyers and more sellers in equilibrium. And this also going to lead to an increased welfare, right? And kind of a striking result is that price discrimination may also result in strict Pareto improvement. I emphasize the strict because we know that price discrimination can result in weak Pareto improvement. I described the story when the weak market was not served. But here, what we find is that even though some consumers may end up or some sellers in this case may end up having to pay a higher fee, they may be strictly better off under price discrimination than under uniform pricing. And we also discussed the optimal pricing strategy of the platform. So without further ado, unless there are questions, but I think I'm going to stop describing the model. So we have a monopolist platform that matches, that helps interactions between buyers and sellers. Okay, we call them buyers and sellers, but actually we're not going to model the inter, we're not going to open the black box of the interaction between the buyer and the seller. So we're going to use a reduced form way to model how buyers and sellers interact. And the platform charges participation fees on each side. Okay, so I will discuss later on why we don't do Advaloem fees, which are quite common, but I would say the main reason is for tractability. So it's easier to explain things with membership fees. Okay, so the fees are going to be P for the buyers, the price and the fee F for the sellers. So on the seller side, we have two groups, L and H, and there's a unit mass of each group. A seller of type H gets a profit per interaction with a buyer of theta H, which is going to be larger than the profit that a low type seller gets for each buyer. Okay, and both are strictly positive. There is no competition among the sellers. So you have a unit mass of sellers that sell independent goods, right? So there's no congestion or things like that. And sellers are also heterogeneous with respect to their participation costs. So the cost of signing up to the platform on top of the membership fee, which we assume is uniformly distributed on zero one and independent of the type. So that means that the profit of a seller of type J is gonna be theta J times the number of buyers minus the fee that this type has to pay to the platform minus the participation cost. On the other side of the market, we have buyers, a unit mass of buyers who have a standalone value V for the platform. Okay, so think of the iPhone. So even if there are no apps on the iPhone, you can still use it to browse the web or to make phone calls. And then buyers also enjoy interacting with sellers. And we assume that buyers get a benefit B per seller, which in the baseline model, we're going to assume that this is independent of the seller's type. And later on, we relax this assumption when we look at maybe the more plausible case in which buyers prefer to interact with high type sellers than with low type sellers, which is I think a natural thing to look at. But for clarity, I think it's better to start with the case where buyers are indifferent about the type of the sellers. And the buyers also have an outside option, which is also uniformly distributed on zero one. So that the utility of a buyer is the standalone utility plus the network benefit times the number of sellers minus the price paid to the platform minus the participation cost. Okay, so in terms of pricing, we distinguish two regimes. So under price discrimination, the platform can set a different fee depending on the type of the seller. So it can observe the type of the seller and set FL potentially different from FH, but buyers, they pay a same price PD versus the uniform pricing. You've got the constraint that the platform has to set the same fee for sellers, FU and the buyers pay the same price. All buyers pay uniform price, PU. And we're going to assume that the parameters are such that we always have interior solutions, right? So we're gonna avoid dealing with the corner solutions. So we discussed that in the paper. And also importantly, we're gonna focus on the region where even under uniform pricing, you would have some L type sellers who would be active in the market, right? So we're gonna kind of assume away the scenario where price discrimination allows the platform to serve a new market, to serve the low types, right? So we're gonna assume that they can be served. Some of them can be served even under uniform pricing. Okay, so if there are no questions on the setup, I guess it's fairly standard. Let me discuss how we compute the demand. So because we have uniform distribution of a participation cost, means that the number of buyers that are active on the platform given price, given a price PU and a number of seller NS, this is V plus BNS minus PU. And the total number of sellers is going to be equal to the number of high type sellers plus the number of low type sellers, which is this expression, right? So here, one could do, you know, you just write the profit as a function of the prices given those demands and you saw the rational expectation equilibrium, that would be fine, that would give us the result. But instead we find it more illuminating to use actually inverse demand. And hopefully I will convince you that using inverse demand is useful to understand the intuition of what's going on. So instead we're going to assume that the platform chooses directly the participation levels. So it's going to choose how many sellers it wants to attract and how many buyers it wants to attract. And then the prices, so this is in the uniform pricing case, the pricing will adjust such that given those prices, these are the realized participations. Okay, so we simply invert the system and get these inverse demand functions. Now the platform's profit is then the price of the price to the buyers times number of buyers plus price to the sellers times number of sellers. And the first order condition is the following. So for the number of buyers, we have the standard marginal revenue, traditional marginal revenue. And then we have an extra term that captures the network externality, so that every time you add a new buyer to the platform that increases sellers willingness to pay so that the price is going to increase. And you multiply that by the number of sellers that are active on the platform to get the gain to the platform. And a similar expression for the first order condition with respect to the number of sellers. Okay, so graphically we have two increasing curves. So on the X axis, I have the number of buyers, on the Y axis, I have the number of sellers. And so here I plot as a function of the number of buyers, how many sellers does the platform want to attract? So this is the blue line and here is how many buyers you want to attract as a function of the number of sellers that are on the platform. And a remark is that, and that's gonna play a role, is that both of these curves have to be increasing, right? So the number of buyers and the number of sellers are complementary. The intuition is fairly straightforward. So an extra buyer is gonna be more valuable if you have many sellers on the platform because then you can increase the price and it's gonna be multiplied by a larger number. Okay, so now what happens under price discrimination? So under price discrimination, given again the uniform distribution, we have a demand participation level for buyers as a function of the number of low type sellers and high type sellers that are on the platform. And you also have a participation of the low type and participation of the high type as a function of the fees that they have to pay. Again, we're gonna invert the system and get the inverse demands so that this is going to be the price for the buyers. And now there's gonna be a price for the low type seller and a price for the high type sellers. So the difference between the two cases is that under price discrimination, basically the platform not only chooses how many sellers in total it attracts but it can choose the composition of the seller pool. So that's gonna play a role. And the platform's profit is price times to the buyers times number of buyers plus the fees times the number of sellers of each type. And here is the first order condition. And this is the one I will discuss that plays a role. The first order condition with respect to the number of buyers. So again, we have this traditional marginal revenue. And then you have this effect which is how much value does one extra buyer create on the other side and this value will be extracted by the platform, right? So basically an extra buyer, it allows to increase the price for the low type sellers multiplied by the number of low type sellers plus the same for the high type sellers. The first order condition for the sellers does not change compared to the case with the uniform pricing.  So this is the first order condition under price discrimination. And this is the first order condition under uniform pricing. You see that the first term is the same as traditional marginal revenue but the second term is different. So the red expression is how much value the platform can extract under price discrimination for each new buyer that it attracts. And so basically the point, a very simple point of the observation that we make and that's gonna generate results basically is that the platform is better able to extract the value of an extra buyer on the seller side, right? Because now it will extract the full value. So if you attract one extra buyer, you can extract the full value to the low types plus the full value to the high types. Whereas under uniform pricing, basically if one extra buyer comes on the platform, there's gonna be an increase in the price which is gonna be such that the total number of sellers remains the same but there's gonna be more high type sellers and fewer low type sellers and the difference will be, I mean the sum of the two will be equal to zero but surplus extraction is imperfect in that case. So what does that mean? So first actually, and this is going back to the traditional results from Pigu or Robinson. If we fix the number of buyers and we compare the level of participation under uniform pricing and under discrimination, if we compare the participation by sellers, then we have the classic result that the total quantity remains the same, right? So under uniform pricing, the total quantity of sellers is this, it's gonna be equal to the total quantity of sellers under price discrimination. So what that means is that, so the continuous lines are the previous one, so this is the solution in the case of uniform pricing but now the dashed line is the optimal strategy under price discrimination. So it means that for a given number of buyers, the platform wants to attract the same total number of sellers. So the curve is located exactly in the same place. Now the second step is using our previous remark on the fact that you can better extract surplus under discrimination, it means that there's gonna be a stronger incentive to attract buyers because each new buyer can generate more revenue for the platform. So this means that for a given number of sellers on the platform, the platform wants to attract more buyers when it can discriminate. And so graphically, this means that the red line shifts to the right. So for a given number of sellers, you want to attract more buyers, which means that the optimal solution is necessarily going to be greater, both participation of buyers and participation of sellers is necessarily going to be above the case of uniform pricing. This is our first proposition is that under price discrimination, participation increase in both sides. Now here, I think it's useful to pause and to, well, first, if you have any question, don't hesitate, but if not, let me take a moment to discuss how robust this insight is because here we're using the fact that demands are linear to use the fact that basically the total quantity doesn't change, the fact that the blue line doesn't change, it comes directly from the assumption of linear demands. Now, when we have non-linear demands, we no longer have this result that the total quantity is the same. So the first step of the reasoning no longer works. And so basically what we say is that provided that price discrimination does not lead to too large a drop in the desired participation of sellers, then the proposition will hold. So the proposition would hold if the dash blue line was slightly below the continuous blue line, right? But of course, if the dash blue line is too much below then we no longer have this result that participation on both sides increases. And so there we can directly apply the result by Aguirre, Cowan and Vickers because they give conditions on the convexity of demand for price discrimination to increase output. And so if output increases, then it means that the dash blue line is gonna be above the continuous blue line and so that would work. What we require is that it doesn't decrease too much. But in any case, I think a more general point is that participation is less likely, overall participation is less likely to decrease with price discrimination compared to a traditional markets without network effects. So if you want to take really what is the robust insight is this one. Now in terms of welfare, we can show that well, the platform is gonna be better off. Of course, that's by reveal preference. The buyers that's also are gonna be better off because the participation increases so they must be better off. And the low value sellers are also always better off with price discrimination. But what we find striking is that total welfare always increases under price discrimination with linear demand. So this is a big contrast with the traditional markets. Well, remember, so quantity remains the same and welfare always goes down. So here quantity increases and welfare goes up. So this is quite a stark contrast. Now another striking result that we have is that provided that the network effects precisely how much the high type sellers value each buyer and how much the buyers value sellers provided these two parameters are large enough, then the high type sellers are gonna be better off under a price discrimination. So this means that in that case we'd have a strict Pareto improvement. And this generally doesn't happen in a standard model third degree price discrimination. In general, consumers in the strong market they end up paying a higher price. And so they are either worse off or when price doesn't change, they are indifferent. As a few, actually we became aware of these papers recently but there's a couple of exceptions in the literature. So this paper by Natha Ostajewski and Sahu in 1990 where basically they have the profit functions that are not single peaked. And so in that case they can show that you sometimes have a strict Pareto improvement. And another which is more related to what we do a paper by Osman and Macky Mason in 1988, they use the model of market with economies of scale. In that case, they show that you can have a strict Pareto improvement. So of course, network effects, economies of scale it's related. Actually the mechanism is a bit different because in their story, basically once you can price discriminate you're gonna lower the price to the weak market. So that means that you're gonna serve more consumers there. And because you serve more consumers it means that the marginal cost is gonna go down. And so this gives you, if it goes down enough it gives you an incentive to also lower the price on the strong market. This is a different mechanism but of course it's related. Am I doing on time again? In terms of pricing, we identify several regimes so several situations. The typical one, I put quote unquote typical because it's so, when we plot the parameters this is the largest one. And this is also the more intuitive one is such that the low type sellers are gonna pay a lower fee on the price discrimination than under uniform pricing. And the high type sellers are gonna pay a higher price. So in that case, what about consumers? Well, they're going to pay a higher price when the network effects are large enough but when the network effects are smaller then basically they have to, I mean the platform finds it optimal to lower the price. So think of maybe that case first the case where B is small so that there's not much of a network effect on the buyer side. So remember that the platform finds it optimal to increase participation on both sides. So if the buyers don't care much about sellers if you want to attract more buyers you have to lower their price. On the other hand, if buyers value sellers a lot then actually you don't necessarily have to lower the price to attract more buyers because they are gonna be attracted by the fact that you have more sellers. So there's gonna be feedback effects that allow the platform to attract more buyers even though the price to buyers goes up because of the increased participation by sellers. A second regime which was more surprising to us is one where actually all fees increase on the price discrimination. So this happened when theta L is intermediate and B is large enough so when this happens we find that buyers are subsidized both under uniform pricing or price discrimination. And so in that case discrimination is gonna lead the platform to increase the subsidy to buyers. And notice that an interesting result is that all sellers pay a higher price and yet they are better off, right? Because of the increased participation result. Finally, there's also anything can happen. So there's also almost anything because actually in this model FL is always going to be below FH but it could be the case that both types end up paying a lower fee under discrimination than under uniform price. When this happens, we find that the sellers are subsidized so that means I should have added this inequality so FU is also negative. And in this case, the platform wants to increase the price to buyers when it can be priced for me. So that's it for the baseline results. And so in the remaining five minutes or so that I have unless there are questions on this I will discuss some extensions. I think there's a question in the chair room. Do you want it? Yeah. I think Luis wanted to ask probably the compare static results whether this traditional results is the case when some of the parameter is zero, right? So, and then you have a strict Pareto. Yeah. Yeah, let me take that after if that's okay. So, okay. In terms of robustness and extensions we look at three main extensions and our results are mostly robust to this. So the first extension that we look at is one with heterogeneity in how much consumers value different types of sellers, right? So we're going to allow consumers to prefer to interact with high type sellers. Then there's going to be, we look also at add value and fees. And third extension that we look at is one sided pricing. That is what happens when the platform cannot charge a price to consumers. So, the assumption that B is the same that consumers are indifferent about which buyer they interact with. Of course, it's not very natural. It can be microfounded. We provide some microfoundation but it's probably more plausible to assume that the buyers would prefer to interact with the high type sellers, right? So it's easier to find. So if you think of the high type as having either a high quality or a lower cost and you endogenize the price. So in equilibrium, you would find that buyers prefer to interact with the high type sellers. And so we have a lemma that says that basically the platform charges. So in the baseline model, the platform always charges a higher price to the high types. This may be actually counterfactual. I mean, in some markets what we observe is that actually the popular app developers are charged a lower commission or things like that. So when you allow B to be different depending on the type, then you can find this result because actually what matters is the difference between how much a developer benefits or a seller benefits from interacting with a buyer and how much the buyer would like this, interacting with this seller. And so basically the more value you generate either for you or for the other side, the lower the fee that you, no, sorry. So if you generate a high revenue or if you don't generate a lot of value for the buyer, then you're gonna pay a higher fee. And so this is consistent, for instance, with examples such as this team that actually charges more for the less popular games. And we have a result that actually the results from participation with the graphical analysis. So you have to change a bit the proof, but it goes through. So participation is gonna increase. Now the result on welfare is not going to hold so that there is a region where welfare goes down, but actually what we find, and this is a numerical exercise, but is that in general when welfare goes down, it goes down by very little. So it's usually less than 1% for whatever that figure means, but given the parameters that we use it's less than 1%, whereas when it goes up, it can go up by a lot. So more than, sometimes more than a hundred percent. So we feel like this broadly confirms our results. The second extension that I want to discuss with you is AdValor and fees. Because in all the examples that I've used, actually in practice, the platforms use AdValor and fees. And in our model, we have membership fees. So I would say that there are three reasons, three main reasons why we do that. The first one is attractability. So it's easier to disanalysis and transparency. I think the analysis with membership fees is very easy to understand. Now there's also an interesting paper by Drew Wong and Wright who show that AdValor and fees, they already represent some kind of price discrimination. So that if we really want to understand the effects of price discrimination starting from a situation where there is even uniform AdValor and fees, it would still be some kind of price discrimination because of course, the more you sell, the more you pay. It's proportional to how much you sell. And finally, it is optimal in our setup to not use AdValor and fees, to use membership fees. I mean, if price discrimination is possible, you have to try to do membership fees. But still, these reasons, if you put aside these reasons, what we show is that our results in terms of welfare and participation are going to go through even if the platform charges AdValor and fees to sellers. But the thing also, maybe I should have added it, is that with AdValor and fees, you introduce also consider distortions in terms of pricing. Of course, if the marginal cost is not zero, you're gonna have some double marginalization and this makes things a bit more messy. Finally, in the case where the platform cannot charge consumers, then we find that the total participation goes up. Now welfare doesn't always go up, right? So the network effects have to be large enough. I mean, basically you have one fewer instruments so you're not gonna be able to do as well, but we still have the possibility of a strict Pareto improvement. So to wrap up, what we do in this paper we present what we think is a very simple model of price discrimination by a two-sided platform. We show that with linear demand, price discrimination increases welfare and can even lead to a strict Pareto improvement. And one kind of counter-intuitive result is that even when consumers pay a higher price, they may be better off because of the increased participation by sellers. Thank you for your attention. And I'm looking forward to change this discussion. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to discuss Alex's paper. I really enjoyed reading the paper. I think this is similar to a lot of Alex's work, identifies very important question and provide some interesting trade-off that's very relevant answers to the practice. So I just have a few comments. So I think first, when we talk about dominant platforms which holds different sides of small users, probably the total user surplus would be a better measure, a welfare measure than consumer surplus or the total welfare. And actually in this model, the results obtained is actually stronger than that the total user surplus can be increased on the price discrimination because actually on the price discrimination, the authors find that both sides participation will increase. So that actually means both sides are better off. So that would be stronger than just the increase of total user surplus. So this could be something highlighted in the paper. And we know that this total user surplus is actually more difficult than the total welfare because the platform would be always better off. Otherwise it will not use the price discrimination in equilibrium. I think that's just something interesting. Also another benefit of focusing on total user surplus it might have some implications for extending sort of generalizing the model beyond the linear demand because here if you only focus on the total user surplus then it seems that what happened to the buyers and the low type sellers are quite robust. So the only problem is what happens to the high type sellers. But that could be probably you borrow some techniques from the Agia, Kowan and Wickers. But then because your current result is stronger than the total user surplus. So if you can't get that result with certain conditions but that condition could be actually sufficient for getting improved total user surplus. So I think that might be a way to generalize the insight. The third point is that... So I find one result is particularly strong is that the seller participation always increase on the price discrimination which is independent of NH and NL which is the size of high type sellers and the low type sellers. I'm just wondering whether... So let me imagine a scenario where NL is almost the one and NL is almost zero. So basically almost all sellers are high type. Do we still get that the seller participation will always increase? So I'm just wondering whether this scenario is actually covered by the assumption one or actually also covered in the discussion of corner solutions. And finally, given this is a two-sided market model so I'm wondering whether the platform have any incentive to offer a negative price to any of the groups because here you have actually three groups like the buyers, the high type sellers and the low type sellers. So it might be quite interesting to consider this kind of thing especially in a competing environment when an entrant is in the market and an entrant probably can use a subsidy to overcome certain disadvantages as an entrant but then the issue is which group should the low price or the negative price to be used to target. So I think that will be a quite relevant question for platform business. That's all I have. Thank you.


It's been about two and a half years since the January 6th Capitol insurrection and many of the individuals who tried to overthrow the U.S. government have since had to face the music. That includes individuals like Richard Barnett, who's the guy that was photographed with his feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk. He was sentenced to over four years in prison. Now there's also Stuart Rhodes, the founder of the Oathkeepers, who was sentenced to 18 years for seditious conspiracy. And of course, there is Jacob Chansley, a.k.a. the QAnon shaman, who served about 27 months of his 41-month sentence but was released early. Now those are just some of the more recognizable people involved in the Capitol insurrection, but there were many, many more people who participated and have since been convicted. Politico reports more than 1,033 of the rioters have been arrested, with approximately 485 federal defendants receiving sentences. About 277 defendants have been sentenced to time behind bars and roughly 113 defendants have been sentenced to a period of home detention. So lots of people have been held accountable for their actions on January 6th. One of the lesser known insurrectionists, however, is Jessica Watkins, the woman pictured behind me. She is an army veteran and Oathkeepers member who was sentenced to 8 and a half years in prison, and her story is very unique. Politico continues, Watkins' attorney said that the trauma and rejection from her friends and family due to her being transgender was what pushed her to be dragged into conspiracy theories around the 2020 election and to eventually take part in the riot. So it's interesting because situations often lead people to radicalization, right? COVID-19, that time, you know, at home during self-quarantine, that's how a lot of people got involved in QAnon, but this lady got involved in I guess election denialism because she didn't know how to process her family rejecting her for being trans. So that's where she found some sort of comfort or identity, at least that's what her attorneys say. Now, during her trial, she tearfully explained how she struggled with her identity as a trans woman while she was in the military, and she was in the military during the Don't Ask, Don't Tell era. Now for those of you who don't know, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a policy that meant that any LGBTQ plus person who came out while they were in the military was dishonorably discharged. But ironically, she went on to riot for a president that banned trans people from participating in the military. So it's certainly, I guess we'll say interesting that in response to her being rejected by her family, she got involved with a group of people who aren't necessarily the most welcoming when it comes to LGBTQ plus people. I mean, maybe they weren't aware that she's trans, maybe they didn't care because they had a common cause of installing Trump as president. But either way, that's her defense, right? But putting aside her identity for a moment, she wasn't just another participant in the insurrection. She was a leader, in fact. As CNN explains, at trial, prosecutors showed evidence that Watkins founded and led a small militia in Ohio and mobilized her group in coordination with the Oathkeepers to Washington DC on January 6th. Watkins and her counterparts ultimately marched in tactical gear to the Capitol and encouraged other rioters to push past police outside the Senate chamber.   And since she took full responsibility and shared her story of being transgender in the military with the judge, the judge was even moved and said that anyone who heard her story and listened to her speak would also be moved. But the judge also noted that she wasn't necessarily remorseful per se at first. So there was a phone call that she had from jail where she allegedly mocked Capitol police officers that were on duty on that day, saying boo-hoo in response to them getting PTSD from the Capitol insurrection. Now fast forward to today and she still describes herself as a political prisoner incarcerated for exercising her First Amendment rights. And that's at least what it says in her Twitter bio, which is run by her husband and close friend. Now they've been posting screenshots of texts that she sends them from jail through the Getting Out app. And in her Twitter debut on July 21st of this year, she claimed that she did what she did to quote, defend free and fair elections. She also has since condemned Trump's indictment and attacked Jack Smith and she even defended transphobes like Riley Gaines while signaling support for a ban on trans women in sports. And embarrassingly, she also apologized to cis women for possibly making them uncomfortable in locker rooms. So I mean, it's all come full circle, right? She joined this movement due to transphobic rejection, only to eventually throw her own community under the bus in a pathetic attempt to be the pick me for right wingers and insurrectionists. And she also attacked Rhino Republicans and hinted at being an anti-vaxxer as well.  So this isn't necessarily the redemption arc that I was hoping for. But despite her idiocy politically, she's shedding some light on a really important issue, one that is unique to trans people who are incarcerated. For example, on July 23rd she tweeted, I transitioned to female 20 years ago. Do I look like I belong in a men's prison? The Bureau of Prisons under the Biden administration listed me as male on documentation for the first time in nearly two decades. And she's made this post multiple times with different pictures of herself showing that her sex is listed as male. And she's currently serving in a men's jail and is at risk of being transported to a men's prison. And on top of that, she's being denied crucial medical care that she needs. And in response, she shared this call to action where she encourages her followers to call the Federal Bureau of Prisons in order to urge them to not put her in a men's prison against the judge's orders. And as you can see, she also shares Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Green's numbers in hopes that they take action on her behalf. But we'll come back to that in a moment. And she also shared the contact information for the US Marshals Office in hopes that people will call and pressure them to help her get the medical care that she needs for a potential cancerous growth that she needs to have removed. Now, these are very serious issues and we'll talk about the broader issues that inmates and trans inmates in particular deal with when they are incarcerated. But first, we have to address the elephant in the room. That is her tagging Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Green. Now, I think we all know why she did it. These are two lawmakers who are insurrectionists themselves. Marjorie Taylor Green in particular always refers to January 6 insurrectionists as political prisoners. So I mean, it makes sense that an insurrectionist would want to get their attention in order to get support. But I mean, on the other hand, these are two of the most vicious transphobes in Congress, especially Marjorie Taylor Green who don't view her as an equal, despite her status as an insurrectionist. This is what Marjorie Taylor Green wrote in response to legislation introduced by Pramila Jayapal that would give trans people more legal protections.  She also suggested that it would lead to quote, trans-tifa riots and rejected the idea of a ban on discrimination based on gender identity, writing, that means trans become a protected class and women's rights are totally and completely annihilated. Men pretending to be women would not just be equal to women in all areas. They would be preferred and above all women, essentially replacing women. Now, in the very next sentence, she pointed out how the legislation would improve conditions for trans inmates. And yeah, that's pretty relevant to Jessica here. Now, while Matt Gaetz doesn't talk about trans people as much, he's still deeply bigoted. He claimed in 2019 that the Equality Act will allow Trump to declare himself the first female president, which proves how ignorant he is when it comes to trans people and what it means to be a trans woman.  But unfortunately, that's wishful thinking because Jessica's core problem here requires recognition that she is indeed a trans woman. And Marjorie Taylor Greene is not willing to do that because every single thing that she's done has been in service of transphobia and in service of delegitimizing trans people and their very existence. But here's the thing, Jessica is a woman. And since she's a woman, she should serve her time in a woman's prison like other female inmates get to. But that's why Marjorie Taylor Greene isn't going to advocate for her because she fundamentally rejects the idea that trans women are women and she doesn't think that they are valid. So this isn't an insurrectionist issue to Marjorie Taylor Greene. This is an issue that uniquely affects trans inmates. And if Marjorie Taylor Greene were to advocate for Jessica in this instance, then she's bringing attention to an issue about how trans people are treated in general. And this is indeed an important issue where trans inmates are dehumanized. Now as NBC News reports, based on the available records obtained from 45 states, just 13 transgender women are housed with women and two transgender men are housed with men. They're referring to inmates. In Texas, which has one of the largest incarcerated populations in the country, none of the 980 transgender prisoners live in gender-affirming housing. The state's 891 transgender women are housed with men and its 89 men are housed with women. Pennsylvania's 214 transgender prisoners are all incarcerated according to their sex-assided birth as are Wisconsin's 173 transgender prisoners. These housing decisions can have dire consequences. 35% of transgender people who had spent time in prison in the previous year reported being sexually assaulted by staff or fellow prisoners, according to a 2015 report by the Department of Justice. Advocates say that the figure for transsexual assaults is likely an undercount because sexual assaults are underreported. Many of the current and former transgender prisoners said guards dismiss their reports or retaliated against them for reporting. Transgender prisoners are also unable to express their gender in the most basic ways, including being called by a name that reflects who they are, they said. In response to questions, some state prison representatives said they only moved transgender prisoners if the prisoners had received gender confirmation surgery, regardless of their housing preferences. Others said that they review prisoners' transfer requests on a case-by-case basis as required by law. Most said they are fully compliant with federal law on housing transgender prisoners. But here's the thing, they're not complying with the law. The Prison Rape Elimination Act went into effect in 2012, and that law requires prisons to regularly interview trans inmates every six months and ask them where they feel safest, and they also have to hear their concerns, and they're supposed to take them into effect and even consider if there are threats to these trans inmates. And if they violate this law, they risk losing 5% in federal funding. The problem with the law is that it relies on the discretion of prisons ultimately, and even if a trans woman, for example, expresses that she fears violence if she's placed with male prisoners, they can just choose to disagree and place her with men. And out of the 4,890 transgender state prisoners that NBC News was able to track in 2020, 15 were housed with inmates who shared their gender. Meaning that the overwhelming majority of trans inmates are housed with prisoners of the opposite gender. So this issue is systemic. Jessica is not the only transgender inmate to experience discrimination in this form within the prison system.  But let me tell you why that's wrong. First of all, all human beings deserve dignity, including inmates. And Jessica is serving her time just like all the other insurrectionists who are convicted. But because she's trans, she risks being placed in a population that makes her vulnerable to rape and violence unlike the cis insurrectionists like Stuart Rhodes or Richard Barnett. So the question is, why should she endure a harsher punishment specifically because she's trans? The answer is she shouldn't. It's extremely unfair. So I mean, you can disagree with her politics and find her sentence justified as I do, but she shouldn't have to face a steeper penalty for simply being trans. And finally, if we're okay with one trans person's gender identity being invalidated because of her disgusting political views and actions, then we're communicating to all of our trans friends and family members that we think that someone's gender identity is up for debate and should be violated if the trans person in question is bad. But I mean, think of the message that that sends to trans people. It tells them that you were never really a true ally or that your support is conditional on them being a good person. But I mean, if you sour on them, then you suddenly have permission to reject their identity. That's not okay. That's not the way that being an ally works. LGBTQ plus people like all people can be shitty people. They can be mean. They can even be insurrectionists as we've learned.  I think that making fun of Jessica's insane political views is fair game, right? And it's fine to point out that she is very clearly one of the people who voted for the Leopards eating people's faces party and then never thought that the Leopards would eat her face. But at the end of the day, this isn't a moral dilemma to me in the same way that it would be for someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene. Trans women are women. Therefore, Jessica shouldn't be placed in a men's prison. She should be in a women's prison where she belongs, period. All trans inmates should receive fair treatment. But unfortunately for Jessica, Marjorie Taylor Greene isn't coming to the rescue for her anytime soon because supporting Jessica would require her to violate her anti-trans disposition. But with that being said, Republicans are also hypocritical. So I'd be happy if Marjorie Greene proved me wrong. But unfortunately for Jessica, I just don't think that that's going to be the case.  F-around and find out.  Trans rights are human rights. It is necessary to push trans on the kids. Pride.


what's going on is engraving here with another video and in this video we're here to talk about the AFC wild card matchup that we're watching right now between the Chiefs and the Titans the Chiefs and the Titans and shout out to all the Chiefs fans shout out to all the Titans fans for your team making the playoffs before we get into this let me introduce myself me I'm engraving vids and this is my YouTube channel engraving vids and I'm a Ravens fan I'm a Ravens fan so we yeah yeah I'm gonna just leave it at that but even though I'm a Ravens fan on this YouTube channel we talk about the Ravens all the time but we also just talk football period so if you're a Ravens fan you can subscribe if you a Titans fan you can subscribe if you a Chiefs fan you can subscribe if you just love football you can subscribe make sure you once you subscribe you turn your notifications on so you never miss not one single video and then and then make sure you leave a like on a video click the click the thumbs up button click the thumbs up button and follow on Twitter Instagram and snapchat all three are engraving vids and I know it's gonna be somebody that's gonna be like engraving what are you doing wearing the Titans jersey they're getting whooped right now but the reason I'm wearing the Titans jersey and shout out to polystore.ru make sure you check the link in the description if you want to get a jersey for the low but the reason I'm wearing the Titans jersey right now is because even going into this game I didn't feel that they were gonna win and then now being at halftime I still don't feel like they're gonna win and y'all already know that after the game I wear the team of the jersey that won so I feel like this is gonna be my only shot to be able to wear this but like we always say it ain't over till it's over so you never know but anyway getting into this game shout out to Alex Smith for doing this thing shout out to Tyreek Hill shout out to Karim Hunt shout out to Travis Kells because that combination continues to show that they are nice they're nice they are nice Karim Hunt with some big runs in the first half Tyreek Hill with Tyreek Hill the thing that's that's just special about him is that he's such a special player he does it on offense does it on special teams he makes so much stuff happening and he he forces the defense to watch him at all times and even one when you watch him at all times even two when you double him at all times even three when they force the ball to him he still makes plays he still makes plays he still makes plays he still continues to make plays and it's crazy man the dude is special and then Alex Smith of course doesn't turn a ball over much controls the ball well still takes a shot still gets some deep passes in some good medium passes in he still takes the shots and does his thing man he does his thing he does his thing so shout out to Alex Smith and then of course Travis Kells Travis Kells I remember the drive where they score the touchdown against I mean the no not to drive where they score the touchdown but the drive where Travis Kells was the one that caught the touchdown pass against the Titans it just looks so easy it looks so easy it looks so easy Alex Smith was just driving down the field and then on a touchdown Travis Kells was wide open he was wide open wide open pretty much untouched he I think he ended up tripping over himself so big shout out to them and really quick because I want to make sure I say it before I forget right before halftime right before halftime right before halftime remember oh my gosh it was the play before the touchdown or the touchdown play Chiefs had just got a first down and Andy Reed was calling from the sidelines spikus or call the timeout call the timeout call the timeout call the timeout Alex Smith they showed Alex Smith looking at the sidelines he was rushing them up to the line rushing his Russian players up to the line come on come on come on come on it was like I think like nine or eight seconds left Alex Smith hikes the ball doesn't call the timeout completely disregard what Andy Reed says Alex Smith hikes the ball pump fakes cornerback is down low safety is up top those are right in between them hit the wide receiver bird Titan safety misses the tackle touchdown that's what your quarterback should be doing that's what your quarterback should be doing that's what your quarterback should be doing stuff like that that's that's what separates men from boys stuff like that plays like that where your quarterback controls the game like that controls the offense like that that's real deal no I sure why we wouldn't be getting torch hey no way but anyway um that was fire that was fire right I love how he did that so and then when Marcus Mariota flipping flipping to the other side um I felt for them because I feel like honestly the score right now it should be 21-0 reason being reason I say that is because the three points that the Titans got they should not have they should not have reason I say that on the play Derek Johnson that play was nasty that play was nasty I that play got me hype when Derek Johnson sack Mariota just cuz he just whacked him he whacked him he whacked him he whacked him on that play Mariota fumble the ball should have been a fumble it should have been a fumble and I'm pretty I think one of the chiefs picked it up was a Derek Johnson it should have been a fumble no not Derek Johnson what's number 50's name no 56 56 hit Mariota and number 50 picked it up I always get that their linebackers mixed up but either way he yeah he whacked him man he whacked Mariota and that ball came out it was a clear fumble but they've made some stupid explanation about forward progress which literally made no sense at all it made no sense at all it was a fumble should have been called a fumble should have been ruled a fumble should have been a fumble so that was bad um oh yeah show out I ain't forget about that one either yeah that was a fumble too and yeah another fumble that they didn't call was when Travis Kels got his concutt got concuss got knocked out Cyprin Cyprin what have you say his name Jonathan the safety from the Titans Kels caught the ball in a little drag route first defendant started to wrap them up then the safety came in what whacked them and then Kels was like whoa he started he was in the days he couldn't stand up by itself at first he knocked him out that dude definitely got a concussion ain't no doubt about that is he gonna be back in the game of course of course of course he definitely got a concussion though you already know man and but on that plate to like show out said that was a fumble as well that was a fumble too but again they ain't call it there was some passing appearances that I saw both on both teams they just letting them do letting them do is play but the passing interference they weren't like oh my god that's such a passing interference they were like I can't understand how they let them play so I'm like well these refs are but the defense of holding plays I'm the holding plays that they I mean the holding penalties that they've been calling I've been like come on there if y'all gonna let these passing appearances slide if y'all not gonna really call these fumbles which should be fumbles fumbles but then y'all are gonna call the holding like that I think they call one on Derek Morgan on the Titans they called holding on the defense and it was just like that's what you're calling come on now seriously that's what you're calling but it's all good man you know that's a that's the game man that's that's what we got to deal with the game inconsistencies of the referees and I mean it is what it is that interception shout out to Marcus Peters and Marcus Peters just continues to be around a ball I forgot Darrell Rivas was on the chief so I honestly did but Marcus Peters that dude is a turnover machine he always has a ball somewhere he always he's always getting picks fumble recoveries whatever and the thing about him I had tweeted it out when he did it but when Marcus Mario to through that pick the way that Marcus Peters runs when he catches a pick or gets the ball period he runs like he's doing a fast breaking basketball and when he tries to shake it looks like he's doing a basketball move you don't even look like a football thing it looks like it looked like a basketball move but so shout out to shout out to Marcus Peters man they do he do been a beast since his rookie year he been doing this thing I did read about I keep seeing how the Titans head coach he's still not safe even though his team is in the playoffs so we'll see how that goes I'm sure if if they do lose today then we'll probably get a report whether it's tonight or tomorrow but definitely by Monday that he's out of there he's been fired so we'll see though we'll see like I said it ain't over till it's over they only down by 18 teams have been down by bigger amounts than that and come back so we'll see how it goes gonna be a good game it's a tough game definitely a tough game what's up cowboy X factor oh you got a new avatar that's what's up man no it ain't over yet Tyler it ain't over yet we don't seem way bigger comebacks than this way bigger comebacks than this way bigger comebacks than this and yeah I heard about that she's possibly trading Alex Smith in the offseason too with that it's so tricky man it's so tricky because it just so tricky because you know what he can do for your team but has his ceiling really been reached what are they gonna do what are they gonna do and what if Patrick Mahomes doesn't end up being the guy so I mean it's a risk that you can take if you were gonna take the risk hey so be it so be it so be it but that's how that's that's a tough one man that is a tough one do you ride with an unproven rookie I mean you did draft him in the first round for a reason but what do you do what do you do the I mean Alex Smith he showed you what he can do and this playoffs I mean he still got some more to show too but he's showing you what he can do so either way we'll see Charles kind of said the Titans have no chance no they still got a half everything that happened to the Chiefs in the first half to happen to the Titans in the second half they still got a half to play game ain't over it ain't over till it's over come on y'all know better than that I know it looks like it's over looks like it's done but hey we'll see anyway appreciate y'all thank you we're about to go okay y'all let me know the games back on so I'm about to get back to watching as I'm sure you guys are too appreciate y'all coming through make sure you leave a like on the video subscribe to the YouTube channel so after the game we can see you right here so we'll see how it goes in the second half I see y'all on Twitter to my Twitter Instagram Snapchat all three are engraving vids y'all make sure you hit me up man I see y'all after the game and we are out if this thing would ever stop okay we go