The crusade began before the internet.
OK, before you knew about the internet.
It was long before the light bulb in Jeff Zuckerberg’s head clicked. It was long before Google. A Twitter takeover wasn’t even a twinkle in Elon Musk’s adolescent eye.
It was 40 years ago this Thanksgiving in the opinion section of the Waco Tribune-Herald. There I began my lonely crusade against the oral application of sweet potatoes.
For the record, the internet was conceived by the military’s Department of Advance Research Projects Agency – DARPA — and launched in 1983.
At the frontier’s edge, November 1984, I set out to set mankind straight about side dishes — one in particular. Our newsroom had only a handful of front-end word processors one would call computers — reserved for copy editors. So, my first missive about sweet potatoes was typed on parchment. Imagine.
Fast-forward through all that, and here we are — linked across the ages and around the world – and my message remains as urgent as ever: Sweet potatoes cannot be food as is asserted. I tasted that hypothesis. Once.
The verdict came by my sworn tongue more than 60 years ago. “Into mouth? Rejected.”
Far off as was that first impression, the memory is as vivid as “Wonderful World of Disney” on that first color TV set.
Ever since I started speaking truth in print each Thanksgiving about this orange-meated matter, I have dealt with recrimination — and little thanks. For one, I got a cease-and-desist letter from the president of the United States Sweet Potato Council. This was back in the days of “veggie libel” laws. You, too, would sweat in bed at the prospect of a tuber tribunal.
Other forms of intimidation have come in phony pumpkin pies – nice try – and any number of attempts to sneak the root into my meals.
At some point mad ag scientists decided they could normalize the abnormal with sweet potato fries, now ubiquitous. (“Delicious! Try! Try!” No.)
Ongoing attempts at my conversion are the intersection at which the wondrous internet presents its ugly side.
I have a friend in Japan who thinks he can convince me via social media that my taste buds just haven’t met the right mate, sweet potato-wise.
The other day on Facebook he IM-ed me an attachment promoting sweet potato crème brulee.
I messaged back: “I think it’s illegal to send pornography across international lines.”
This exchange was in close succession to his IMing me that he’d discovered “baked sweet potato caramel frappe” at Starbucks and it had changed his life.
I cannot fully express the emotional harm these missives have caused me.
There has got to be a legal remedy to this harassment. For providing the vehicle, Facebook, I would like to hold Zuckerberg, his pockets deep as Crater Lake, liable. (My friend in Japan, a journalist himself, verges on penniless.)
Unfortunately, back in 1996 Congress took such reparations out of my hands. To this, I — we — must hold responsible one short passage in the Communications Decency Act, Section 230. It states that social media and users cannot be sued for “forwarding email, hosting online reviews, or sharing photos or videos that others find objectionable.”
The reasoning is that social media are platforms, not publications. Outrage!
There is hope, however, for people like me who have been harmed. Both major political parties in Congress want to amend Section 230, albeit for different reasons. (The Democrats want to blunt disinformation. The Republicans want it to flow in torrents.)
All I want is my day in court to establish the fact that, as stated, sweet potatoes can’t be eaten. I am my expert witness.
This cannot happen until the law is changed. My quest over the next 40 years, therefore, will be keep writing about this and to change Section 230 to read as follows:
“Social media purveyors and users shall be held liable for forwarding email, hosting online review, or sharing photos or videos that promote any side dish that a duly identified victim shall define as yucky.”
Longtime newspaperman John Young lives in Colorado. Email: jyoungcolumn@gmail.com.
