Tim O’Reilly has posted a draft code of conduct that bloggers would voluntarily accept and promote. This all stems from the Kathy Sierra/Chris Locke issue from a couple of weeks ago. The New York Times is all over this as well.
I’ve mostly stayed out of this fight, but as it has gone on I’ve been more and more disappointed by what I’ve seen. I feel bad for Kathy Sierra and said as much. But she and others have milked this event for all its worth, and then some. And whenever someone, no matter how much I respect them, tries to tell me what I can and cannot do by defining “civility” around their own ideals, I tense up. It feels like a big angry mob is arming itself to the teeth and looking for targets, and I need to choose whether I’m with them or against them.
I’m not turning off anonymous comments, I’m not going to always try to talk privately with someone before i write, and I’m also not going to allow a mob to decide what types of words constitute “unacceptable content.” And I’m certainly not putting a badge on my site that says whether I comply or not.
The code of conduct and the mass of bloggers lining up behind it scares me a lot more than the hate comments and death threats I’ve received in the past. I won’t support it.
Maybe this means I won’t be invited back to Foo camp this year. Maybe it means the bloggers who think this is a good thing won’t link back to our blogs. Maybe I’ll just get a bunch of hate comments from the civility crowd. But I’m not going to do something just because I’m scared about what will happen if I don’t.
I will point out that Tony Hung’s idea of having a simple statement around a blog’s comments policy (allowing anonymous or not, deleting trolls, etc.) isn’t a bad idea. If a standard emerges around that, I’m willing to take a look. But it can’t be a black or white, you’re with us or against us, kind of thing.
If people don’t stop creating codes of conduct, manifestos, guidelines and cult-like rules, how can we expect blogging to be understood as a mainstream and widely adopted way of expression and communication?
I totally agree for once. Do we want a police state online? This “voluntary code of conduct” reeks of america at its worst. And if we don’t follow it, will we be called “commies”?
How does this differ from trying to civilize people in chatrooms? And is it not equally pointless? If you have a blog, it’s your house; you clean the comments up. What happens on other sites is none of your business unless it’s grounds for a lawsuit; then it’s up to you to take action or leave it be.
Luckily, I view and act on my blogs exactly the same as I view an act on “mainstream” publications I write for: I hold to the standards I’ve learned by working as a journalist. Thus, I don’t really have to adopt a “code of conduct”; I already have one.
I completely agree Mike. I find the whole idea to be somewhat pretentious.
I agree. Individuality is key to blogging; I think it is essential for each person to define their own rules.
We need a quick and simple way, such as microformats, to define policies in a standardised way, instead of trying to standardise the policies themselves.
Andrew, I don’t even know that it _has_ to be defined in a standardized way. It’s not a technical problem, it’s social. You jsut have to say, in some way, your own way, what you won’t allow on the site, and that’s your TOS, making way for taking whatever moderation action you need to take.
the nanny state is coming to a blogosphere near you – rejoice!
not!
Query Mike, is *anyone* lining up behind this code of conduct? I think I was one of the few who even bothered to suggest editing it to make it better! The rest of the blogosphere seems dead set against if you ask me. I’d say it’s dead in the water.
Separate from the Code of Conduct conversation (about which I have my own reservations, as well), do you have any constructive suggestions for how to deal with the consistent presence of anonymous violent threats against bloggers? Or do you think those are okay, just part of the game?
Amen to that!
Anil Dash: false dilemma fallacy.
I’m with you, Mike. Blogging is about free speech. If people want to voluntarily restrict what they write about, that’s their business, but I don’t intend to change what I’ve been doing.
It’s the old backlink trick. Lots of PageRank for all those badges.
How about a Code of Conduct toplist? LOL
I’m not a fan of badges, or of “citizens’ arrests,” which this seems to be. It’s over; it was bad for Kathy. But it’s not the end of the world as we know it, and we should just all get back to work and forget about it. We are never going to stop identity theft, trolls, mental illness,or whatever caused it.
Very well said.
I agree with you in part. Certainly each website operator will decide for him- or herself whether or not to follow these codes. However, I’m primarily upset that this happened so suddenly, so overreactive. Tim et. al. could have approached this problem in a more constructive and deliberate way instead of cramming these rules down our throats. That said, there’s still time to make something good out of this momentum despite the disagreement — if we’re willing to put in the effort.
Values is what people natural have and express. To make them into rules is to turn human values into a mockery.
I’ve read more bloggers who are against the CoC than I have who are for it. I think its basically a huge PR stunt. Bloggers don’t need a code of conduct as its not the bloggers who are responsible for other people’s comments on their blog.
A comments policy may be the way to go, but personally I think even that is one step too far. How about this for a policy “The management reserves the right to delete or publish other’s comments on this blog, according to their whim. No appeals.” (To be brutally honest I’m grateful for any comments that aren’t spam anyway.)
Thank you for speaking publicly about Kathy milking the situation.
I wonder, did she talk privately to her protagonists before flaming them on her blog?
wonder if the Blogging Code Conduct (BCC) has been TM’ed by o’Reilly…If not, must be in the works..
Remember what I continue to say over and over and repeat after me…
Controversy creates cash.
Where is my Easter Bonnet?
While some may see the blogosphere and the behavior of its participants as a new phenomenon, it isn’t difficult to find an appropriate predecessor model. That model is found on the streets of any metropolitan area and it is called traffic and the prevalence of road rudeness…or in its extreme…road rage.
Granted, personal attacks and snark on the internet are not likely to lead to fatalities, but if computers had wheels, it certainly would.
The problem on the highway or the internet isn’t going to be resolved through a badge system. Did anyone attend Easter mass yesterday and witness the value of symbols…no not the crucifix behind the altar or the statue at the entrance; I’m talking about the pretty new Easter outfits…complete with bonnets and bow ties. These are the outfits worn by the same people who also attend Christmas mass every year without fail…and then get into their shiny clean vehicle and race out of the parking lot without ever yielding to the old woman walking to her car that is parked in the back row because she forgot that it was Easter Sunday and foolishly arrived at the same time she does each and every Sunday.
Read more on the relationship between blog civility and Easter Bonnets…here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2007/04/web_civility_and_easter_bonnets.php
There is no doubt that there is an unsavoury element, that has crawled out from under a rock, and found a voice on the internet. These are folks I probably would not meet for coffee. These killjoys enter places stealth without identity and their comments are often self-promoting or aimed at destruction. I do believe everyone who posts and comments should be identified. Only cowards hide. Good journalism is about being responsible and accountable for what you write. Blogs fall short; yet, it is a new form of “journalism”. I think O’Reilly is brave in his attempt to clean up the blogosphere–it has lost much respect from business and casual users alike as a direct result of the vitriol and near absent decency. My point: the other I wanted to read reviews about a megastore opening from the public–the entire string had descended into mocking Pakistani customers’ and their buying habits. Not one of these bloggers had an identity other than some stupid handle. This is not an isolated event. I was embarassed to be human.
The blogsphere is at risk of becoming the underbelly of the internet subsumed by a higher form of collaboration, subscription or private networks. Hence, the end of a truly open world.
I can tell you for sure that big business has little regard for the blogosphere–they see it as a rodent infested community they must fumegate when the nibbling occurs. What O’Reilly is attempting is necessary. Corporate blogging is becoming an oxymoron. Follow Tim’s wisdom and rethink.
FOOTNOTE: See how I hide myself while I insult the many? Or am I a hired gun for Tim O’Reilly. Aye there’s the rub. I’m just gnawing at you.
O by the way Mike I have read a blog referring to you as an “egomaniac” and an “asshole” (this is the first time I have ever typed these words in a blog). If you want the source I have it. Is this the kind of blogging you want to maintain? To enable envy, jealousy and hatred of persons not ideas? This is not democracy when you do not have a chance to rebutt. It is just plain cowardice. I lost respect for the author and never returned. Sorry to be so blatant, but the reality is such. I too have cut-down on blog reading and now restrict my reading to the few. My blog gets up to 600 views on a great day because I am polite and work at my content or comments. I respect my visitors. I moderate too. No one is allowed in of this ilk. O’Reilly is right. Mike it is you, the king of blogging in the Valley, that must get jiggy with “esprit decorum”. Grace needs your support.
Purposefuly [sic] Unidentified; the same type of comments have been made long before the Internet. Books have been burned as a result of language that some in power considered dangerous. If you read some of them now, you’d really have to wonder why. Some Christians, for example, might find the language of more secular comic strips disgraceful, crude or even disparaging to their own personal beliefs. Non-Christians might also be offended by some religious content suggesting that those who don’t attend church services are acting immorally. But to date, the first amendment protects speech which might offend some.
I don’t think that advocates of free speech necessarily want distasteful content around any more than opponents of it. They just fear the consequences of imposed restrictions on our cumulative voices. Besides, who determines what is tasteful and what is not. There is so much gray matter between the two. So much distance between the west, the middle and the east. Should you decide or I…or her for that matter?
All the best
Tom
Amen (Mike, Tom, and others).
The binary nature of this just seems bizarre. “Civility enforced” or “Anything goes”. Huh?
corporatists/libertarians aren’t all bad after all…
p.s. i’ve either been censored or banned from DailyKos (Democrats) and GreenCommons (Greens) for what i considered fairly innocuous comments.
At DailyKos, I put a question to Jimmy Carter asking if he thought it was right to support the terrorist anti-Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, seeing as how it led, at least indirectly, to 9/11.
On GreenCommons I addressed a plagiarising blogger as ‘son’ (e.g. ‘come on now, son’) – you can’t do that, there – it’s ‘patriarchy’.
These sites are profoundly anti-democratic, anti-free speech – and that’s fine as far as those two sites go, they can do whatever they want. But to suggest that all sites on the internets should put on this golden straightjacket, conforming to what some idiot thinks is ‘proper speech’ or ‘not trolling’ or whatever – it’s outrageous. It’s complete mindlessness, lunacy, and/or ego/power-tripping.
It’s brilliant to see what happens when the post-9/11 naysayers are put in charge of their own little power game. Our government used 9/11 to terrorize the world – including us, the citizens of the U.S. – and now these fake-ass bloggers are gonna pull their own power trip.
Good luck, losers.
Tom: you confuse free speech with bullying. Freedom has boundaries in a civilized nation. We cannot harm or even touch anyone without permission. Comparing this to Christian excesses from long ago is an anachronism. Simply, the world I want to live in is kinder more gentle. Let’s get to an event of the last few days–the one where the radio announcer made defaming comments about a group of black college girls in a basket ball game–everyone is taken aback by this. Yet this kind of behavior thrives on the internet–stealth. Marshall McLuhan’s, “the medium is the message”, rings true here.
Perhaps there should be two internets–a decent one and one for subterranean discourse. Or there should be a ratings system. WT: wagging tongue (for unfounded gossip), FL: filthy language H: hateful comments and WOA: won’t offend anyone. You see, too many respond to vitriol and hate as though it were a stream of consciousness of sorts, transparent and honest. Hence the much touted “freedom”. There are laws against defaming and libel–yet these stealth bloggers travel the blogosphere without impunity. This is not about freedom of speech it is about freedom to hate and spread hate. You cannot put lipstick on a pig and say it is beautiful. This too is disingenuous. Machiavelli stated that, “the means justify an end”; many have perished because world leaders espoused this edict. Is unfettered vitriol the only way we can tell ourselves we are free to express? From our formative years, we know what is correct behavior. I think it is important that people like Tim O’Reilly make the distinction, bad behavior vs good behavior on the internet. Otherwise kinder more reputable folk will not partake. I suspect they are dropping out like flies. Ask Tim why he did this? Instead of judging him, ask.
“Freedom has boundaries in a civilized nation.”
But the Internet doesn’t belong to any nation or any particular culture or subculture within any nation. That’s the brilliance of the internet. It is not controlled or branded with anyone’s flag. It’s an international public swimming pool.
Like you, I truly want a peaceful world. For the most part, I am anti-war, anti-hunting, anti-anything that doesn’t contribute to a loving and peaceful world. I was born in the sixties and boarded the love bus a long time ago. But, I am also aware that trying to control speech on the Internet is like trying to control actual voices in the world. Trying to gag 6+ Billion people is not only futile, but dangerous.
Can we define acceptable behavior within an international, multi-cultural environment? Perhaps there are a few things that we might all agree on. You and I might think that killing puppies is one of those. But then, in parts of Korea, puppies are killed and sold as meat product. Kittens are seen as dangerous and also served with a side of rice. So who dictates what is in good taste (pun intended) or not?
Hello Tom: First let me thank you for intelligent polite discourse. It is a pleasure to comment in such an environment. In social psychology or neuropsychology for that matter people wish to belong. This longing is at the root of our behavior. Until the distinction between “acceptable” and not “acceptable” is made there is no value system to belong to. Now, if this attempt launched by Tim gets velocity there will be higher meaning. You are right, you cannot control 6 billion bloggers but they will begin checking themselves against higher values. I will give you an example from my own experience. I posted about a great technology of late and experienced thousands of views and many comments. Among them were many individuals criticizing the technology and the players in anonymity. I called them on it in my comments–both sides acknowledged this and began identifying themselves and the thread continued without this behavior. I had set the tone with the impication that I would moderate and risked losing readers. I lost no one. In fact, I’ll bet the commmenters feel safer and more free to participate–unafraid of an attack at the hands of “freedom of expression”. There is truly a counter point. There is freedom in civility.
Sure we can’t even agree on acceptable behavior in the US, New York, Anytown or Main Street. Don’t ever bring up topics such as abortion, capital punishment or tax reform and expect any sort of consensus, even within a one-square-block radius. Good luck trying to achieve consensus on the Internet. Whose moral, political or ethical compass should we synchronize to?
All the best
Tom
I agree with you Unidentified, in that discussion will always benefit the most when it is is civil, on-topic and respectful of all views. We have all experienced flamers in chat rooms, discussion boards and blogs. It’s counter-productive and disruptive. I simply don’t see any central legislation or controls that will achieve civility without diluting the ultimate value of the Internet as a whole.
Language, for example, is used so differently in many parts of the world. In Ireland, they use certain effigies beautifully, and it is accepted as part of their rich language. Shite, feck and bollocks will cause laughter at times even in a church. In certain parts of the US, similar words would be considered simply foul and nothing but dirty. Part of this has to do with our puritan tradition, the tone of the language, the context and inflection. Unfortunately, it is hard to identify these nuances in written language.
I think that self-moderation is the only approach, where, like yourself, the publisher determines the tone and standards of their own environment. Mow the lawn as you see fit. This will ensure freedom for everyone, and create environments that can be enjoyed by everyone, from all backgrounds. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is an audience, and a large one at that, that enjoys non-civil discourse, extreme views and kinky behavior. Like certainly cable channels, I as the viewer, will simply choose to visit them or not. Likewise, I will choose to moderate that which I consider unfit for my own environment.
Have a wonderful week! C’mon Spring! You can’t hide forever.
All the best
Tom
My code of blogging and commenting conduct is this: Common sense.*
– Mike
(* knowing that common sense is not too common and it varies from person to person)
I really wonder what all the bruhaha is about. Anyone who wants to adopt Tim’s code is free to do so and display the badge. Anyone who does not want to, is free not to. Even free to still display the badge, there’s nothing Tim can do to prevent you. So what’s all the excitement about?
I’m late to this party but I will say I agree. The idea is ridiculous only because high authority blogs (those people actually visit and pay attention to, like this one) tend to generally be wrapped around people who are good at self governing their actions.
I shut out the Kathy Sierra story after the first day because I felt it was overhyped and dramatic. Even I get hate email and all I’m talking about are clothes and shoes.