Blogging Code of Conduct, Redux
Print This Post
More talk in the ’sphere today about this idea (my earlier comments here), and some MSM coverage. I think Tony Hung has the right idea (though at its heart the difference is mostly semantic), but I still don’t think the ’sphere at large sees the bigger picture. Here’s a comment I left chez Tony.
At its heart this issue is about the responsibility we all bear for the communities we create - whether with social media tools, web 1.0 tools - or anything else. If you’re creating a community, at some point you have to ask yourself - what kind of a legacy do you want to leave behind? Do you want to provide a voice for the worst of us? Is that going to be your contribution? Or do you instead choose to accept your responsibility for unleashing it on the members of your community, and the world at large? Are you the kind of person who takes responsibility for your actions and makes constructive things happen? Or do you prefer to step back, let the community develop as it will, and take shelter behind notions like “freedom of speech” or “natural development of the community”? (My guess is that almost all of us would not allow these whack-jobs to come to our homes and scream at our guests - for the life of me I can’t understand why anyone would characterize this issue as one of freedom of speech just because it happens on the Web.)
Finally, if you’re a one X and one Y chromosome type of person, you have to ask yourself - are you as aware as you could be of the impact that sexualized vitriol has on your 2X chromosome friends? (Hint: if you spend a lot of time watching slasher movies or playing first-person shooters, chances are you aren’t). If not, stop indulging yourself in the fantasy that you have all of the context you need in understanding this issue - your standards for community are probably not aligned with what would welcome a good chunk of the population.
There is simply no good reason why the evolving culture of the Web should be a welcoming environment for the kind of cruelty we’ve seen in the Sierra case. And the answer to this problem is the personal responsibility we all bear for the communities we create.
Oh, and whatever one thinks of whether or not Tim O’Reilly has the right idea - he’s actually doing something, and not just sitting on his keester criticizing others, like the rest of us. Which is pretty darned impressive, as far as I’m concerned, whether or not you agree with the approach. That he’s wiki-fying the code is a great idea; this issue is beginning to feel like a Techmeme pile-on and it’s the right time to focus the effort on actual productivity rather than a lot of chatter. Scoble’s a bit worried about O’Reilly using his name to pressure folks to go along. I don’t really see it that way, but then again the chances of either of us ever having anything to do with the other are tending pretty close to zero. This strikes me as a case of damned if does and damned if he doesn’t, actually. And it’s (much) better if he does.
This is the Trackback URI
/images/rss.jpg)
Time for me to be the first dissenter! I think the whole concept of an unenforceable “code of conduct” for blogs is ludicrous.
Illegal behaviour is illegal behaviour with or without such an e-document.
Someone commented on O’Reilly’s that anonymity is not guaranteed with the use of I.P. logging, so what is the problem with people posting anonymous response? My blog software allows me to block I.P.’s.
Personally, I feel common sense should prevail. When it doesn’t then e-head-busting comes into effect.
It is indeed a freedom of speech issue. The LAW of the land, both yours and mine sets out quite coherently what is legal and not legal when one is posting or commenting. Why not just state, as I do in my “legal crap” page that illegal activity will not be tolerated and leave it at that.
Okay… Nuff said. I will blog about this later in the week. Unfortunately trucking is my living not blogging :-).
John, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech or the law, unless you agree that I can come into your home and say what I want. Anyone who has something vile and violent, or illegal, or legal and just plain despicable to say can say it on their own blog. I’m not denying them the freedom to speak by telling them they can’t say it on mine.
The law deals with specific speech issues like hate, threats and libel. There is no reason why anyone should feel obliged to permit anything that is not merely illegal to be said in their own community, any more than they should feel obliged to allow it to be said in their own home.
When you blog it, feel free to come back and post a link to your post.
But I do agree with you that the issue is dealt with just fine by folks having their own rules about what’s allowed and what’s not, and sticking with it. That’s Tony’s point, and it’s a fine one. We’re all responsible for what we do.
Rob…I think you’re missing an important point: that with O’Reilly throwing down this particular gauntlet, he’s essentially saying “are you with us or are you against us” to a whole lot of bloggers out there. There may, indeed, be consequences to disagreeing with O’Reilly (which even Scoble noted.)
But why is O’Reilly doing this now? It’s been an issue for awhile, with many women being run out of the blogosphere by bullies. Is he doing this now only because it has touched someone he cares about?
Does that then mean that the rest of the women in the blogosphere are nothing?
Codes like this also won’t stop death-threats nor harassing email.
Ultimately, the code, if adopted and carried out, may create another level of us/them out here. I don’t see it helping anything.
Thanks for the comment, Tish. I don’t buy the gauntlet thing, as I noted in my post (so I didn’t miss the point - I actually specifically mentioned it, if you’ll reread). I’m sure O’Reilly is a great guy but I couldn’t really care less what he thinks about people who don’t agree with him, and judging from the venting in the ’sphere on this today, many others agree and it’s only Scoble who’s knees are knocking.
As to why he’s doing it now, I don’t think it’s particularly fair, or even reasonable, to suggest that because he hasn’t been on the front lines of this issue since birth (exaggeration to make a point, obviously) he can’t be taken seriously about it now. People change; their opinions change; they learn to see things differently. Really, who cares - if one wanted to get something like this done he would be a good ally to have, and I don’t see any reason to question his motives.
Gun control won’t stop gun killings. Laws against murder won’t stop murder. Parking tickets won’t stop parking violations. It’s not news to say that this won’t stop death threats or harassing email. It’s plausible that it might force the whackjobs further into their own dark corners, though. That wouldn’t be a bad thing. And the culture of the Web is at a very early stage. Getting visible public support behind the idea that whackjobs aren’t welcome to attack others on the Web is in itself not a bad thing, IMO.
And as to your last point re us/ them, I don’t really know what you mean. If the us is the good guys and the them is the whackjobs, us / them is not a bad thing, IMO. If it’s between those who have a code of conduct and those who don’t, that’s not a biggie either, IMO. Not everyone has to donate to or support Greenpeace or the Republicans or the Red Cross in order for them to get something going. And I’ve never personally understood the attitude that one shouldn’t try just because something might be difficult or ultimately not completely successful.
Well, Rob, when it comes to the us/them thing, I guess you’ve missed some of the conversations that have gone one in the blogsphere for some time now, not to mention the struggles that various ’spheres out here are having with integrating interaction within their respective professions (such as marketing and journalism)
Further, questioning his motives is a very good thing. When someone of his stature within the blogosphere all of a sudden decides to start wanting to police communities beyond his own boundaries, believe me, there will be plenty who are listening….
And they may be listening in part because they do not want to be responsible for creating their own rules. It’s far easier to let someone else do it–to rely on some rule of law–rather than remember that we create and maintain our own spaces out here. (for the record, I consider both of my blogs my own little barrooms in the blogosphere–and reserve the right to throw out whomever crosses the line.)
oh, and you may not have heard that all bloggers are created equal, but some Bloggers are more equal than others….
think about it in relation to who you might read regularly….
I didn’t mean I don’t understand the us / them issue - I meant that I didn’t know which us / them you were referring to, Tish.
O’Reilly isn’t asking to police communities - he’s suggesting that people police their own. “All of a sudden”? See my last.
I just don’t think I’m as suspicious of others motives as you are. Ultimately I can make up my own mind, and am confident enough in my own choices to not really care what others think of them. And I expect others to be able to do the same. I personally don’t think it makes sense to look at O’Reilly’s work on this in any other context.
Hey Rob:
It took me a while but I put my money where my mouth is…..
John - I’ll say - it’s a great post, btw.