“Blogger’s Code of Conduct” Well Intentioned… And Lame-zor
On March 31st, in reaction to the Kathy Sierra incident (a strange and somewhat involved story that basically led to Kathy getting harassed by a number of web hooligans), Tim O’Reilly put out a Call for a Blogger’s Code of Conduct. The code includes the notion that bloggers should take responsibility for their words and actions, recognize that the online world has repercussions in the “real” one, that bloggers need to be strong in ignoring abusive comments and “trolls,” and that all should take action against harassers (”if you know someone is behaving badly, tell them so”).
I think it’s great and appropriate to discuss better blogging behavior and practical strategies for dealing with the nogoodniks who will show up at every site from to time. However, bringing some formality to a “code” and having people sign on or ratify it (as Tim then called for on April 8th), followed by posting badges on websites adorned with the words “civility enforced” is well intentioned, but… well, it’s kind of lame-zor. Further, the code calls for turning off anonymous commenting, which I would argue is a fundamental right and privilege of every blogger to decide on his or her own.
While it’s fun and in some ways accurate to think of the blogosphere as a wild west frontier of the online world, we don’t need sheriffs rolling into town with silver digital badges. Good conduct, after all, is mostly common sense. And just as an enormous purple octopus banging away on an eight-piece drum set under a banner of Online Media Cultist is the best-est blog in the whole dang world! wouldn’t make it the case (though it is), a code is only as good as the intentions and actions behind it.
I seem not to be alone in this general assessment:
Mathew Ingram: “I think codes of conduct should be a personal matter, rather than a quasi-legislated thing.”
Mike Arrington: “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.”
Tony Hung: “Bloggers don’t need a code of conduct, because it isn’t the content of blogs that are in the question. What’s being called into question is the cowardly personal attacks that are sent by email, and left in the comments sections of blogs.”
Robert Scoble: “I do find disquieting the social pressure to get on board with this program.”
Andy Beal: “…any attempts to define or restrict blogging, will ultimately suck the life out of it, and kill much of the momentum we have going on.”
Okay, I’m driven to write it: we don’t need no steenking badges.
Forgive me.
Recent Entries
- Online Media Cultist honored by The Industry Standard
- Grand Theft Auto IV – Xbox 360 / Playstation 3 side-by-side review
- There’s a lot going on with the Interwebs, and that’s a good thing
- The rambling shambling social networking funhouse that is MySpace
- Are social news sites like Digg useful anymore?
- Could Google Friend Connect be a MySpace killer?
- How will Twitter ever make money?
- Google Earth comes to life-like
- Grand Theft Auto IV goes very very old school
- Gadgets threaten the Internet’s future? Ridiculous
April 9th, 2007 at 11:40 am
The point you make about sherrifs might be a turn off to people thinking about blogging for the first time. We really should be encouraging anybody to start a blog and make it easier for them.
April 9th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Yeah, I think the call for a formalized code does permit the danger of elitism i.e. only the “real” and high-minded and righteous sites have the badge. I think that’s why you see such nervous-sounding comments from the likes of Scoble and Arrington.
April 9th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
[…] Eric Berlin says it’s “Lame-zor”. […]
April 9th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
One of the librarian bloggers that I read regularly has a well thought-out essay on what men can do to stop the bullying and misogyny in geekland.
http://cavlec.yarinareth.net/archives/2007/03/30/what-some-folks-can-do-if-they-choose/
April 10th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Anna, I wanted to wait until I had time to digest the content of the link you posted to respond. Yes, I agree that everyone — and particularly the men of “geekland” fairly accurately depicted in the piece — can take a role in creating a more humane and perhaps even safer environment online.
Tony Hung is right in saying that the debate really circles back to setting and enforcing a comments policy. But I agree that each individual also has a responsibility, as good net citizens, to do their part.
April 10th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Eric:
Thanks for a great read; I’d somehow remained unaware of this whole brouhaha til I read your piece here and some of the links you kindly provided.
Lame…yes, definitely. Well-intentioned…yes and no.
My feeling, in a nutshell, is that as soon as a blogger sets out to share their material with the world (or “publish” it, just as a paper of magazine might), their “baby” has been instantaneously launched into the sometimes cruel world where folks will sometimes be unkind.
Human nature being what it is, there will always be some percentage of sociopaths preying upon others, and cyberspace can be their ideal vehicle for some of the same reasons it appeals to all who utilize it for “good” or “bad.” .
I agree that anonymous commenting is an essential component of online discourse. Some bloggers (myself included) choose not to reveal their real name online. Reasons for this can vary, but one of the infinite choices open to bloggers is not only to “publish” quickly and easily, but to maintain a modicum of privacy. To me, this can make a great deal of sense, especially since when one chooses to post one’s real name, photos of one’s family, children, neighborhood, etc., one can open oneself up to some very real dangers to life, limb, and property.
Bloggers, especially those of some repute, are public figures in the same sense that any newscaster, writer, or celeb is. This leaves the individual very vulnerable, since the media, mainstream or not, tend to pick apart polticians, movie stars, and other celebs in a merciless fashion unknown in “kinder, gentler” times. Back in the day, the public was kept unaware that FDR was wheelchair bound or that JFK was an alleged womanizer. Now, of course, there is no “gentlemen’s agreement” of the press, nor any “right to privacy” in the traditional sense, especially in this brave new digital age..
Thus, IMO, the blogger leaves him/herself open to the same type of scrutiny, criticism, harassment, and even stalking or death threats which plague virtually any other public figure. Unfortunately, there are bad people out there, and this just comes with the territory.Furthermore, if being obnoxious or rude or uncivil were a crime, our streets would be a lot emptier and our jails a lot fuller than they are even now.
For the same reason, I think anonymous comments are valid. Some people may lose their jobs if their views or experiences are made known, for example. Not every anonymous commenter has nefarious intentions, and anonymity, as others have noted, is part and parcel of freedom of speech, even when it is distasteful. If the KKK have the right to march through a town under cover of their hoods, this same anonymous freedom of speech applies to anonymous bloggers and commenters as well, for better and worse.
Everyone has their own threshold for criticism and their own definition of what is uncivil. This is why the first amendment is so precious–because without it, anything that offended anyone could be banned, and it would be a very bland and boring cyberworld indeed.
I think an individual blogger has a perfect right to set up his or her own rules within the confines of their own blog/universe, but to try to codify this to me smacks of “moral” bullying at best and totalitarianism at worst. The fact that blogging is so easy to initiate does not exempt one from the slings and arrows of outrageous trolls, and it would seems wise for those entering any public arena or creative endeavor to be aware of the very real value of developing a thick, calloused skin. Women, IMO, are no more or less vulnerable than anyone else who puts themselves “out there,” for trolls are an equal opportunity offender, who take particular delight in tormenting those who can’t easily handle it. .
Thanks again, Eric, for a thought provoking piece!.
April 11th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Very well said Elvira, and thanks!
A “standardized” code is just not going to work from site-to-site, as you say. A golfing site will likely have different standards from a horror film site, for instance.
And you’re right in saying that anonymous comments offer both the lowest resistance to taking part in the conversation (an essential component of blogging: posts are just the start of an ongoing dialogue) and a versatile tool to allow people to interact with the author and other commenters at a level with which they are comfortable.
June 20th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Kogda nastanut holoda i belaja doroga ljazhe. Csenge Victoire.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Youre really losing i. Ece Anastasie.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:19 am
I try to explain but you just dont understan. Luukas Bride.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Sorry Luukas, just not getting it, what can I say?
July 22nd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Back in the U.S.S.R Hilaire Shichiro.
October 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
our way to beautiful gir. Andreas Tennyson.