Blogger Code of Conduct
April 10th 2007 02:32
There's an angry wind in the blagosphere, with trolls and anonymous perverts getting up in arms about a draft of a Blogger's Code of Conduct.
A collaboration between Tim O'Reilly, the guy that made up 'Web 2.0' and Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, the Blogger Code of Conduct is said to replace freedom with politeness, according to BoingBoing.
It's not a bad idea, as the Internet is like the Star Wars Outer Rim spaceport of Mos Eisley, a wretched hive of scum and villainy' which is why it's oh-so-good and incredibly nasty.
The new Code of Conduct aims to take the fun out of the Internet, and replace it with your momma's brand of Internet. 'Wash your hands before dinner, dear, or no strawberry shortcake!'
I'm definitely in support of bloggers acting civilly, and the existence of trolls is perplexing to me. I guess anonymity is an easy way to release the frustrations of your real life.
Foremost on the Code is the hard nose policy of blog owners, banning anonymous comments and deleting without question those that are threatening or antagonistic.
I don't mind the censorship - I've seen blogs get out of control with flaming and childish insults. It becomes an unsavoury environment for both readers and the moderator. I despise the idea of banning anonymous comments, though. I don't like having my email address registered with a site, and it irritates me to no end when I have to 'Sign up!' to post a comment. No comment for you. And I was going to say something that was terribly insightful, too.
This article in the New York Times points out that a lot of women support the Code of Conduct, as they are often the target of abuse, and are very rarely the source.
It's not easy to come to a consensus on this issue, though... ideally, people would just act like decent human beings without any pressure, but forcing people? It's a little like Senator Palpatine taking emergency control of the Senate to create a Grand Army of the Republic.
Ah, Star Wars teaches us so many important lessons.
What I propose is that we set a probationary period. Go for another two years as is, then O'Reilly and Wales can decide if the internet has gone too far to the Dark Side.
If, after two years, things have decayed beyond repair, I suggest they set fire to the Internet. That's right, pour gasoline on the root servers, light them up.
I know, I know, the Internet is a 'self-healing network'.
That's why we'll take a page out of Eric Drexler's book, and invent some grey goo that eats optical fiber - let the goo gorge on the Transatlantic submarine links and sever the worldwide web.
Imagine how far we'll have to regress. No more internet banking. You'll have to call people. Perverts will have to go in person to the adult bookstore. Trolls will have to insult people in the secure prison of their mind.
Is it a good idea? I dunno, but with a Great Purge comes rebirth.
*image is from this page
A collaboration between Tim O'Reilly, the guy that made up 'Web 2.0' and Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, the Blogger Code of Conduct is said to replace freedom with politeness, according to BoingBoing.
It's not a bad idea, as the Internet is like the Star Wars Outer Rim spaceport of Mos Eisley, a wretched hive of scum and villainy' which is why it's oh-so-good and incredibly nasty.
The new Code of Conduct aims to take the fun out of the Internet, and replace it with your momma's brand of Internet. 'Wash your hands before dinner, dear, or no strawberry shortcake!'
I'm definitely in support of bloggers acting civilly, and the existence of trolls is perplexing to me. I guess anonymity is an easy way to release the frustrations of your real life.
Foremost on the Code is the hard nose policy of blog owners, banning anonymous comments and deleting without question those that are threatening or antagonistic.
I don't mind the censorship - I've seen blogs get out of control with flaming and childish insults. It becomes an unsavoury environment for both readers and the moderator. I despise the idea of banning anonymous comments, though. I don't like having my email address registered with a site, and it irritates me to no end when I have to 'Sign up!' to post a comment. No comment for you. And I was going to say something that was terribly insightful, too.
This article in the New York Times points out that a lot of women support the Code of Conduct, as they are often the target of abuse, and are very rarely the source.
It's not easy to come to a consensus on this issue, though... ideally, people would just act like decent human beings without any pressure, but forcing people? It's a little like Senator Palpatine taking emergency control of the Senate to create a Grand Army of the Republic.
Ah, Star Wars teaches us so many important lessons.
What I propose is that we set a probationary period. Go for another two years as is, then O'Reilly and Wales can decide if the internet has gone too far to the Dark Side.
If, after two years, things have decayed beyond repair, I suggest they set fire to the Internet. That's right, pour gasoline on the root servers, light them up.
I know, I know, the Internet is a 'self-healing network'.
That's why we'll take a page out of Eric Drexler's book, and invent some grey goo that eats optical fiber - let the goo gorge on the Transatlantic submarine links and sever the worldwide web.
Imagine how far we'll have to regress. No more internet banking. You'll have to call people. Perverts will have to go in person to the adult bookstore. Trolls will have to insult people in the secure prison of their mind.
Is it a good idea? I dunno, but with a Great Purge comes rebirth.
*image is from this page
| 85 |
| Vote |


















Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
This whole ethics thing is bull, as is open ID, put simply, trying to control peoples morals via rules is like trying to make a fox guard a chicken coup by feeding it all the chickens it could ever want, hence not have the desire to eat the chickens its supposed to protect.
In fact I should write about that, which I will, later... today.
Comment by Anonymous
YES! IF YOU SAID "BRENTON," YOU WIN THE PRIZE!"
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
anon, anonymity has its good points, for sure...
Comment by Nina
Comment by David
I'd love to comment on this one.
Anonymous David ...
Comment by DuskDevi
Rugby World Cup 2007
May The Force majeure Be With You...
...hello?
I knew Borders was borderline.
I know we have the Ban Anonymous feature but that's boring...besides...what I've come to realize, is that we are all anonymous.
To an extent.
I mean, come on...what's the difference between getting abused and harassed by a blog tag pic with a blog tag (sorry...I'm not au fait with the correct terminology) and an anonymous comment?
I do envy the 'freedom' of such people...this power they have...akin to custom officers and parking meter wardens.
The Net, as wonderful as it is in that it's provided a level playing field has also given voice and power to repressed anger and bitterness. Makes me shudder to think what these peopple are like in the 'real' world.
This is the only blogging community I 'belong' to so I don't really know what's out there but I do agree with this;
I don't think anonymous comments should be banned...that's very 'Gattaca'...but...I am stunned at the way anonymity is used.
More Sith than Jedi....