I suppose I might have jumped the F-word (fascist) a bit early on this one--however i do still stand behind my argument that this is not a good idea and should be opposed by people interested in preserving freedom online. I think this quote from Robert Scoble says alot: "I do find disquieting the social pressure to get on board with this program. Tim O'Reilly is a guy who really can affect one's career online (and off, too). I do have to admit that I feel some pressure just to get on board here and that makes me feel very uneasy."
Lets keep in mind that this "code" is not coming from individual media makers who are expressing their individual ethics on their own sites. It's coming from a very influential man, who wants bloggers to conform to a set of rules that he has created. As more and more bloggers (and vloggers) begin to earn a living from their efforts I can see a time when advertisers will refuse to pay bloggers who do not have a mock sheriff badge on their site. It's not worth the risk to them. This will render the web as useless as traditional media. As I said earlier, we already have all the laws in place that we need to take care of these issues. Using the threats that were made to Kathy Sierra as a pretense feels very wrong to me. It's like the government demanding all of our search records from Google to find kiddy porn, or tapping our phones to fight terrorism, or unconstitutionally searching your bag in the subway. It's a slippery slope to introduce draconian codes into the last bastion of unfiltered information that we have, no matter how subtle or seemingly reasonable they may seem on the surface. I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up best: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Fight the power! website: http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com twitter: http://twitter.com/nobloggerscode --- In [email protected], Josh Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Someone please explain this to me, I am very confused about this debate. > > Let's look at it this way, if I as a media maker decide to make a page > detailing my own code of ethic and an attached wiki to further refine > and develop my own ethics through a public conversation is this in any > way fascist? I don't feel it is, but if you do, please explain. > > Now, what if others elected to adopt my own code for their sites? What > if other codes began to develop and some chose to adopt those and others > remained unaffiliated. If this develops organically and without any > outside or heavily weighted influence is put on taking part in any > particular school of thought then such a development would actually > serve to enhance the visitors experience and abilities to discern how > much weight to give any particular report. > > Any real concerns about this being a fascist development seem to me to > revolve around whether some group or company attempts to dictate their > values schema on the larger mass of bloggers. At which point, I would > tend to agree with your thesis that this is an assault on our first > amendment freedoms. Perhaps this is already the case; I've been out of > the loop for a while and am coming into this conversation without much > recent background information. > > Josh > > mattfeldman78 wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I have taken the LIBERTY to create a wiki for those who oppose > > draconian measures on the internet. Please help to build this up if > > you feel that this is important! > > > > site: http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com <http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com> > > password: "knowfascism" > > > > --- In [email protected] > > <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, WWWhatsup <joly@> wrote: > > > > > > http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html > > <http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html> > > > > > > 04.08.07 > > > Tim O'Reilly > > > > > > Tim O'Reilly > > > Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct > > > > > > When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I > > suggested some ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't > > actually put forth a draft that people could subscribe to. We're not > > quite there yet, but we have a plan. > > > > > > We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted on > > bloggingcode.org, and created a badge that sites can display if they > > want to link to that code of conduct. Civility Enforced Badge > > > > > > But because we want a period of review, we don't want to finalize > > that code yet. I've put a draft below (and you'll see it's based > > closely on the BlogHer Community Guidelines that I linked to last > > week.) But we're also working with wikia to put the draft through a > > wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com. (There's an easy to > > remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC > > <http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC>) Please > > feel free to join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging others > > to do so. We'll post the final version on bloggingcode.org, along with > > the html to display the badge and link to the code. > > > > > > (While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want it to > > be a moving target once people have signed up for it.) > > > > > > Here's the first draft: > > > > > > We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open > > conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We > > present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a > > culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive > > conversation. > > > > > > 1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments > > we allow on our blog. > > > > > > We are committed to the "Civility Enforced" standard: we will not > > post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it. > > > > > > We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to > > that: > > > - is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others > > > - is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents > > another person, > > > - infringes upon a copyright or trademark > > > - violates an obligation of confidentiality > > > - violates the privacy of others > > > > > > We define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a > > case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list. > > If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We > > reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.] > > > > > > 2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person. > > > > > > 3. We connect privately before we respond publicly. > > > > > > When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the > > blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to > > the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before > > we publish any posts or comments about the issue. > > > > > > 4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take > > action. > > > > > > When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are > > offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) and > > ask them to publicly make amends. > > > If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and > > the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will cooperate > > with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat. > > > > > > 5. We do not allow anonymous comments. > > > > > > We require commenters to supply a valid email address before they > > can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves with an > > alias, rather than their real name. > > > > > > 6. We ignore the trolls. > > > > > > We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our blog, > > as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that > > feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a pig. > > You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public attacks is > > often the best way to contain them. > > > > > > anythinggoes2.jpg We also decided we needed an "anything goes" badge > > for sites that want to warn possible commenters that they are entering > > a free-for-all zone. The text to accompany that badge might go > > something like this: > > > > > > This is an open, uncensored forum. We are not responsible for the > > comments of any poster, and when discussions get heated, crude > > language, insults and other "off color" comments may be encountered. > > Participate in this site at your own risk. > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > WWWhatsup NYC > > > http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com> - http://punkcast.com > > <http://punkcast.com> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > >
