but the internet is not "unfilted" now, and I am not saying that I think a "code of conduct badge" is the right answer and yes it can very much be a slippery slope, this whole thing reminds me a lot of the creation of the "comic code authority" for comics back in the 50's I won't go into great detail here but it's a fasinating story and the parrells are very interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code Heath http://batmangeek.com --- In [email protected], "mattfeldman78" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 <inthecity@> 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> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > >
