I whole-heartedly support the proposals for a blogger code of conduct.
Last week, Tim O’Reilly, a conference promoter and book publisher who is credited with coining the term Web 2.0, began working with Jimmy Wales, creator of the communal online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to create a set of guidelines to shape online discussion and debate.
Chief among the recommendations is that bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages and be able to delete threatening or libelous comments without facing cries of censorship.
I don't mind anonymous comments as long as they are civil and try to stick to the topic. I refuse to tolerate commenters who perpetually mischaracterize and lie about my arguments and I have deleted comments because of this. I've also deleted comments that were, literally, three times the length of the original post (the comment was, quite literally a history of marriage in America on a post in support of traditional marriage) and was inappropriate to the post. Other than that, I'm not so thin-skinned that I won't allow criticism of my ideas, as anyone who has read through the comments can see.
What I won't abide by is the sort of idiocy that happened in the comments section of several of my posts at Common Sense Political Thought (see here, here, and here). The gist of the argument was that Jes didn't like my pointing out that lefties were unwilling to consider why the chocolate Jesus statue might be offensive to a certain group of Christians. Instead of discussing that topic (the point of the post), Jes perpetually argued that I was "supporting death threats" and other nonsense. In an attempt to both defend myself and steer the conversation back to the subject of the posts, I wasted enormous time and energy on a useless task.
The problem is that my friend Dana and I disagree about when and if commenters should be banned and under what circumstances comments should be deleted. Dana is a no-holds-barred free speech supporter: as long as the speech doesn't contain direct threats or extreme language (and I've even seen some fairly extreme language get through), he's cool with it. I, too, believe in free speech, but I don't think free speech obligates me to allow anyone to come to my space (whether here at my own blog or on a post at another blog) and malign me repeatedly with impunity.
I think this is the sort of difference of opinion the NYT article discusses. Most of us in the blogosphere believe that the free-wheeling exchange of ideas is a great way to hash out which ideas are worthwhile and which are not. Unfortunately, while most comments one receives are relatively polite, there is a fringe element on blogs that is anything but polite. This is particularly true for female bloggers.
Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly were inspired to act after a firestorm erupted late last month in the insular community of dedicated technology bloggers. In an online shouting match that was widely reported, Kathy Sierra, a high-tech book author from Boulder County, Colo., and a friend of Mr. O’Reilly, reported getting death threats that stemmed in part from a dispute over whether it was acceptable to delete the impolitic comments left by visitors to someone’s personal Web site.
Distraught over the threats and manipulated photos of her that were posted on other critical sites — including one that depicted her head next to a noose — Ms. Sierra canceled a speaking appearance at a trade show and asked the local police for help in finding the source of the threats. She also said that she was considering giving up blogging altogether.
In an interview, she dismissed the argument that cyberbullying is so common that she should overlook it. "I can’t believe how many people are saying to me, ‘Get a life, this is the Internet,’" she said. "If that’s the case, how will we ever recognize a real threat?"
Ms. Sierra said she supported the new efforts to improve civility on the Web. The police investigation into her case is pending.
I've never experienced that level of incivility blogging (at least, not where I bother to read comments after I've left something), but I have been in comment wars where the other party made the sorts of personal attacks (including wishing I were raped) that should be out of bounds.
The proposal for guidelines includes different sets of rules which would be represented by different logos. Pick the set of rules that apply to your blog, display the logo, and commenters know what will and won't be tolerated.
Let's face it, in the real world, we do this sort of "censorship" all the time. We talk one way with family, one way with authority figures, one way to strangers. Each exchange has a different set of expectations and obligations, and if a line is crossed, one of the parties will be sure to say so.
The preliminary recommendations posted by Mr. Wales and Mr. O’Reilly are based in part on a code developed by BlogHer, a network for women designed to give them blogging tools and to guide readers to their pages.
“Any community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later,” said Lisa Stone, who created the guidelines and the BlogHer network in 2006 with Elisa Camahort and Jory Des Jardins.
A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.
As a blogger, I am responsible for what appears on my site and under my name. I hope to provide information in an entertaining and interesting way. But I don't want people turned off because a troll wants to dominate every discussion.
|