Blogging Code of Conduct: Censorship or Civility?
I happened upon a New York Times article from back in April about a proposition to develop a blogger code of conduct. This idea is being developed by techno-moguls Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales due to recent outrage over 'blogger antagonism.' The article talks about topics we discussed during our last class, including ideas brought up in the news segment we watched about the evils of 'liberal bloggers.' I think the article also addresses the question brought up about the supposed 'echo effect' that is achieved when people only read blogs that fit into their agenda. With a blogging code of conduct as described in the article, it it may become unallowable to post anonymous comments on blogs. Well this may seem like it would decrease the level of democracy blogging achieves by allowing everyone to take responsibility for their words (and therefore censoring them), the problem of belligerent activity that occurs is a real one, and in some cases it destroys lives. More than one person cited in the article received death threats because of their blog content and opinions. They also felt physically unsafe in the world outside of their virtual free speech haven. Is that really free speech, then?
On the plus side, whatever set of rules for blogging does emerge, it will have been put together by the people to whom it matters most: the bloggers themselves. Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, is being true to his nature by taking comments and suggestions on the proposed code of conduct. Also, the whole concept would only be enacted by the blog community itself--no third party outside of the internet would impose these rules. In my opinion, this idea is generally a good start to some kind of agreed upon civility between blogging peers, but is highly unlikely to take off. The only other solution to maintain law and order online is a stronger policy that is consistent among all blogging communities and consistently enforced. This may indeed mean bringing in a third party, like the government, to install some sort of internet police with reaches beyond illegal pornography and black market activity. I personally wouldn't know how I'd feel about something like that until it was actually infringing on what I felt were my rights.
The question becomes, What is the lesser of two evils?: censoring the seemingly democratic blogosphere that has provided an outlet for nearly every agenda and thus created exciting and important dialogue, or letting people be bullied by those who feel as though the virtual world protects them from taking responsibility for their behavior (which in some cases, would be punishable by law if it occurred in the real world)?
I am interested to see how many people would be for or against a 'blogger code of conduct.'
- Erin O.
On the plus side, whatever set of rules for blogging does emerge, it will have been put together by the people to whom it matters most: the bloggers themselves. Jimmy Wales, the creator of Wikipedia, is being true to his nature by taking comments and suggestions on the proposed code of conduct. Also, the whole concept would only be enacted by the blog community itself--no third party outside of the internet would impose these rules. In my opinion, this idea is generally a good start to some kind of agreed upon civility between blogging peers, but is highly unlikely to take off. The only other solution to maintain law and order online is a stronger policy that is consistent among all blogging communities and consistently enforced. This may indeed mean bringing in a third party, like the government, to install some sort of internet police with reaches beyond illegal pornography and black market activity. I personally wouldn't know how I'd feel about something like that until it was actually infringing on what I felt were my rights.
The question becomes, What is the lesser of two evils?: censoring the seemingly democratic blogosphere that has provided an outlet for nearly every agenda and thus created exciting and important dialogue, or letting people be bullied by those who feel as though the virtual world protects them from taking responsibility for their behavior (which in some cases, would be punishable by law if it occurred in the real world)?
I am interested to see how many people would be for or against a 'blogger code of conduct.'
- Erin O.
posted by Erin at 9:31 PM
1 Comments:
Great link - thanks, Erin. I think the code of conduct is pretty sensible.
Anonymity may be liberating in some contexts but it can also be used as a shield for indefensible behaviour (because you'll never have to defend it!).
I think the problem lies in how how bloggers interpret the fine line between abusive and destructive comments on the one hand, and spirited adversarialism (which can enliven debate) on the other.
Clearly when people start making remarks that are personal in a blog about politics, then they have crossed the line. But what about a blog which is focused on the blogger's life - any comments are, by definition, going to be personal, right? So how do you distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable?
My point is not that the guidelines are worthless - far from it. My point is simply that guidelines are just a broad starting point and the job of implementing them (or trying to approximate the ideals they embody) will be an ongoing issue in the day-to-day practices of the bloggers.
Post a Comment
<< Home