I know what my problem is. It's that there isn't anybody, or any group of people, that I really "hate." (Well, other than terrorists trying to kill me, the people I love, and other innocent people for absolutely insane reasons.) There are groups so clueless that I feel sorry for them, and other groups whose aims are so counter to what I believe that I despise those aims, and hope they fail, (like Yankee fans, for example - kidding!) but that's as close as I can get to "hate." I'd have never been able to generate the required face redness and raise my voice and blood pressure properly toward Emmanuel Goldstein, for example, during the Two Minutes of Hate in Orwell's 1984.
So I've kept my little underexposed corner of the blogosphere civil, kind of the way I'd hope that political and current affairs discussions should be between people who respect each other. I've had a few trolls leave comments that didn't belong or were unnecessarily contentions or vile, and I've deleted them. I've had to ban a couple, but nothing too severe. If, after reading my posts you don't know what's expected of you then "Don't come around here no more."
As I lamented yesterday civility, unfortunately, seems to be going out of style rapidly. And now a couple of guys have decided that what we really need is a blogosphere code of ethics. These gents have come up with a plan to enforce civility in the blogosphere, and you too can have a badge to mark your level of honor. The New York Times discusses their proposal.
Mr. O’Reilly and Mr. Wales talk about creating several sets of guidelines for conduct and seals of approval represented by logos. For example, anonymous writing might be acceptable in one set; in another, it would be discouraged. Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.
Bloggers could then pick a set of principles and post the corresponding badge on their page, to indicate to readers what kind of behavior and dialogue they will engage in and tolerate. The whole system would be voluntary, relying on the community to police itself.
“If it’s a carefully constructed set of principles, it could carry a lot of weight even if not everyone agrees,” Mr. Wales said.
[...]
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.
But the question has to be asked, where do these guys get off thinking that they should be able to impose a code of conduct on the internet? And whether it's "acceptable" to delete comments? It's my blog, I paid for it, I'll delete them if I want. Big Brother, indeed. FIAR at Radioactive Liberty addressed this "plan" soundly, and in a less polite way than I would - but that's his right.
how do you make a moron understand that freedom of speech means they have a right to a forum, but not that they have a right to my forum? They’re already too stupid to grasp the notion that I have every right to scoop up the dog s**t they leave on my lawn. How is a “Code of ethics” going to stop their light speed, full throttle stupidity?
[...]
The Brad Stone article goes on to describe several bloggers who have been on the receiving end of death threats and other sorts of illegal activities. An attempt is made to deliberately conflate illegal activity with undesirable behavior. This is a common tactic of Socialists.
It reminds me of the Leftist Sow that wanted to outlaw spanking, and kept saying how wrong it is to beat an infant, as if spanking an unruly child, and violently beating a newborn baby are in any way similar. Socialist Swine always take an already illegal activity, and equate it with a legal but undesirable one. It’s an underhanded tactic to get reasonable people to agree that something must be done, but it isn’t the criminal behavior that’s the target.
At The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is another splendid response. I can't do justice to this eviscerating fisking, you'll have to check it out yourself. Both FIAR and Emperor Misha at those two sites pick out the following for particular ridicule.
Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”
"Managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech?" Daniel Henniger in the Wall Street Journal today tries to put some lipstick on it.
The censorship claim is often made by political Web players who want to be "free" to use whatever means will achieve the end of driving their opponents over the cliff. Consider the Congressional Black Caucus. Its affiliation with Fox News to conduct presidential debates was fire-bombed recently on "progressive" Web sites. Example: "Guess it takes a whole lot of grease to fry CBC's chicken." Scared, the three major Democratic presidential candidates pulled out. Censorship? Try doublespeak. The strategy of deploying charged and hyper-aggressive language is now evident: First intimidate one's targets, then coerce them--into conformity or silence. And do it always under the banner of free speech and democracy.
I don't think those candidates were scared, other than being scared of losing support from the vaunted "Netroots." Still, rather than enforce a code of conduct, why don't we just require all bloggers read this book, and this one, before being allowed to run a blog. Come to think of it, there are quite a few others who might find the information useful.
Giacamo...There really are alot of weirdos out in blogland. It is almost as if they come out of nowhere & start attacking. WILLisms.com as you probably already know won't tolerate them for too long. IF their language is vulgar they are out. His grandmother reads it and he doesn't want her to be offended. Joust The Facts has a really great feel. IF you ask me? Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Zsa Zsa | Apr 15, 2007 at 05:21 PM
Civility will keep your traffic down but your integrity up.
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot | Apr 15, 2007 at 06:06 PM
I don't necessarily think that Civility will keep the traffic down.
In fact, I think that there are a whole lot of people who would prefer a civil discussion with someone who sees things differently than they do, than a non civil discussion even when agreeing with those being less than civil.
However, we have choice.
And if someone wants to come up with a code of ethics, which is voluntary, and some bloggers want to use this guide to manage their blog, and indicate they do so, than such is their choice.
Then the readers get to choose who they read. Some may choose based on this compliance.
I expect some level of disagreement in political forums, and even understand why emotion can lead to some being less than civil at times. However I have seen a lot of pointless negative remarks (and Fiar is somewhat guilty of this, but as soon as one starts to understand where he is coming from it becomes more entertaining than offensive).
There is also a point at which a lack of civility can lead to a lack of credibility.
The least civil behavior I have seen, in cyberspace, has not been in any political forum, but rather a specific semi-technical forum. Or maybe it is not that it was that much less civil, but it was not a subject for which I had expected to see people be so meanly critical of others.
If I were to post comments to this blog, and use a different user name, would that be less than ethical?
If my multiple users interacted in certain ways, it would fall under the sock puppet category.
But would it be less than ethical even if the two users never interacted (such as backing up or disagreeing with each other's views)?
Is there really such a thing as a Troll in a forum which discusses controversial subject matter?
Posted by: Eileen | Apr 15, 2007 at 06:40 PM
From a civil, die-hard Yankee fan:
Whatever it might do to traffic, civility is always better. I'd rather lose a civil debate than win an uncivil one. If you can't make your point in a civil manner, then you can't make your point. Someone who resorts to rudeness and vulgarity is either a nasty person by nature, or is advancing an erroneous argument. Either way it's not someone I enjoy dealing with. Building on Eileen's remark, when someone crosses to a lack of civility, they lose credibility, period - at least with me.
Civil discourse is always far more interesting and intellectually stimulating - I prefer to visit a blog with civil, reasoned posts and comments than one that constantly resorts to passion pleas, personal attacks, and vulgarity. That's not to say I don't enjoy a healthy dose of sarcasm, though. Instead of lamenting the lack of ethics in some blogs, I'd prefer to celebrate the many wonderful blogs which maintain civility, provide original and reasoned viewpoints, and stimulate the mind. One of the things I love about the blogosphere is the many readily available blogs that do so, one of which, of course, is Joust the Facts.
Posted by: Angevin13 | Apr 15, 2007 at 07:23 PM
The internet opens up a whole can of worms that doesn't exist in other areas. Anonymous comments, sock-puppetry, thread hijacking are all things you'd have a tough time doing in responses in regular media. So, while it may make sense to the "central planning" types to have a blogger code of conduct, I'd like to see the free market regulate things, with the outcome, perhaps, a devolving into Blogs That Are Civil With Honest Discussion, or even Honest But Sharp-Edged Wit, and Blogs That Revel In The Gutter As A Free For All.
If you can't make your point in a civil manner, then you can't make your point.
Angevin13, you hit the nail on the head. That's the essential lesson of Godwin's Law. Do I want every blogger to be pure as the driven snow? No way! Sharp humor and well-used spicy language is just a different flavor. But some of the things we hear about death threats and stalking makes you think twice.
The thing that disturbed most about this plan to regulate blog discussions is the inference that somehow the bloggers don't have the right to regulate their own blog now. That would be news to me.
Thanks for all these great comments. And Ang13, I won't hold the Yankee thing against you.
Posted by: Giacomo | Apr 15, 2007 at 09:47 PM
Here's the problem with this issue, and it'
s common for free speech issues - it gets sidetracked from what's allowed to what's preferred by this or that individual. The crux of the issue isn't whether or not one person has the opinion that certain things shouldn't be said, but rather, whether or not those things can't be said.
Once speech is regulated, that's a dangerous thing. Today, the group charged with that regulation may make people say, "Yeah. People shouldn't say things like that. Go get 'em!" But what if that group changes, or widens their focus? That's the danger.
There's a reason that the First Amendment is first.
None of which has the slightest bit to do with my own personal preferences, and everything to do with Free expression remaining free.
I've even almost gotten to the point that I just might, next time someone says something offensive, that I won't say, "I don't like what they said, but I defend their right to say it." I will defend what they said as their right. Period. And if someone wants to say, "You're defending (whoever.)" I will say, "You bet I am. Refer to the First Amendment."
Posted by: FIAR | Apr 16, 2007 at 01:43 PM
Here's what can happen when we allow speech to be regulated.
Posted by: FIAR | Apr 16, 2007 at 02:09 PM
I agree with you FIAR. Speech does need to be free. And I will continue to defend, like you, the right of those who wish to speak up in protest or in support of whatever. I don't recall ever writing that someone should be stopped from saying something. However, when they open their trap publicly and say something worthy of scorn, I'm more than happy to take apart what they said.
I don't write certain things or allow others to post offensively vitriolic comments, and it has nothing to do with their right to say it. They can say or write whatever they want. It has to do with my right to control my blog. I wouldn't let neo-Nazis come here to make a call for extermination of gays, nor would I let Islamic Extremists call for extermination of the Jews. Instant deletion. You want a forum for that garbage? Get your own blog.
I'm not letting some political activist put up a big "John Kerry for Omnipotent Master of All Humans" billboard on my front lawn. (Well, not without a really big chunk of Teresa Heinz' bank.)
The gents who proposed the code of conduct would have been better off limiting it to their own site and quietly inviting people to have a look.
Posted by: Giacomo | Apr 16, 2007 at 03:07 PM
Giacomo...I know sometimes I get off the subject. BUT it is what I do. AND not on purpose... Does this mean I am a troll? Yikes! Joust the facts is one of the nicest blogs because it has a certain feel. It is just a really nice place in blogland. Really and truly, Thanks, man!
Posted by: Zsa Zsa | Apr 17, 2007 at 10:10 AM
The gents who proposed the code of conduct would have been better off limiting it to their own site and quietly inviting people to have a look.
Entirely true, but I don't think that was their goal.
Posted by: FIAR | Apr 17, 2007 at 10:26 AM