Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bloggers Propose Code of Conduct

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the manners-maketh-man dept.

The Internet 199

akintayo writes "The New York Times reports that in response to the recent brouhaha, some technology bloggers have suggested raising the level of civility on tech blogs by implementing a code of conduct. Kathy Sierra, a technology blogger and friend of O'Reilly was subjected to threats and insults from readers and other bloggers. In partial response, O'Reilly and others have proposed a code of conduct which could include restrictions like the outlawing of anonymous accounts."

cancel ×

199 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Kind of a worthless piece of reactionary tripe. (4, Interesting)

ZiZ (564727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672461)

Jeff Jarvis takes it apart [buzzmachine.com] better than I could.

Coles Notes Summary (4, Insightful)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672475)

Coles Notes Summary:

It won't work because the internet can't be policed, and those who would self-police aren't the problem anyway.

As an aside, while the writer in your link has a good point, he could have made it in a paragraph. Stretching it out for three pages is sheer pedantry.

Re:Coles Notes Summary (5, Funny)

uhlume (597871) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672733)

As an aside, while the writer in your link has a good point, he could have made it in a paragraph. Stretching it out for three pages is something we like to call a "blog".


"There. Fixed that for ya."

Hey, switcheurs! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672991)

If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for, GTFO.
If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application, GTFO.
If you're still looking for the "maximize" button, GTFO.
If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you, GTFO.

Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real Mac users [atspace.com] . Keep your filthy PC fingers to yourself.

Re:Coles Notes Summary (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18673239)

It won't work because the internet can't be policed

That's what you think and wishing it will not make it true. The internet can be policed, censored, controlled and even shut down. You are not in control of it.

The Internet WILL be policed. It WILL happen. Do not kid yourself thinking otherwise.

Actually, methinks both are wrong (4, Insightful)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672781)

Actually, methinks both are blinded by their own "I'm so great because I have a blog" ego trip.

E.g., Jarvis seems to think it's some media agenda or conspiracy to judge all blogs by the worst examples. Guess what? So is everyone else that can be squeezed in one category. Big surprise that it applies to blogs too.

E.g., one thing I remember being told in the army was that, basically, when you're in uniform, pay attention what you're doing, because people won't go "oh, Moraelin is drunk again and making a nuissance of himself", they'll go "oh, great, so that's what the _army_ is doing." Every single soldier or cop will be judged by the actions of the worst soldier or cop.

Same here. Once you fought to be seen as some monolythic "blogosphere" that challenges all the traditional sources of information in some virtual two-front Schlieffen Plan... Guess what? You _are_ seen as a monolythic entity and judged by the worst examples. Whop-de-fucking-do. Big surprise there.

The traditional media faces the same problem, which is why they all try hard to maintain a facade of impartiality or of only reporting. Yes, I'm sure someone can jump in with a "hah, the media and impartial, that's rich. Well, I remember <insert anecdote when they weren't impartial>," Well, that's the whole point. The worst fuck-ups are taken as representative of the media as a whole.

And _especially_ die-hard self-proclaimed advocates of the blogosphere are quick to latch on every single media fuck-up and fashion a battle banner out of it. Well, then don't be surprised if it's a two way street, then.

From there, both are equally deluded in some utopian view of it, if in different directions. Basically:

- O'Reilly: guys, we need to police ourselves and become some kind of utopia where everyone plays nice, is responsible, etc. (Yeah, right.)

- Jarvis and the like: nooo, people are smart enough to see who's right and wrong on their own, check the credentials of every blog page they read, know who put their real name behind their opinions, etc. (Yeah, right. As if I have the time to check if, say, Jarvis himself exists or is his real name.) And the unspoken rules that exist for a real community, surely work flawlessly for an anonymous online group. No, really, they'll start working any day now. (Equally: yeah, right.)

The former is bogus because it obviously can't work, the latter... for the exact same reason. I'll point out at what Penny Arcade called The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [penny-arcade.com] . There'll always be someone who thinks that "anonymity + an audience = an oportunity, nay, a _duty_ to be a complete fuckwad."

One fact that all the "it'll work like a real community" utopians miss is that, medically speaking, about 1 in 30 people are sociopaths. (Well, in the USA at least. I don't know what the statistics are for other countries.) Most are kept in check IRL because, while they might completely lack empathy and consideration for their fellow man, they do realize that there are consequences for their actions. There is a name and a face on each such action, and that might come back to bite them in the ass. So they proceed to be normal members of society, for lack of a choice. Take away the "action => consequence" feedback, and they revert to being the assholes they always wanted to be. Even if you got them to maintain a name and a face attached to their blogs, they'll use sock puppets and astroturfing for their trolling.

So neither of the two extreme point of views even work, or have anything even vaguely resembling the world-saving qualities that their advocates claim.

So choosing between the two is like having to choose between an enlightened dictatorship utopia, and an anarchist utopia. Those too have had their own share of apologists, and whole tomes written about how and why they'd work better than the current society models. Too bad they don't work in practice. Well, now we see basically the same extremes applied to the internet. On one hand you have those claiming there's a need for some virtual enlightened dictator to guide it all, and on the other hand you have a bunch of "nooo, rules and authority are evil" mis-fits claiming that anarchy is the best thing since sliced bread.

Does anyone have a realistic solution there? Is there even a real problem that someone needs to address? I don't know. But neither extreme is a solution anyway.

Re:Actually, methinks both are wrong (2, Interesting)

malkir (1031750) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672899)

Absolute genius, I couldn't agree more. Why does it all have to go down to "we can't follow the route we're running!", why aren't we just living life? The imaginary problems we've dreamed up for entertainment are only there because they tend to touch raw human emotions and are grasp ones attention much more effectively, I hope we don't always have to live in societal "fear" of our oddly 1984-ish dystopian realm. Don't label me as an Orwelli-zealot just yet, think about it. Good post, Moraelin.

Re:Actually, methinks both are wrong (1)

Admiral Ag (829695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672957)

Reasonably effective solutions already exist. It would be nice to think that providing real world consequences to trolls and griefers would help, and it would, but it is unworkable beyond current laws. Sure, the internet has its share of anonymous "fuckwads" as you put it, but things only get bad if nobody does anything, and the trolls and griefers are allowed to disrupt things enough to get their kick out of it (like in World of Warcraft).

Wikipedia has effectively solved this problem as well as it can be solved, by allowing people to edit the comments of others. Most people are not trolls or griefers, and when given the power to do so can effectively restrain the trolls and griefers from having any significant influence. Unfortunately this won't work for a model where people are supposed to own their own comments, like a blog.

But the fundamental truth here is that most people are interested reading decent content and not reading trolls and abuse. Give people the power to improve the chances of the good being read, and reduce the chances of the bad being red, and you have a solution.

Slashdot solves it in a good way. Unlike digg, not everyone can moderate (you have to gain some trust with the system before you are allowed to), so the moderation tends on the whole to be pretty good (although not perfect). Digg style moderation just leads to abuse. If you wanted my two cents, I would hope that someone would write blogging software that any blogger could use and which tracked a contributor's karma between blogs in the way that Slashdot's system does within this site. Sure the trolls might try to band together to game the system, but there simply are not enough of them to counter the number of legitimate readers, so they will always lose.

Of course the use of such a system must be voluntary, and people must still be allowed to post anonymously, but there is a penalty for doing so (posting at zero). If you wish to post at +1, then you have to give others the right to track your behaviour.

Actually, methinks it's something else entirely (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673115)

Do you think it's surprising that the New York Times, which, like all newspapers, has been getting its narrow ass kicked by these "uncivil" blogs suddenly wants to "clean up" the most unbridled and successful mode of mass communication ever devised? Or that the very thing that has again given life to political discourse and has given voice to an entire generation of social commentators displeases a newspaper that let down the Nation by being complicit in the phoney-baloney run-up to the War in Iraq, and that it was thousands of political bloggers who were right about Iraq being a huge mistake while the "Newspaper of Record" didn't bother to question the prevarications and canards it was being fed by the Administration?

I'm calling "bullshit" on this entire "uncivil, nasty blogs" meme that this little officious prick Howard Kurtz has been peddling. There is a lot of righteous anger in this country, in this world, right now, and sometimes it manifests itself in the word "fuck" being used as in "fuck-ing war" or "fuck-ing economy" or "fuck-ing chimp cocksucker who inhabits the White House and has less regard for the Constitution than the paper that sits on the bottom of his fuck-ing birdcage". You know, like that.

So if the medium that has been most endangered by the energetic, sometimes rude, crude or nasty medium that happens to be the last best hope for liberty and democracy decides that something is wrong and has to be changed, I say "Fuck them, and fuck that effete worm Howard Kurtz".

Claro?

Die Coupland, Die (1)

memojuez (910304) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673347)

I agree with the spirit of this comment. As part of Generation X, Web Forums and other Web-log precursors were the only voice that we had to espouse or ideals and that we were not a bunch of drugged out losers as depicted by the "traditional" Mass Media in the early nineties.

So who was really being nasty and uncivil?

Re:Actually, methinks both are wrong (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673199)

The worst fuck-ups are taken as representative of the media as a whole.
Actually I judge them based on a sampling of the most popular. They aren't impartial. You don't need to take examples of only the worst, unless people don't read the newspaper for impartiality, but instead for biased reports to either affirm their own opinion of the issue or affirm their opinion of those they disagree with.

Automated Trolling System (-1, Offtopic)

TrollBot1.11 (1086471) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672879)

Welcome to the Automated Trolling System. Using the latest technology, we are striving for a new generation of /. trolling. We shall usher in this glorius new era with pride in our hearts.

But how does it work? Using the latest technology called PHP we have optimised a scraping technique to detect new stories to troll, as well as sending POST requests for inserting of the troll post. TrollBot1.1 requires very little human intervention.

Why not download a copy here [nimp.org] ?

Please bear with us while we work out the bugs, and continue to optimize your experiences of being trolled. We also appreciate any feedback.

Re:Kind of a worthless piece of reactionary tripe. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672975)

If you think a whiney pretensious self important rant constitutes taking something apart, then sure, I suppose you could say that...

Re:Kind of a worthless piece of reactionary tripe. (1)

Merkwurdigeliebe (1046824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673145)

The old saying "live by the sword die by the sword" may hold some relevance: Here these bloggers are being attacked by anonymous agents because these particular bloggers are _NOT_ anonymous while posters can be. The solution to some of this may lie in *everyone* becoming anonymous and not the opposite (that everyone be a registered poster -auth issues). Thus no-one would have any axes to grind against a known party. Moreover, no one, even these technorati or whatever they indulgently call themselves, would have any seniority or rank on anyone. They'd be as anonymous and rankless as anyone else. Yes, accountability would dissipate but also this want for notoriety that is rife in online fora. "True" democracy. 2ch works in this fashion, why can't online fora work that way too?

Why anonymous anyway? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672467)

I have never understood the need for anonymous posting anyway!

Re:Why anonymous anyway? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18673151)

I don't care if you post anonymously or not, as long as you stop posting under my name!

Signed, A. Coward

I thought I knew funny.. (1)

Marko DeBeeste (761376) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672469)

...But THAT is funny. Please, guys, you're killing me

interesting final thought (4, Insightful)

user24 (854467) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672473)

"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."

really? "managed dialogue", eh? hmmm...

Re:interesting final thought (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672497)

also, in an entirely off-topic comment, what's the point in subscribers being able to see future articles if any old regular member can just go and look at the firehose? (oh, yeah, unlimited comment history. woopy fucking doo)

Re:interesting final thought (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672943)

what's the point in subscribers being able to see future articles if any old regular member can just go and look at the firehose?

The firehose is full of shit - like journals. resubmitted stories, etc.

I guess you can make the same argument about future articles, but at least there's less crap to wade through...

Re:interesting final thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18673041)

ok then, I'll make it even simpler for you:

step one: wait until homepage says "next story available soon but subscribers can see it blah blah"
step two: click firehose
step three: oh look, there's a green entry that says it's a story but isn't on the homepage. I wonder if that might be the one the subscribers can see?

now, if subscribers could post more than 1 comment every 10 minutes, it might be appealing.
"It's been 15 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
15 minutes???? that's practically a whole day in internet time!

Re:interesting final thought (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673111)

now, if subscribers could post more than 1 comment every 10 minutes, it might be appealing.

I can post more than 1 comment every 10 minutes. Subscriber or not. Perhaps try trolling less?

Re:interesting final thought (1)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672525)

Not saying I agree with our friend O'Reilly, but there is one condition where his point could be considered valid:

Presidential speeches broadcast live, on all networks, every time.

Such live broadcasting gives the president a direct-to-the-home propaganda line, completely sine criticism or fact-checking. Given that a significant portion of viewers may not stay tuned for the after-event punditry, if there even is any, we've basically gotta take it on faith that people understand enough about the issues to judge the factuality of such a presentation, especially when said president has been known to... misrepresent the truth.

That may be 'free' speech in the same way that unregulated capitalism is a 'free' market, but like the latter, the former doesn't serve to create a world I'd want to live in.

Re:interesting final thought (1)

user24 (854467) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672569)

sorry, cultural wall here. I'm from the UK, I don't get what you're saying.
"Presidential speeches broadcast live, on all networks, every time."
you mean they are, and it's bad, or do you mean they're not, and they should?

(ignore that, i get it now) (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672597)

I just learned to read :)
-u24.

also:
"Slow down cowboy
It's been 6 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

that's one goddamn slow cowboy! wtf?

Re:interesting final thought (1)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673367)

They are, and it's bad.

It gives the president an unopposed propaganda mouthpiece to a captive audience with no context, perspective, or chance for independent verification of what is said.

Re:interesting final thought (4, Interesting)

user24 (854467) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672555)

just for those that don't get it, here's the expanded, collectors edition of my "hmmm":

who does the managing?
  as a subset of that: can we trust them? what about potential abuse? etc.
how does restriction produce greater freedom?
how can you get more free than uncensored?

and now the special features, aka rambles:

one of the things i love about /. is that it doesn't delete the trolls/flames; it's uncensored, but it works.
Of course, it only works because of the millions of users willing to forsake their right to speak for the greater good... how this would work with mom 'n' pop's blog site that some viagra spammer is targetting, I don't know. Actually. I do. It wouldn't

I've had the feeling for a while that net communication would work a lot better if *everything* was anonymous. In the truly anon sense; "user24" is not anonymous. My internet footprint is massive.

Re:interesting final thought (2, Insightful)

bheer (633842) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672959)

>how does restriction produce greater freedom?

I think the point O'Reilly's trying to make is that the problem with unrestricted speech is that the noise can drown out the signal. Think of Monty Python's "spam" skit. If there were greater civility more ideas would be exchanged, and online exchanges would be more productive. Imagine how much /. would suck if each message had 40 goatse/troll replies.

That said, while I do agree with him about civility, I think he's worrying about unrestricted speech when the real problem on blogs is speech without a feedback loop. People who yell and drown out others in real life are dealt with quite effectively. Slashdot uses moderation to achieve the same effect. Moderation is a restriction, no two ways about it. It keeps a lot of junk out, but also keeps a lot of alternate opinion from being seen by the vast majority of /.-ers who don't browse at 0 or -1. But we accept it because it allows us the freedom to carry out a workable conversation without worrying too much about trolls.

Some of the bigger blogs use moderation, but for personal blogs, there really is no substitute for good sense and policing. If someone were making offensive remarks on a blog I ran, it'd be deleted as quickly as I found out about it. What's "offensive"? Whatever I deem it to be. My house, my rules.

managed dialog (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672565)

I think that phrase shows where he's coming from; marketing. Lets face it 99.9% of people don't blog for dialog, they blog about their cats, boys (or girls) and day to day trivia.

Those that do use their blogs for marketing (being it of themselves, or companies) are in trouble. O'Reilly is seen as such a big player that standing up and saying "Piss off" could well be seen as a career limiting move; the blogosphere isn't made up of "free thinkers" as they like to believe they are, in reality it's rather cliquey. The big hitters are attempting to impose mob rule and that's worse than the original "offence".

Re:managed dialog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672637)

I thought mob rule was the current state of things?

Re:managed dialog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672997)

Yeah, I think O'Reilly is trying to make sure his mob rule now.

Re:interesting final thought (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672721)

I guess Mr. O'Reilly doesn't believe in spreading the freer speech, but instead prefers the less free speech he normally spreads.

Re:interesting final thought (1)

BTTB (1000029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672833)

> really? "managed dialogue", eh? hmmm...

Can someone explain why this comment is "insightful"?
How can you engage in a "civil dialogue" when the other side keeps sniding "really? eh? hmmm..." without giving any substantial reasoning?

Re:interesting final thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672857)

i refer you to my explanatory comment, made a full hour before yours: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230147&cid =18672555 [slashdot.org]

Anonymous (5, Insightful)

asninn (1071320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672541)

From the slashdot summary:

In partial response, O'Reilly and others have proposed a code of conduct which could include restrictions like the outlawing of anonymous accounts."

From TFA:

5. We encourage anonymous comments.

Apparently, this was only recently added [wikia.com] by an anonymous prankster, but it shows why it's important to link to the specific revision of a wiki page you're discussing in addition to the "latest trunk"...

In any case, I'm not sure how requiring the use of a valid email address is going to help. Anyone who wants to make a threatening or otherwise comment will just use dodgeit or a similar service to do so - you could ban them, I suppose, but good luck to you finding them all. And even if you do manage to, trolls will just create hotmail.com addresses; sure, you could ban hotmail as well (although you'd probably already be hurting some legitimate contributors that way), but then, trolls would use simply move to other free services. Do you need an alternate email address to sign up for Google Mail, Yahoo or so? I'm not sure, but even if you do, a troll could just use a hotmail.com address (or, for that matter, a dodgeit address or so) to create a GMail address, for instance. Ultimately, requiring valid email addresses (and I'm assuming you actually mean working ones, not just well-formed addresses, as some sites do) will not hurt trolls; it will make their job more difficult, but anybody who's already wasting his life on something as idiotic, useless and unproductive as trolling likely won't care much.

Of course, this is symptomatic of a bigger problem: a code of conduct, by definition, is a convention that is voluntarily followed - but those that agree to follow it are precisely those who're not a problem, anyway, and for whom a code of conduct is wholly unnecessary. The trolls, on the other hand, will simply disregard any aspect of it that is not guarded by technological measures.

If you really want to weed out trolling, the best idea is to a) delete obvious troll comments; b) possibly require approval for comments prior to them being published (I personally don't think that this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but it would solve the problem, at least); or c) implement a moderation system like Slashdot's - if you have a sufficient userbase where the trolls are outnumbered by the "good" folks, it should work quite well. Oh yeah, and in any case, d) grow a thicker skin, stop worrying and learn to love the bomb. Stop running around like headless chickens after some troll managed to scare you - calm down and think sensibly and move beyond fear.

Re:Anonymous (0, Troll)

red crab (1044734) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672719)

Please mod up the parent as 'Troll'.

Re:Anonymous (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672813)

Slight problem with the outlawing of anonymous accounts.

You see, contrary to popular opinion in the States, other countries have the internet too, and whad'ya know, they aren't all subject to US law (unless they have oil and get invaded..).

The other problem with this is that it speaks only of the current technology. Who knows what will replace the blog and other online personal platforms in the next few years? You can bet it won't be the current big players. It'll be some kid, beavering away on his pc at home, creating like crazy and re-writing the future history of the internet. I'd bet real money he/she is working away as I write this.

It's happened before..

P.S. I'd like to see them try to shut down 4chan. That would be an event worth following :-)

Re:Anonymous (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672901)

You see, contrary to popular opinion in the States, other countries have the internet too, and whad'ya know, they aren't all subject to US law (unless they have oil and get invaded..).


So then how do you explain the Falkland Islands? I guess strategic sheep purposes also count...

Re:Anonymous (1)

bhima (46039) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673203)

The last armed conflict over the Falkland Islands involved the BRITISH.

Not the United States of America.

woooosh!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18673261)

nonsense text here to avoid lameness filter

Re:Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18673267)

* ---Joke

        --
      ( ) ---Your head

The OP stated his comment in such a way as to suggest that the US is the only one to invade another country and to top it off only for oil....

Sheesh...

Re:Anonymous (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673301)

So then how do you explain the Falkland Islands? I guess strategic sheep purposes also count...


You never heard of the crack squads of ninja sheep that were being trained in the Falklands to be used in an attack against Cuba?

PARENT NOT TROLL - MOD UP (1)

user24 (854467) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672945)

GNAA is trolling, this is not.

learn the difference next time you get mod points.

this post brought to you by the "damn, I wish I had mod points" association (DIWIHMPA)

Re:Anonymous (-1, Flamebait)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672969)

c) implement a moderation system like Slashdot's

God, no. Slashdot's system is a pile of dogshit that should have been scrapped or fixed a long time ago. But then again, the system works perfectly for hysterical leftists, so I guess it'll stay.

Re:Anonymous (0, Flamebait)

Das Modell (969371) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673311)

Predictably enough, some fool decided to prove my point by modding me flamebait instead of rationally arguing why Slashdot's moderating system is not broken and why the system does not serve the interests of leftists. But of course, the person who modded me flamebait is almost certainly a leftist himself, so it's obvious why he wouldn't try to argue anything. The system works for him: his first impulse is always to flame people (or strawman representations of those people) who disagree with him, and Slashdot's system allows him to do that with total anonymity and zero accountability. He doesn't even have to write anything! If it's not broken, don't fix it, but make sure to always mod down anyone who think otherwise.

Re:Anonymous (1)

nwbvt (768631) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673333)

"In any case, I'm not sure how requiring the use of a valid email address is going to help. Anyone who wants to make a threatening or otherwise comment will just use dodgeit or a similar service to do so - you could ban them, I suppose, but good luck to you finding them all. And even if you do manage to, trolls will just create hotmail.com addresses; sure, you could ban hotmail as well (although you'd probably already be hurting some legitimate contributors that way), but then, trolls would use simply move to other free services. Do you need an alternate email address to sign up for Google Mail, Yahoo or so? I'm not sure, but even if you do, a troll could just use a hotmail.com address (or, for that matter, a dodgeit address or so) to create a GMail address, for instance. Ultimately, requiring valid email addresses (and I'm assuming you actually mean working ones, not just well-formed addresses, as some sites do) will not hurt trolls; it will make their job more difficult, but anybody who's already wasting his life on something as idiotic, useless and unproductive as trolling likely won't care much."

No, but what you could do is ban all email addresses that are not personally identifiable. Then only allow .edu email accounts, corporate email accounts, and those that are given to you when you register with your ISP. I've seen plenty of services that already require that (or if you give a .hotmail address, they then require you to also supply some sort of credit card information so they can verify who you are).

Things were better a few years ago... (0, Flamebait)

RedElf (249078) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672549)

...before all these emo trendy assholes started pushing their whiny agenda on the rest of the world. 20 years ago if you talked the way that most of them do in their blog posts, you were guaranteed an ass beating just for good measure.

Back then the men were men, the women were women, and things got done.
Now everyone acts like an emotional woman, and the world is going to hell.

This post will probably get modded down by some suicidal, over-emotional teenager who is blinded by the tears in his eyes from crying about how horrible his middle class life is in suburbia America, all while people are starving to death in Africa.

Re:Things were better a few years ago... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672905)

"This post will probably get modded down by some suicidal, over-emotional teenager who is blinded by the tears in his eyes [...]"

Don't read so much into it. You were probably modded flamebait because you're a misogynist, not for any more complicated reason.

Re:Things were better a few years ago... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18673055)

...before all these emo trendy assholes started pushing their whiny agenda on the rest of the world. 20 years ago if you talked the way that most of them do in their blog posts, you were guaranteed an ass beating just for good measure.

Back then the men were men, the women were women, and things got done.
Now everyone acts like an emotional woman, and the world is going to hell.


It started with "political correctness" which once meant slavish spouting of communist propaganda in spite of its being completely contrary to reason. The term resurfaced when used by lesbians to describe sex practices which they considered distasteful, as in "Oh no. It would not be politically correct to .....". Things went downhill from there.

Re:Things were better a few years ago... (0, Troll)

Purist (716624) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673059)



I agree with the above poster...if anything, modern media and political correctness (ESPECIALLY here in the U.S.) have been pushing misandry more than anything...it is a big part of our culture now.

Look at the lineup at any major television network...at *least* one show with a fat, lazy, jerk husband hooked up with a beautiful wife who puts up with his uselessness for no apparent reason. If you see any males portrayed in a positive light they are usually gay.

End of off-topic (sort of) rant...

Been done before. (4, Insightful)

WgT2 (591074) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672567)

Code of conduct?

There's already a great one: The Golden Rule [wikipedia.org]

Re:Been done before. (4, Funny)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672787)

There's already a great one: The Golden Rule

But I'm a sadomasochist. Hmmm... woohoo party time!!

Slashdot proves the argument is bullshit (4, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672585)

O'Reilly and others have proposed a code of conduct which could include restrictions like the outlawing of anonymous accounts."...

Anonymous Cowards in Slashdot have been the single largest source of valuable information and dialogue, in the single largest technology forum (Slashdot) over a large period of time.

No wonder I didn't RTFA.

Re:Slashdot proves the argument is bullshit (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672659)

Anonymous Cowards in Slashdot have been the single largest source of valuable information and dialogue



You're welcome.


Re:Slashdot proves the argument is bullshit (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672675)

Here's some more of that quality dialogue for ya: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/technology/09blo g.html?hp [goatse.cz] .

Good old uncensored give'n'take, if you will.

Re:Slashdot proves the argument is bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672917)

So, why didn't you post as AC?

BiAnon

US proves the argument is bullshit circa 1776-... (2, Informative)

Tjp($)pjT (266360) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672937)

It is not only desirable but essential that anonymous posting be allowed. It represents protected political speech. Had the revolutionary treasonous personages that founded the United States not been able to publish under pseudonyms then we would likely have been under British rule for a while longer than we were. It was essential to preserver in day to day life while propagating the injustices of each locality to the whole of the advent nation. In current perspective where shield laws and whistle-blower laws are circumvented by prosecutorial misconduct, abuse of police powers and general guile to obtain the identities that should be protected; where our society huddles in fear and gives away freedom after freedom denying future generations their inalienable rights unless they, like their forbearers, are willing to make personal sacrifices to regain those freedoms for the whole of their society and reestablish a covenant of just freedoms and liberties, we can not and should not consider banning anonymous speech.

Those temporary grants of trespass to our basic rights we give the government in times of dire need are seldom temporary and rarely recovered notwithstanding great protest from the body public.

Re:US proves the argument is bullshit circa 1776-. (2, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673037)

Oh, get off your political soapbox. The owner of any media has always had final say in what goes in that media. If a blog wants to ban anon posts, that is their choice. Find another blog that doesn't if you don't like it. Or better yet, start your own then you can allow all the vitriol you want.

A code of conduct won't work for many reason but anon political posting isn't that high on the list. Many sites either don't allow anon or allow the user to filter them out (/. included). When it comes to civil dialog, anonymous political posts account for a very, very, VERY small percentage so your argument falls flat on its face right there.

dumb idea (1)

MarsDude (74832) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672649)

Don't loose the anarchistic nature of blogging !

Re:dumb idea (3, Insightful)

orcrist (16312) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673061)

Don't loose the anarchistic nature of blogging !

Too late dude, it's already been loosed. I think the article is about the attempt to deloose it ;-)

She unfairly blamed other bloggers (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672671)

I recall when this story broke originally that she started blaming various bloggers for the threats with zero evidence, among them some fairly prominent names,

Note that there's a big difference between a known blogger "insulting" you and an anonymous one writing threats.

A blogger's code of conduct? "We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person." Yeah, might as well shut down the entire Internet.

The great thing about it is you can say what you want. It's a double-edged sword, but trying to turn it into a butter knife will simply result in everything becoming numbingly dull corporate-speak.

Re:She unfairly blamed other bloggers (1)

heraclitus23 (1078159) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673207)

One of the alleged death threats was clearly not a death threat. In response to KS deleting comments, someone posted a picture of her gagged. Tasteless yes, but its satirical intent was clear...

Ummm.... (1)

Debug0x2a (1015001) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672683)

Good luck getting everyone to adhere to your code of conduct. While it may look good on paper (or on your LCD) you'll always have someone pissed off at you. Between honest bloggers there usually are some unwritten (or untyped) guidelines that are followed that roughly equate to the classic 'do unto others' rule. To sum it up I'll have to put it this way: nothing to see here.... move along.

Bloggers is not a noun (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672749)

Bloggers is a condition

Re:Bloggers is not a noun (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673081)

Bloggers is a condition

Is it curable, or is it a chronic condition that can be managed with appropriate treatment? I ask because it's becoming an epidemic...

How this will go: (4, Insightful)

jedrek (79264) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672753)

1. A code of conduct will be created.
2. The code will spread as a meme between blogs.
3. Some of the more popular bloggers/blogs will pick up on it and implement it, adding a bit graphical/text certification.
4. Typepad/Wordpress/Moveabletype will implement the code as a feature.
5. Boingboing will rally against it.
5a. Slashdotters will bitch about it.
6. It'll stay around as a tool - like creative commons, trackbacks, pings, etc. Some people will use it/live by it, others will rally against it, most will ignore it.
7. Everything will go back to normal.

Just like with everything else...

Re:How this will go: (1)

Tim Browse (9263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672829)

You forgot 3a - someone will moan about the colour scheme of the steenkin' badges, and someone else will make different versions in all the colours of the rainbow, so they can fit into your website's questionable aesthetic (which will usually include small fonts and for bonus points, poor contrast text colours), thus diluting the design/effect of the badges, but the important thing is that your website looks cool with those badges, isn't it, and maybe someone will start making pointless egocentric Code of Conduct wristbands too that would be the coolest, wouldn't it?

Re:How this will go: (1)

Cctoide (923843) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673173)

Hey, don't forget userbars.

From what I read here... (1)

bumptehjambox (886036) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672761)

I can say... Bloggers take themselves far too seriously. No one else does. :/

Re:From what I read here... (1)

wetelectric (956671) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672849)

This is so true, if I had mod points I would throw some at you.

Honestly, it's like people think 'bloggers' are important. Perspective needed.

Kathy's SSN is 558-27-4440 (more inside) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672765)

I have a long history of enabling people on the Internet that want to
troll or ruin. Generally I find that if people have the desire to ruin
something, it deserves to be ruined. I am a karmatic implement at most.
I am a big believer in the Holy equation:

* *

*imposition of order = escalation of chaos*

Generally I find that someone who uses abuse teams, DMCAs and other
legal and social implements to impose an artificial sense of order upon
harmless trolling is inviting an escalation of chaos. Where the entropy
falls can be troublesome for would-be imposers of order-- you can't ask
a stochastic element to neatly fall upon the comment page of your blog.

Whoever fucked with Kathy Sierra clearly had a pattern of escalation as
evidenced by a trail of now-defunct blogs. Kathy hollers like a stuck
pig as she wonders why the trolls escalated to magnitudes which she
could no longer control. The answer is obvious: she fought the LOL. The
LOL won. She flew off the handle trying to silence criticism of her
books, and this is what she got. This is what the Internet was founded
on. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Internet ruin is a global scale-free network. There are no central hubs,
there are hundreds of thousands of ruiners that are like peas in a pod
and where there is hilarity a few of them will jump in and cause a
ruckus like white lightning. Nevertheless there are certain styles that
some ruiners have that you learn to recognize.

I reckon Kathy's ruin was in the lineage of a great form. It dates back
to the earliest days of the Internet but really took its peak in a GNAA
member named Grog. This sort of personal terrorism was his specialty.
Grog was an angst-ridden phone troll from Australia that left ruined
lives and businesses in his wake. He would have people deported. He was
the master of finding or creating weakness in the human psyche and
destroying people from a distance. He called his method "ruined 4 lyfe",
as it would leave a lasting impression on the psyches of his victims.
Worthless bloggers locking themselves in their homes and ditching their
keynotes at conferences for idiots? Exactly the kind of message the
Internet needs to send.

My usual response to personal ruin is to pull the social security number
and current address of the victim and dump it to public mailing lists.
However checking up on Kathy's SSN shows something odd-- here is a woman
pushing 50 and yet her first established address was in 2004 at a hotel.
>From there, a fascinating and dark tale unfolded from her public and
private records.

While many may consider Kathy's reaction to threats of sexual violence
ridiculous, it is put into perspective when you examine her past. Her
medical records up to early 2001 tell the tale of a battered wife. Late
night emergency room visits for stitches, followed later by the consults
of plastic surgeons to make sure scars don't achieve permanence. In
2000, the battery became more intense with a broken bone. With a
worthless degree in physiology and a wealthy husband that had taken care
of her all her life, Kathy's options for independence were slim. She had
to do something to get out.

Kathy entered into divorce proceedings with her former spouse John M.
Kozel with accusations of domestic violence (finalized on 09/05/2001,
Jefferson County Colorado docket DR001396). With no proof to
substantiate them, the court considered her claims as meritless and
Kathy was left with nothing. After the divorce, a pattern in her credit
record indicates homelessness. No established address and existing
credit card debt on maxed cards accumulating with no end. Kathy stayed
mobile for almost 3 years with no job and no established address,
prostituting herself to earn money.

Kathy had taken a class on java and sucked dick enough to get placed on
the development team for the PC version of "All Dogs Go to Heaven" which
was a free handout in cereal boxes. She devised a plan to shift up her
clientele from truck-stops to O'Reilly conferences. Despite having a
physed degree, only knowing enough java to code helloworld and the only
commercial project she worked on having been handed out for free in
cereal boxes, Kathy would pawn herself off as an expert in game
development and AI to web2.0 morons! She picked the right crowd to be a
huckster in as those gimps will believe anything.

Let's face the obvious: all these blogger faggots are coming to Kathy's
defense because she's the girl who gets the train run on her at O'Reilly
events. Kathy is a cockholster chugged full of cum that isn't even worth
giving the time of day. Just get a fucking whore off of Craigslist next
time and there will be much less drama from some prima donna that is too
big for her britches.

She shacked up with Albert James Bates IV, or Bert, as he sticks on the
books he "co-authors" with Kathy. Really, they're authored by others
poorly, and they just stick their names on the co-authors list because
they run the publishing company. Bert moved into a hotel with Kathy in
2004 where she continued acting as a prostitute until late 2005. Bert
was just on the verge of a bankruptcy and losing his house (Boulder
County bankruptcy 0411628). Ruined from past marriages, broke and
desperate, they were a match made in heaven. Hope you enjoyed pimping
your whore of a girlfriend, Bert.

Kathy and Bert live at 5497 Raritan Place, Boulder Colorado 80303. Feel
free to send them gifts that properly express your sentiments towards
them. Kathy's SSN is 558-27-4440. If you think I'm lying, you're free to
check her credit report and call local hospitals yourself.

My name is Memphis Two. It has been an honor welcoming you to the
Internet, Kathy.

Re:Kathy's SSN is 558-27-4440 (more inside) (1)

gijoel (628142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672835)

Fascinating read. Could you give us your real name, address and phone number?

I know that there is probably a 17 hour time difference between you and me, but I'm sure you wouldn't mind me calling you at 3 am to discuss this issue with you.

On serious business, anonymity, and civility (1)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672769)

A blogger, considered journalist or not, is still posting stuff on the internet. True that if the site I'm posting on is one of recognition and esteem, then my words might carry the slightest bit more credibility but if I'm posting on a blog just anywhere then it might be yet another episode of Bigot vs. Bigot.

If my words make sense, convey logic or beauty or are simply pleasurable to read, then the stuff I post on the 'net is worthwhile. This is however a property of the content of my post, and no Blogger Badge or such will magically endow my words with worthwhile content.


There already exists a 'code of cunduct' called 'civility' which is in scarce supply on the net, much thanks to anonymity but moreso thanks to poor upbringing. Another reason for lack of civility online is this blessed ease at which I post. Since with little investment of effort I can make my words reach people my words in themselves represent little effort. If flaming people online required me to write by hand, go to the post office and pay for stamps, I'd likely not flame a whole lot of people.
The ease at which we communicate is however not something many of us are willing to give up on, so we are left with the variables of anonymity and upbringing. Only the former is up to me, and evidently it's not something I'm very willing to give up. Until I post something I feel is important enough to sign with my real name I'm just another Anonymous lolling on teh intarwebs.

Why not let this be our badge? When we post humously instead of anonymously, pseudonyms notwithstanding, then we mean serious business. Don't append your name to anything you don't want to be held accounted for, and accept that the words of an AC will not be taken seriously.

Huh? (1)

p0 (740290) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672775)

What would the code of conduct do? Fedaral laws themselves don't stop crime, how would a stupid code of conduct wiki thing stop bloggers from sending threats and all? I don't understand.

Re:Huh? (1)

RealSurreal (620564) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672843)

Answers: nothing & it wouldn't.

Wanna be famous? Be prepared for exposure. (3, Informative)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672777)

It's that simple (see headline). I do feel sorry for her and the shock she's gotten from some sick person photoshopping her into some porn scene or something and I really like her books (I got two of them myself) but there is one thing you should be prepared for when going public, be it as a popstar, a politician or a professional writer and blogger, and that is exposure.
There are a measurable amount of sick people out there who get a hard-on from doing stuff like this. It's a perfectly normal state of things - like the slugs in your garden. Not very nice to look at, but in some way part of the ecosystem. In a way I feel sorry for these people.

The ethics of non-anonymity (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672791)

The most prominent and usual argument I have seen for non-anonymity is that it raises the level of civility and constructiveness in a forum, because people are personally accountable for their statements.

But what mechanisms actually lie behind this? Surely the concept of accountability for unconstructive or insulting posts relies on the mechanisms of fear and status. If someone doesn't care about status, then it is all fear - you are fearful that posting the insulting comment will result in negative experiences for you personally. Which it most likely would and is part of the intended design from the beginning - the rationale is that if someone goes around posting 'Sieg heil, sieg heil' or 'gay homofagosexuals' in comments section, then their real name _should_ be visible, so that cyber and real life activists can descend upon them and intimidate and frighten them from posting stuff like that again, and also that the government can rule them out of jobs like e.g. social care where their mindset is a danger to the health of children and the vulnerable.

Compare this to the mechanism in China. Why do people criticise China for banning anonymous blogs? Because they somehow infer that posting unpopular or government/society-critical will lead to them being personally harassed, subject to cyber and real life activism, and also that the government can rule them out of jobs.

The difference between the 'evil guys' (China) and the 'good guys' (us) then becomes that they harass people for saying good and true things, while we just harass people for saying deconstructive and antisociety and insulting things towards groups and individuals that they deserve harassment for.

Of *course* they can have my personal info... (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672847)

Let's see, for this site I'll use the name... (consults the AD&D naming tables) Pedro AxeLayer. I live at 123 main st, in whatever town the site's owner lives. I, by some amazing coincidence, have the same phone number as the site's local police.

I will make an account on a site to give myself "persistant" in-context credibility (as with "pla" here on Slashdot), but I simply don't give out my real contact info. I don't even give that to most companies with whom I do business - They need a way to bill me and nothing else.

Now, I harbor no delusions that I have "real" anonymity - Of course someone sufficiently motivated could track me down IRL. But I can sure as hell make it difficult, as well as providing myself a layer of plausible deniability for most purposes ("Someone with the same username as my email address insulted your favorite sports team? Why, what a coincidence, Mr. Boss! I'll have to contact the site admin and see if they can get that username revoked, ASAP!"). Anyone who chooses to befriend me here on Slashdot does so based entirely on what I say. Not my name, race, age, gender, location, height, or weight. And I consider that a "good" thing (though for the record, I don't count as unusual in any of the preceeding list).

As for bloggers... I've said it before (and lost karma) and I'll say it again (and probably lose more karma) - Who cares? Make all the rules you want. It still won't make you "real" journalists (With some notable exceptions, of course, but the rest of you angsty teens and cat-lovers, don't kid yourself - No one cares what Fluffy dragged in today).

Why is this news only now? (4, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672853)

I generally don't like Michelle Malkin, but she's gone through much more of this than Kathy Sierra. You have a lot of this in the political blogging world directed at women who take conservative or libertarian views. In fact, with Malkin, add in everything that was done to Sierra, AND a load of racism from even mainstream liberals like those at Wonkette who've been known to make racial sexual slurs against her.

But hey, that's ok! Bitch brought it on herself, right?

Seriously, this is like only noticing that racism is a problem, when a "nice, pretty black women" gets in trouble with the KKK.

Re:Why is this news only now? (2, Interesting)

demon driver (1046738) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673127)

this is like only noticing that racism is a problem, when a "nice, pretty black women" gets in trouble with the KKK.
I absolutely agree.

The thing is, though, you can't root out racism and sexism by politely appealing to racists and sexists (or to those who don't give a damn about racism and sexism in their blogs' comments) to adhere to some do-gooders rules.

The rules will only be held up by a minority of dreamers within the large group of people who already know how to behave. Those who don't, won't care.

This "code of conduct" might well be - like it might be expected of people like Tim O'Reilly - just an attempt to improve the public image of blogs, their protagonists and their business environments. It will change nothing at all, except providing a warm feeling for those who proudly publicize their adhering to the code.

no to anonymity...? (3, Insightful)

symes (835608) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672863)

I would welcome a site which outlawed anonymous accounts and might even join one. I also like the idea that I can post anonymously, send anonymous emails, blow whistles and so forth. I really don't think that there's much fruitful discussion in arguing whether some such site should or shouldn't allow anonymity - there's a market for both perspectives and people will go where they feel most comfortable.

In the academic world, for example, discussion is mostly open and the discussants can be easily identified. This doesn't mean that some junior academic shouldn't be allowed to post about some prof's misdemeanors anonymously on caughtintheact.blogspot.com or wherever. What would be wrong is to have blanket regulations outlawing anonymity across the interweb - that would both undermine civil liberties and be unworkable.

Like Asimov's three laws of robotics (1)

WetCat (558132) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672875)

This code of conduct is fictional too.
Do you REALLY believe that robots are REALLY obeying Asimovs three laws of robotics? Especially battle robots?!

Morons (2, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672885)

Just disable anonymous, non-registered commenting while setting up your blog and thats that.

Hypocrisy (1)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672915)

We define unacceptable comments [wikia.com] 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.
  • deliberately misconstrues the posted matter with the purpose of quarreling
  • is overly quarrelsome or intended to cause strife through quarreling or objecting.
This is a cynical attempt to harass and threaten people who prefer to post anonymously. It follows a knowingly false article [typepad.com] which misrepresented and deliberately misconstrued teenage trash-talk. It is intended to gain publicity by causing strife.

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) 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.
Author cannot be serious. The police have plenty of real crime to fight without protecting hurt feelings. OTOH I have never seen such an offensive article, so perhaps I should co-operate with them to get author locked up.

Re:Hypocrisy (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673019)

To be fair, "published comments [that] could be construed as a threat" is more than a case of just hurt feelings. In many jurisdictions, you'll find that making such comments is a criminal act, therefore notifying the police is an appropriate response.

mod 3o3n (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672927)

I've never Seen [goat.cx]

There are other options. (4, Informative)

Pento (115091) | more than 7 years ago | (#18672955)

Richard Kyanka has, what I think, a better reaction [somethingawful.com] to the situation.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18673331)

Lowtax is an interesting guy, here his level headed reasoning makes O'Reilly and friends look like complete idiots. Being able to disregard a direct threat of that nature (involving your 2 year old child) puts all this Kathy Sierra crap in perspective doesn't it?

ma8e (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18672981)

Classic Argument actually (1)

Shohat (959481) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673015)

Sacrificing the right for anonymity in order to increase the security of bloggers that don't need it.
NOT a good idea.

"electrically charged topics" (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673033)

FTA: But as with every other electrically charged topic on the Web, finding common ground will be a serious challenge

Most topics on the web are electrically charged, that's how they're transmitted from computer to computer. Generally speaking, the connections between the computers carry a common ground so it shouldn't be that hard.

Cannot enforce common sense and etiquette (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18673109)

The whole idea of blogging is that anything goes and by 'anything', I refer to the right to free speech. This is an inalienable right and will remain so.

The inherent nature of 'the blog' allows the blogger and their respondents to remain anonymous. This permits an individual to test the very edges of the right to free speech. The only way to balance the abuse of free speech is if the law were to be enforced in such cases just as you might respond to those letters, phone calls or emails which fall outside the margins of free speech, (e.g. death threats, etc.)

The second scenario is the more commmon one which lies under the realm of "appropriateness" as defined by the blogger. Of course, the blogger is free to moderate as he pleases, for the blog is not a democracy, but a dictatorship. However, enforcing this through moderation (deletion, modifications) threatens the 'open' nature of the blog.

The solution to this fear of censorship is moderation by the community themselves as exemplified by Slashdot. Blogs can allow the suscribers to score each other's comments. The audience can then decide to see all the comments or only the highly scored ones. 'Inappropriate' posts (a subjective measure) hence become invisible to the audience who deem it to be inappropriate.

Of course, implementing this would require a new breed of blogging software. The current format present only two options: delete or not delete. A change in the standard blogging format along the lines of comment moderation by the blog audience is the solution rather than a set of rules enforcing what the majority of blogging community see as common sense and etiquette.

New York Times is loving it... (1)

heraclitus23 (1078159) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673161)

...especially given their attitude towards "citizen journalists". Instead of making blogging more respectable O'Reily and company manage to make it seem far worse than it really is.

Censorship, shmensorship. (1)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673175)

My blog is NOT a public space, it's MY space. My blog, my disk space, my bandwidth, my rules. Obey them or fuck off.

Communities are grown, not decreed. (1)

zestyping (928433) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673201)

Communities are tended and grown into healthy, fun, productive communities. They are not made that way merely by declaring them so.

This Code of Conduct is being presented as if a central entity is trying to own the process, and that's just not going to fly. Respectfulness is not something that can be owned and branded with a name and a logo.

The War on Terror^WBlogs! (1)

hostyle (773991) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673251)

Awesome. Maybe President Bush will intervene and save us all from the anonymous evil persons on teh intarwebs.

YOU FAILX IT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18673293)

you to join the And enjoy all the see... The number Incl0des where you personal rivalries ENDLESS CONFLICT bben sitting here Blue, rubber

Anonymitity (1)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18673387)

While the comments posted against Kathy Sierra are despicable, I really feel that they are quite empty threats by a lonely, angry, frustrated, and upset individual. I understand Kathy's cause for alarm given as we live in times of media sensationalism that has encouraged copycat criminality. Yet I urge her and everyone to proceed slowly and methodically because we may travel down a slippery slope that we will be unable to recover from. If history is any indicator, look at George W. Bush, the passing of the Patriot Act and the formation of a Homeland Security Department. The Patriot Act has had disastrous effects on civil liberties because it was enacted far too hastily with powers broad enough to destroy everything our forefathers worked for. This is why I am a proponent of anonymous blogging: it may be some of the last ways to safely express dissatisfaction with our government and status quo. Craig's List [craigslist.org] has built a hugely successful community moderation system wherein inappropriate, threatening, or criminal posts are removed or appropriately referred for action. Use Craig Newmark's system as a model for a blogging system.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>