What is Digg?101 Comments
- fober, on 10/12/2007, -5/+49If I can't anonymously assault and harass, the internet means nothing to me.
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37Maybe actually learning whatever language you use on the interent is more important than manners. coz if u thype leik thiss, no 1 taches u cereally i supposed.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26Screw you!
- TheIconoclast31, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17You can have your Perfect Manners Web and I'll keep my Maddox.
Etiquette and grammar are just ways for me to filter out the douchebags from the non-douchebags. If we enforce "correct" manners and grammar, there will still be stupid people - we'll just have a harder time filtering them out of the stream. - slevinkelevra, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14the money phrase
“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,”
I think i'm missing something here but isn't suppression of content termed censorship? - coolian, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30Code of conduct for blogging? ***** that, I'll write what I want, how I want.
- hockey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13What gets me is when some shrink tries to get all analytical about the smacktard nature of people on-line when the penny arcade comic basically summed it up years ago.
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15screw both of you and ***** the nytimes!
- bitterg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Ars has a good response to this, which they call a tyranny of good intentions:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Blogger_Code_of_Conduct_the_tyranny_of_good_intentions - nightsweat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Manners, in this case, meaning quit questioning the media's motives. They love you, really. Why would they lie?
When we have a Corporate Media ethics standard, maybe then, we can talk about blogger ethics. - resplence, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Relax, guys. This is the internet. It will never work.
- srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I almost laughed out loud when I read that headline.
Policing bloggers!?! That's REAL funny. You might as well stand on a street corner in New York city, walk out into traffic, and then correct the taxi drivers who yell obscenities at you.
It's articles like this that draw the most vulgar comments out of some people.
Let me throw a simple idea out there. Don't read or go to sites that bother you.
It's called self-policing.........and it works.
One more thing......What about freedom of speech? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9***** off, BusinessWeek!
- neodorian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6But that is how it works. I don't take someone seriously online if their idea of a discussion is "stfu stoopid nub". It's like banning the pissing Calvin stickers and rubber nutsacks on cars. I hate them but they let me know who the real ***** are so it's a valuable service.
- HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"In addition, it seems that Violent Acres chick was the one who "couldn't be named""
Llike anyone takes that crazy bitch seriously.
She's had her 14min and 59sec of fame. Time's up. - Dayyve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Correct me if I am wrong here but they are talking about the comments, not the actual blog copy right? That's what I thought but a lot of the comments on here are regarding "I can blog whatever I want."
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The only thing that kills me about Digg is that on here a comment =a sentence and the Grammar-nazi patrol will quickly point that out
- h0dg3s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Bloggers" need to wake up and face reality. Nobody reads your blog but you and your mother. If you're too stupid to properly code a website, nobody cares what you have to say.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4i don't know how a threat in a letter, over a telephone line, or any other "real world" manner of communication could be any more cause for concern or any more worthy of police investigation. just because bad behavior is done on the internet doesn't make it "virtual" or just "virtually bad." a behavior is either bad or not regardless of the manner it is conveyed or the supposed anonymity of the perpetrator.
posting an icon to show adoption of a set of guidelines isn't a bad idea.
creating a concensus of civility is a better one. - FairlyStupid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Nasty blogs are more entertaining than polite ones.
- MikeFromAmerica, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5How about a code of conduct in which we all agree to stop using the term "blogosphere?"
- coolian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@cacoe
That's the whole point of blogging. I'm going to air my views without worrying about repercussions. If that offends my readers, well tough luck - go read someone else's blog! Likewise, if someone decides to be a douchebag on my blog, I'll deal with it accordingly. I don't need some schmuck to tell me (and others) how to "be civil". - bergur1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I don't mind bumper stickers because when I see one it lets me know, HEY there's an *****."
-Demitri Martin - geomon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4So you are saying that everything posted by conservative bloggers is polite discourse?
I'm not defending liberals by any stretch of the imagination here, but some of the stuff written by conservative bloggers (atheists aren't real Americans, Democrats love killing babies) turns my stomach. - arnaudh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Yeah, like that worked on Usenet.
Who's going to enforce it, the Blogging Police?
Won't happen. Real issue, stupid and unrealistic solution. - Eilarais, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@rip747
You are undermining your own argument, your post is a perfect example of why we need a code of conduct on the internet. The correct pronounciation is 'suck MY balls', unless you are a) Irish, or b) a pirate. If you are a pirate then you must also start every sentence with 'Arrr'.
These are very basic rules. If you can't follow them you shouldn't be posting on the internet. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OMG THE INTERNETS AND THE OPINIONS
SERIOUS BUSINESS GOD DAMMIT - Naga10, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2...
Duh? - wowsah156, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The whole point of blogging is that it gives freedom of expression. You cant expect to have that freedom if your going to deny that same freedom to people who you dont agree with. The internet has survived the presence of chaos and anarchy to function quite effectively. By all means have a code of 'conduct' but if there is any attempt to impose this on everyone it will be met with severe resistance. The internet has become the mother of freedom in the 21st century. Try and take that freedom away and see what happens.......... If some middle class wifey's cant cope with crtiticism on the net then they should take a new hobby .......like porn.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3 Well meaning idea but it won't work. Too many people revel being impolite "tough guys" while simultaneously cowering behind their anonymity.
The people that tend to remain consistently polite are those that aren't anonymous. If the trolls knew their home addresses and names would be revealed and that their would be a permanent record of some bigoted or pro-violence comment..... they know they could potentially face serious consequences (including jail time).
Some people seem to believe they have a right to advocate mass murder or killing foreigners. While politicians may have the right (which we give them).... private individuals do not. Freedom of speech clearly does have limits. I can't say "I'll kill " and think its covered by free speech.
To the violent trolls listening.... the statute of limitations is 20 years. Keep threating people and given current trends there is a high probability you WILL be dealt with at some point in the future. - Cal241, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Pretty lame that they write about her, but not name her, if you ask me.
- Alisic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The guys at SA did a good article about that http://www.somethingawful.com/d/hogosphere/internet-death-threat.php
- AlienAntFarm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, so much for unbiased reporting!
- KuntaKinte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if we censor the internet blogs, then how are people like al sharpton, the pope, or dick cheney going to offend people anonymously?
- there, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So, unlike the supreme court, the executive, and congress, you believe that "free speech" covers death threats?
- acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you mean "when there's no longer such a thing as free speech", right?
- finbec, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Arrrr, suck me balls and pass me another pint of Guinness! Arrrrrr! Blarney!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So I show point by point how this stupid evil idea would have squelched the founding fathers in their tracks and get dug down? Nice...
- FairlyStupid, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7anonymous, stupid, friggin nasty immature comments is what makes this all fun. Leave the ***** blogs alone.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2P.S. I hope that wasn't unclear the last posting was pro declaration of independence and anti blog censorship. Sad that I have to explain that at all but such is the current state of American society.
- SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Because sometimes being a disgusting, filthy, lying sack of dung can cause harm to others. As Cathy Seipp lay dying on her deathbed, a degenerate was stealing her online identity and making fictitious posts in her name. Revolting. I doubt the bloodthirsty Diggers care, though. Watch me get dugg down.
- MechaFenris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2In the immortal words of Bob Zany:
"If I've offended anyone tonight.... HOW ABOUT THAT!!!!"
No one has a right NOT to be offended. Just like the flap with Don Imus... tough *****. Don't like the content? Change the dial. Otherwise shut the hell up and learn that the 1st Amendment is not only about protecting speech you LIKE.
And in closing, I'd like to share my grandmother's sentiment when someone said she should stop cussing....
"Tough *****." - alyceclover, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Netettiquite" is as impossible of a dream as ending racism, having peace on earth and other ideals. Manners would be nice, but some of the best discussions start from the lack of them. And, like someone already said, "rules are made to be broken". It seems whenever anyone says "thou shalt not...", it brings out a natural tendency to rebel.
- doncarlo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1While this sounds good, we should not be lured by the tyranny of good intentions. There is a real danger that what is voluntary will become obligatory, and bloggers will be held legally responsible for comments left on their sites. Where would the line be drawn. Would the comments of those who hold opinions that are politically incorrect be deleted? My site, my rules
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What about freedom of speech? This has nothing to do with freedom of speech on any level or by any stretch of the imagination.
First any whatever little rules they want to are cute and fine, but they are voluntary, no one is (or ever will be) required to use or adhere to them.
Now, if you are referning to the comments, once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech by any stretch of the imagination. Who ever owns the venue has say over what is said and what they want to delete. A blog is not a public arena, it is someone else's property. If you want freedom to express your opinions, get your own blog. - doktorrocket, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm curious as to what O’Reilly's definition of "free" is.
Managed, civil speech may be more constructive, more orderly, more pleasant, and generally more enjoyable for all involved.
It cannot possibly, by my definition at least, be more free. - resplence, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3What is wrong with the old internet code, "my site, my rules"?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1the declaration of independence contains no threats, not even any swearing or epithets. it is a civil document written by gentlemen and is, perhaps, one of the finest pieces of writing ever set to paper in the history of humanity.
it would be a great place to start in teaching the average denizen of the internet the concepts of civility, humanity, and eloquence. and we have to remember this was a document whose whole intent was to tell their king to pound sand. an audacious proposition to say the least and yet, the founding fathers crafted the document so carefully that 230 years later we look at it with only reverence and respect.
o'rielly would be very happy if he could raise the level of discourse to 1/10th of that attained in the declaration of independence.
it would not fail the guidelines he is proposing.
you ought to read it, sir. - SecondGuesser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree that users should be prepared for vile on blogs/comments. But the matter at hand is not what the visitor should expect, but the merits of self-policing via a code of conduct or an ethical behavior promise. What can possibly be wrong with a blogger that promises (and adheres to) a policy that keep debate civil and objective?
Put in other words, if those that care about ethics, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, decide to abandon blogs, then what good will that accomplish?
Besides, being abuse simply destroys credibility. Are we saying that credibility has no place in the blogosphere? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States"
this is a sentence that is well worded and civil. it states the opinion of the authors without making a personal attack on the person of the king himself. it criticizes the actions of the office. hardly something o'rielly's rules object to.
"Certainly with the declaration of independence the founding fathers "threatened others." You didn't think the British were dgoing to leave in a peaceful fashion did you?"
the authors didn't threaten anything. the means by which the british empire withdrew were certainly negotiable. also, these were state documents. a document of a newly formed republic. these were not individuals stating their opinions but representive of a newly formed provisional government who were declaring that govenrment's intentions. that is a very important legal distinction. declaring war is within the rights of a country. threatening harm is not within the rights of any individual citizen.
you've typed a lot here but you haven't been convincing that the declaration of independence wouldn't have passed muster.
further, orielly's proposed guidlelines are self-administered. they are voluntary. follow them if you want to display the badge. if you feel displaying the badge is of value to your readership... follow the rules. if not... don't. either way you are declaring your intentions. -
Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is