What is Digg?56 Comments
- roosh4, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12The bloggers who have a unruly audience will take action (registration, moderation, etc.) because it serves their interests and their readers, not because Mr. O'reilly said so.
- fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10So...let me get this straight...ArsTechnica wants someone to leave insulating, deragatorry, and/or obscene language on their personal blog because it's a matter of ethics?
Guess want? On personal blogs, people are identified with the content of the blog. If they want to censor the content on *their own site* it's their choice. - limxdul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7WAIT WAIT!!
"Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - Crimsoneer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7The entire purpose of a blog is being able to say what you want, when you want. When you start censuring a mans ability to stand up and say what he wants to say, you've got problems.
- resplence, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6One of the points is "we ignore the trolls".
What does this mean? You don't ban nor delete their comments, just skip them instead? In my opinion, that's what 'ignore' would mean, but they are so nazi with their other measures that I think in this context it might actually stand for getting an online restraining order against the offender. - limxdul, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
**GASP**
AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAHAHHAH - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4OMG THE BLOGOSPHERE IS ENDANGER MILLIONS OF OPINIONATED IDIOTS MANY OF WHOM HAVE NO FORMAL EDUCATION IN ANYTHING RESEMBLING THE TOPIC THEIR WEBBLOG OOPS I MEAN BLOG LOL WILL HAVE THEIR COMMUNICAE DISRUPTED
THE INTERWEB IS LOSE I TELL YOU!!! - monkeybrainz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I think that Tim's ego may be getting out of control ever since he coined Web 2.0 and all the suckers bought it.
- geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@linkedlist:
Uh, we care because they want us to make it "voluntary/*compulsory."
(Read: You don't have to do it, *but if you don't, you can't be on their A lists, hobnob with them, or be considered cool, trusted, or "safe" by them).
Why would I voluntarily censor my thoughts or anyone else's? I can't believe they're suggesting it.
I started a blog because I had nowhere else to say exactly what I thought, when I felt like saying it, in the manner in which I felt it should be said. If not for my blog I probably would've gone out of my mind for whatever I couldn't express without fear of repercussion or having it edited or deleted out of existence. I wouldn't give up that freedom and control for the world.
Since I am so determined to say what I want in the way I want to, I extend my blog visitors the same courtesy. If things get out of hand in comments I can always edit on the fly, deleting whatever I think is is inappropriate, and screen or moderate comments until I think things have calmed down. I can block IPs if I must. (I've taken these steps maybe twice in a few years of blogging, for extremely brief periods of time--weeks at most. Most of the time no steps like that are necessary.)
I just can't see making that big a deal out of the problems that come with blogging. That's the price you pay sometimes, to let people have their voice, too. - duality, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I think that the article basically boils down to a simple three-step plan:
1. Decide on a policy.
2. Spell it out on your website for everyone to read.
3. Whatever it is, stick to it, and make sure everybody knows that you do.
The whole complaint that the article brings up is that such policies are not one-size-fits-all issues, and that this practically qualifies as a form of "offline trolling". Every blog needs a commenting policy, but saying that every blog needs THIS commenting policy is ludicrous. Clarity and consistency are the only mandatory policies that a blogger should really need to worry about, and they are policies that should apply in the majority of circumstances anyway.
So go ahead and censor your blog. After all, it's yours. (If it were mine, I'd just have a little statement somewhere obvious that said "All comments are the property of their respective authors," and be done with it.) On the other hand, don't expect your readers to be in a good mood if your censorship comes at them straight out of left field.
As for Mr. O'Reilly, I don't think the public should take him too seriously when he tries to invent new social memes, especially when they involve the Internet. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Tim O'Reilly can suck it. I'm glad there is one place left in the world where one can speak their mind. Yeah, its just a "recommendation" but I see it as an ego trip. Oh, if only people would listen to me, the wild west would be a nicer place.
- MrVisible, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It seems like this one would be hard to verify:
2. Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.
All anyone would have to do is claim that they're as big a jerk in real life as they are on the web. - tazx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Each blogger is their own publisher. Anyone who wants to say what they please **can get their own blog**. But bloggers who want to raise the bar, and make blogging just a little more civil and respectful, are free to put ANY restrictions on who can post comments to their own blog, and the manner in which they do so.
Newspapers have always filtered letters to the editor, broadcasts have filtered content. News and ideas should be communicated freely. But vulgarity and personal attacks just bring the quality of discourse down.
The entire idea of a code of conduct is that it's VOLUNTARY. Bloggers can opt in if they choose. I suspect that those that do, will tend to develop good reputations, aside from a few shock-jock types like Maddox etc. - vwvwvw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I had to turn my comments off completely because of an abusive poster. Screw you, Mom!
- sinmerchant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh, please. The "Kathy Sierra Ordeal"? Give me a f*ing break. One hysterical drama queen who can't deal with the fact that there is a potential downside to promoting yourself as a public personality means we all ought to be censored? The real outrage is that anyone is taking this ***** seriously. Oh noes! Kathy Sierra might never blog again! Think of how much poorer our lives will be! Especially the children!
If you look into the story a little deeper, what is really going on is Sierra, O'Reilly, and their supporters think this is necessary because they want to be able to censor comments *without people criticizing them for doing so.* Nobody is preventing anyone from actually censoring unpleasant, hateful, or threatening posts. If you have a blog and feel like censoring comments, have the balls to do so and deal any criticism that results, without feeling like you need a badge of approval and a gang of sycophants backing you up. - alanflores, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@d3vmax
try that in china or thailand.. - meshman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh please, let me...
Tim O'Reilly is the idiot that coined the term Web 2.0. Ironic because the moment he did so, he proved to everyone that he hasn't a clue what The Web is. Now empowered by that, he feels he now has the authority to declare anything he likes and assumes everyone will go along with it and many fools have. He's out to make money and become the next Internet Hero. In this example, he clearly demonstrates his ignorance when it comes to the term 'free speech' and endorses censorship for his own benefit. Too bad, he had a good thing going and then blew it with his own words. - TroubleInMind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3:: points to sky ::
lol, internet - lensman00, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You've been saying goodbye for years. You're not having fun. You feel stifled.
Honestly I have to wonder, why are you still here? - tektalk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Tim O' Reily, cheers to your ***** code of coduct. _l_ o.o _l_
And why don't you ***** yourself now, the internet is for freedom of expression(ex. Myspace,blogs,facebook,youtube.)
Putting censors on us is taking away what many come to the web for, but if you ever do succeed, then *****. - Vicissidude, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6This whole discussion seems to hinge on the idea that if people sit down and talk things out rationally, then they can always come to a mutually satisfying conclusion. The problem is that the world does not operate that way. People hold conflicting views based on opposing faiths which no amount of rational discussion will change. For example, think of abortion rights, evolution, women's rights, and civil rights in the 1950's.
The only way to stop the impolite discussion in those cases would be to completely stop all discussion. But then, no social progress is made. Yes, that will stop the bullying. But, that will also stop the bullied from standing up for themselves. Only when you can remove the political correctness and get to the heart of an argument can you make progress. With beliefs based on faith, that is usually not a polite conversation.
Women did not get equal rights from politely talking to men - they got equal rights because they stood up for themselves and forcefully demanded them. Blacks did not get equal rights from politely talking to whites - they got equal rights because they stood up for themselves and forcefully demanded them. Were the internet around in either of those times, you can bet the powers that be would have done everything to silence those arguments as well. Silencing does not change peoples' minds, it only shuts them up and prevents people from standing up for themselves.
No, the solution for stupid people and stupid speech is NOT censorship. The solution is MORE free speech in the form of intelligent people standing up and talking. - praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -2/+3Dude...I'm gonna kick your ass!
- geekitechture, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2BTW, that comment was targeted at "linkedlist". I included his name in my edit but didn't edit fast enough, I guess.
- HonoredMule, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@gmason08:
Brilliantly put. It's a shame I can only digg you up once. - greymarketbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The (I use this term loosely and with irony) Great Cameron Moll encourages all comments on his blog and then refuses to post anything that doesn't properly stroke his ego. He's seen as one of the great designers/coders out there and says he's responsible for setting the bar in Web 2.0 design. It seems to me his ilk already censors, but it's acceptable when in the name of onanism.
- sunshinelife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Code of Ethics of the Norwegian Press
The Norwegian Press Assosication has this code of ethics. The debate around it when it was introduced was intense, is extensively thought through and generally considered to be fair and balanced. I belive there are elements in it that the Blogger Code Of Conduct can adopt, not at least conserning how to protect children, and protect people in general against themselves.
Ethical Code of Practice for the Press (printed press, radio and television). Adopted by the Norwegian Press Association November 25th, 2005.
Each editor and editorial staff member is required to be familiar with these ethical standards of the press, and to base their practice on this code. The ethical practice comprehends the complete journalistic process from research to publication.
http://www.presse.no/V%E6r%20Varsom%20English.htm - gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What this type of scheme boils down to is what do you believe is better-Top Down World or Bottom Up World.
Let's use one topic as an example to demonstrate how that topic is viewed differently from the perspective of Top Down World (TDW) vs Bottom Up World (BUW).
Topic: "Diversity" both TDW and BUW generally celebrate and see the value of "Diversity", but for different reasons:
BUW-views "Diversity" as a good thing primarily from the perspective of ideas, i.e. diverse backgrounds, cultures, etc. likely will provide a wide range of views/ideas to the marketplace of ideas and therefore advance the overall quality of ideas through a natural vetting process.
TDW-views promoting the idea of "Diversity" for a different and unstated perspective/purpose-the unstated emphasis is on "Diverse" external qualities; physical appearance, styles of dress, accents, rituals, etc., while at the same time discouraging "Diverse" thought/ideas. This serves to create an appearance that a wide range of "Diverse" peoples are on the same page with the ideas promoted from the Top Down by the small group at the top of Top Down World for advancing the purposes and self-serving interests of the later. - JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3T.O'R. is an Establishment shill trying to rein in the net so it is good little lapdog to the power elite like all other forms of mass communication. The P.E. does a great job all by themselves boxing you in, they do not need your help.
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Censorship=Good Intentions
Good Intentions=Censorship
Ideas Are Good, except for some Ideas.
Hmm, Ok-Uh, well who decides which is which? We do.
Uh, Ok-who is we? The Majority, what is acceptable as reasonable to the Majority.
Oh I get it-Free speech is protected as long as it is acceptable to the Majority, is that right? Yes, that is right.
That is a great idea you have, protecting speech that is acceptable to the Majority. That will make it really easy to protect "Free Speech". - trevbork, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2O'reilly has always been a ***** and always will be a *****. Nothing he does is good. Sort of like Bill O'Reilly in a way. Weird. O'Reillys are all fags.
- MonkeyOverlord, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How about having to maintain a means of a right of reply if you are going to criticize others? I've had a certain major female libertarian rip on my entire blog based on one tongue-in-cheek post. If she had no comments or trackbacks, it'd be very hard for me to ever call her out in a way that her readers might see. The rule should be that if you are going to criticize others, you need to leave open comments and/or trackbacks, and make an exception for the criticized to post a link to a full rebuttal in your comments section without being called a spammer.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1anyone who would make such a claim would probably not have to.
- angusm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1After Mr O'Reilly has resolved the problem of incivility on the Internet with a few well-worded principles, perhaps he could talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-Il about a 'code of conduct' for nations with nuclear ambitions.
- hackajar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The Internets is Serious Business, mod down the bad posters
- cjwl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How very bourgeois of Tim.
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@afreyt-My comment was meant to show complete concurrence w/ your view above. That would be clearer if my second sentence read:"The P.E. does a great job all by themselves boxing us in, they do not need our help.", as it should have.
- gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2MakeYourNut-"As for free speech, there is no right of free speech on a site unless that site is a public forum provided to you by the government."
Much flawed logic in your comment above, let's look at just this one sentence above: This fails for many reasons, primary being it is a poor analogy; i.e. a blog site=a shopping mall. Your blog private property consists of space on a server and your content in that space. However, MakeYourNut, you would have a very hard time making any nuts w/ your blog if it were not connected to the thing some have called the Internet or do you own some private internet I have not heard about? Yes, you have full control over what is your private property and hopefully you understand that in a society that values "Free Speech", "Free Speech" only has value if unpopular speech is tolerated. Put another way, we each put our money where our "Support of free speech" mouth is when we tolerate others saying what we find offensive so that they in turn will tolerate what we say that they find offensive. Do you not understand that popular speech needs no protection and that the essence of this "Free Speech" thing we have all heard about is only about Speech that is unpopular? I am going to make a large and dangerous assumption now and risk confusing you on my most important point above which is what is free speech and how does it stay that way. The assumption is that you now grasp the free speech concept so I will risk appearing to contradict myself somewhat. If you, INDEPENDENTLY, wish to moderate your blog according to guidelines you came up with on your own, not based/modeled/loosely tied to/whatever, some universal voluntary/peer(economically) coerced "standard" that does not create a fatal chilling effect on the free speech you are exercising in the first place by having a blog. The- small group decides the "set standard" that everyone "voluntarily accepts" concept being discussed in this article is the real danger, not individual bloggers like yourself applying your own arbitrary rules to your tiny corner of the Wild West. If the Internet, taken as a whole, ever stops having a Wild West feel to it we are in trouble.
Lastly, this attempt by a web establishment type, T.O'R., is just another in a long series of attempts both private and government to herd the cats. Why? Because freedom of the press is great if you have a printing press. The folks that are used to controlling all the printing presses and therefore having a high degree of control over the non-owners of printing presses are not happy about everyone owning a printing press, i.e. the net as it currently exists. These efforts to control "The Net" frequently use some form of "protecting the children" as an excuse, sunshinelife above suggested precisely that excuse. It is also interesting to note that sunshinelife presents:"Ethical Code of Practice for the Press (printed press, radio and television). Adopted by the Norwegian Press Association November 25th, 2005." as a model standard for bloggers ( recall my comment re: printing presses) - MakeYourNut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't know what all the fuss is about. As a fairly new site, most of the comments that I get (and delete) are spam comments for drugs, porn, or druggy porn. For this reason alone, there needs to be comment moderation. As for free speech, there is no right of free speech on a site unless that site is a public forum provided to you by the government. It's the same concept as a shopping mall or movie theater - they can kick you out or dictate a code of conduct because you are standing on their private property.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wouldn't call any of those things nazi.
I have a blog and I limit it to strictly technical stuff (MMO development). I don't blog about the people that piss me off, even though sometimes I really feel like doing it. I don't allow any comments that are trollish in nature. It's not that hard to moderate the comments. - DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@paulev:
I see that you don't mind a bit of self-promotion yourself. Here in .au, we call people like you "wankers". To "wank" is to masturbate, usually in public.
I think you're a wanker. I'm going to digg down everything I see with your web link on it. - dmeyers, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3So sad. I started saying good-bye to the internet that I loved a few years ago.
It's too popular a medium now for it to be any fun. Too much censorship. Too many businesses suing over stuff. Too many law enforcement officials involved. - gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@HonoredMule-Thank you for the kind words my friend.
- JackLayton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hi all,
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Most experienced computer users know that these pundits and pseudo intellectuals need to call tech support just to change the time on their computer. I have no worries.
~JL - PaulLev, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4@akaji: "I see that you [d3vmax] also enjoy shameless self-promotion."
In my experience, people who are allergic to self-promotion usually have nothing worthy promoting of their own. http://paullevinson.net - gmason08, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Your working on a PhD in "Internet Governance and Public Policy." They actually grant degrees in "Internet Governance". I imagine there are no core courses in "Wisdom" for such a "degree". Hmm-frightening; but no surprise w/ that or your take on this issue given the following facts:
Few are aware that publicly funded, compulsory "education" was instituted for the express purpose of indoctrinating the masses and for making them compliant, unquestioning servants of the state. In fact, the goal of the designers of the Prussian system was to make it impossible for the victims of their education system to even be capable of thoughts other than full concurrence with whatever the King decreed. More disturbing, our own (U.S. as is most of Europe) publicly funded, compulsory "education" system has its origins and design based on the Prussian system w/ similar goals, create good little corporate trolls/taxpayers/consumers/etc. Current obvious evidence of the historical fact and results of this "educational model" is easily available for personal empirical study, i.e. the popular interest in matters such as Anna Nicole Smith or what you will find on any given day dominating the "Google Video Top 100" both for the U.S. and for all countries, the later demonstrates support for Freud's Theory and is exacerbated by what I have labeled as the LCD* phenomenon.
Basic Links to support my above assertion re: history/purpose of compulsory public education below; I encourage anyone interested in this important topic to conduct their own fact checking, however, be cautious/mindful of the institutional concerns of the institution effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_education_system
http://www.afhe.org/resources/articles/gatto_teacher_of_year_speech_1990.pdf
*Lowest Common Denominator - Grimboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If this was anywhere but digg you'd be flooded with the "Internet: Serious Business" meme.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think all those 'rules' are necessary in order to gain the respect of your readers. Quite a few of them are in the Terms of Service of various ISPs/Blog providers.
But it's not like someone who is an ***** and likes to flame people on his blog is going to think: "Hmm, wonderful advice, maybe I should stop flaming people and act in a civilized manner" - PaulLev, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I agree completely with the spirt of d3vmax - codes of conduct are nonsense. Courtesy can't and should not be mandated. http://paullevinson.net
- prosep, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Code of conduct for blogs too? What a stupid thought !
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is