Bloggers Code of Conduct (also known as the Bureaucratic Blogging Solution)
In a time where we’ve established numerous laws against libel, copyright infringement, harassment, stalking and have empowered bloggers to manage their online experience … Tim O’Rielly suggests a Blogger’s Code of Conduct to help govern how bloggers moderate their blog’s content and comments. Due to overwhelming response, he elaborated on some lessons learned from his proposal. A blogging code of conduct will not deter abusive users.
First and foremost, this proposition is doomed for legal failure and obviously won’t protect Kathy Sierra (or any other A-List blogger) from future death threats or obscene vulgarity. While the suggestion looks pretty and legal; many people don’t understand that most online providers already have these legal protections in place, and all they really need to do is enforce them.
Blogging is probably of the easiest, purest, free and secure methods to share one’s expression online. When an entity introduces laws because they’re in a state of fear — everyone else suffers. This is evident in more than just blogging. When our nation was attacked on September 11th, congress wholeheartedly passed the USA PATRIOT Act, and subsequently two later revisions, that breaches the civil rights of our nation’s citizens. Are we really willing to sacrifice our freedom to maintain freedom? We certainly do not need to make this mistake with blogging. Instituting a law under the premise of protecting others is undoubtedly a false sense of security.
The last thing we (as bloggers) need is legislation detailing what we can and can’t say online. Seriously. I’m not even going into why … (Oh wait, I just did)
In regard to maintaining civility online, it doesn’t come down to a badge on a blog, it doesn’t come down to additional policies — it comes down to setting clear expectations and putting the foot down, enforcing those guidelines. Whether or not an A-Lister is able to moderate their blog comments on their own or not, shouldn’t be the reason why such ridiculous propositions are made. I agree that people should remain calm and civil when it comes to debating opinions.
When you’ve let the majority of your users be at the mercy of the smallest group of unruly users, you’ve failed your community.
I am actually quite disappointed that Kathy didn’t show up at her conference. I understand that she felt concerned for her personal safety.
Here’s what I would do: I’d contact the contact the police and request they send an officer to standby at the conference due to a potential death threat. Then I’d inform the event coordinators to verify photo identification at the entry, and perform a brief weapon checkpoint. (Last time I checked, no firearms fit in a PowerBook) Then I’d take a moment to talk about why everyone was searched, and had to check their photo ID’s. I’d expand on details regarding user safety, enforcement, and the seriousness of blogging and why it matters — since everyone would have been searched, they would have paid the price for her circumstances. Do I really think the troll was/is going hurt her? No. The troll in her case wanted attention and guess what — she gave him every second of it. On the other hand, I commend her for blogging about her experience, and it’s clear that this issue is serious. I just don’t think a Code of Conduct is the right solution.
That said, we shouldn’t be compromising our personal safety in the name of transparency and blogging ourselves. We should acknowledge the fact that (a) there are some unfriendly people online, (b) people are more likely than not to say obscene things, and (c) maintaining a thick skin does not mean to further engage an abusive user. If we as bloggers stand up, and put forth our own blog comment guidelines; and enforce them — we probably won’t have another Kathy Sierra. Kathy Sierra isn’t alone. Many other bloggers have been threatened and stalked, for example, go ask Darren Rowse.
Some may suspect I am cold and heartless for feeling this way. To the uninitiated, I’ve had numerous death threats and harassment thrown at me when I was in tech support. Maybe I felt comfortable because I had access to their ANI or account information, or it could be that I’ve just grown a thick skin and have a sense of what to expect out of people. We’re human. Human emotions aren’t always happy and peaceful. The key to success in managing hateful users is the agility to maintain your position and reasonably handle threats online. As you can see, this issue is serious, as blogging is simply another form of free speech and no matter how many laws you have, how many blog disclosures, badges, or page views — you can’t please everyone so you might as well prepare for it when you don’t.
I invite you to share your thoughts in the comments.
Blog. Blog freely.
[tags]Blogging, Safety, Kathy Sierra, Conduct, Policy, Solution, Civility Enforced, Anything Goes, Disclosure, Web 2.0[/tags]
Stumble it!
April 12th, 2007 at 8:48 PM
This is exactly the same thing as “no-fly” lists for the airport. To paraphrase from another online discussion I was following the other day:
“The government knows that terrorists are effective not because they kill people (many other things do a far better job), but because they terrorise [sic] the population simply by threat (amplified by precedent).
The government does not actually have to prevent terrorists commiting [sic] crimes such as mass murder (one of the things it can’t do if it is to uphold a free society - it can’t prevent anyone committing crimes). What it has to do is to counter the terror.
No-fly lists, proscribed luggage item, racial profiling, etc. It doesn’t actually matter that in terms of effectiveness these border upon superstitious talismans against evil, the point is that they are effective in countering terror.
The no-fly list is not directed at terrorists (potential or real), but at law abiding citizens - precisely so that society feels comforted and the terror is assuaged.
So, no-fly lists work.
This is precisely the same basis for the ‘Blogger’s code of conduct’. It’s not designed to dissuade sociopaths, but to reassure blogger’s audiences that something is being done (however ineffective) - and consequently to raise those bloggers (who are ‘doing something’) in the esteem of their own [self-selected] audiences.” ”
-from freedom-to-tinker.com poster CrosbieFitch
I wholeheartedly agree with his post. It’s about maintaining the illusion of self-policing and to let the “somebody ought to DO something!” crowd sleep a little easier in their nanny-state beds.
April 12th, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Oh and by the way, chalk me up as suffering from Kathy Sierra fatigue. Where is the outrage over the death threats, racist & sexist comments that have been directed at Filipina blogger and pundit Michelle Malkin? Maybe she ought to call Ann Coulter or Crystal Gail Mangum and see what it’s really like to have people say mean things about you on the Internet.
Wake me up when there are no more serious threats to women such as female prisoner abuse in the U.S., sex trafficking in SE Asia, or continent-wide torture of women in Africa; and then maybe I’ll care about some upper-middle-class white woman behind an Apple widescreen in a gated subdivision of McMansions.
Seriously, have people not seen the online death threats, vitriol and violent fantasies about Hillary Clinton? What have people on the Internet said about Dick Cheney, Reade Seligman, Sarah Brady, Al Franken or Condoleeza Rice?
Don’t get me wrong- I seriously hope nobody kills Kathy Sierra. I don’t think anyone deserves to die just for typing some stuff and posting it on the Internet (a few exceptions aside, but the point is not this Kathy person). In fact If I were rich I’d even donate money toward the “Glock and a concealed-carry license for Kathy” foundation. I’d buy her a Rottweiler and a lock for her door, at the very least. Maybe I’d just get her a computer without an ethernet card so the bad people wouldn’t bother her, I don’t know.
Bottom line, though, is that to suggest that she is somehow a unique example of online targeting or misogyny (and to suggest that she isn’t benefiting from the publicity) is intellectually dishonest.