901am

New Media News Every Morning

Introducing the Bloggers Code of Conduct: Not Safe on a Full Stomach

By

badgeWeb 2.0 guru..and the once credible Tim O’Reilly has followed up on his threats to unleash weapons of mass stupidity on the world, posting live once and for all a draft copy of his “Bloggers Code of Conduct” that he’s hoping to impose voluntarily on over 200 million bloggers world wide, then probably by force in countries stupid enough to think this is all a good idea (and yes, Australia will probably be top of that list, it is the Nanny State after all).

Now some people suggested I was a little tough on O’Reilly in my March 29 post on the subject. To those people I say, once again, bollocks, because you haven’t read this stuff.

*901AM HEALTH WARNING: DO NOT READ ON A FULL STOMACH*

Just when you thought the concept of a bloggers code of conduct was a running joke, Tim O’Reilly delivers the actual punchline. Try some of this hippie shit on for size:

“We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.”

Oh yeah, censorship has such a wonderful track record in history for fostering personal expression. BTW who defines personal expression and constructive conversation?

We are committed to the “Civility Enforced” standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we’ll delete comments that contain it.

BUTTON2Unacceptable to who? A pro George W Bush comment is as an unacceptable post at Kos as a 2 guys rimming is on Michelle Malkin. Is Tim O’Reilly judge, jury and executioner?

It goes on to say that we won’t tolerate unacceptable behavior, defined as

– is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
– is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
– infringes upon a copyright or trademark
– violates an obligation of confidentiality
– violates the privacy of others

So that’s just about EVERY single blog post covered in the above points (well at least the last 2 points). Of course this post is probably covered in 1 + 2 :-)

But get this, the blogging code is conduct is all about civility, but apparently it’s civility defined by Tim O’Reilly because we can lynch others, as long as they were uncivil first:

When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

Yep, truth be told it’s really more like a set of club rules, you’re with Tim or you’re against him, and if you’re against him you can and will be subject to mob rule lest you be lynched by them for non compliance with The Borgs O’Reilly’s rules.

buttonYou can read the whole thing here, and if you’re really keen, you get to display badges on your site as well. Note to Krug, if these become compulsory, we’ll need the dynamite one for 901am ;-)

I’ll conclude in saying this: those who think that a blogging code of conduct is the antidote to death threats and misogyny have about as much hope of success as I’ve got of space walking on Jupiter next year, or Tim O’Reilly has of ever being taken seriously again by anyone except some rabid feminists and professional victims. Civility is subjective, and controlling what people say and do on blogs can only be a recipe for the decline of the medium and the introduction of totalitarianism online, outcomes none of us want nor desire.

Originally posted on April 9, 2007 @ 2:25 am

Comments

  1. Dude, you have a meta refresh set to reload this page every 3 mins. Unless I’m mistaken, the content on post pages isn’t refreshed every 3 mins (it’s not changed ever). And it’s really annoying when you’re trying to write a comment. ;)

  3. Well, Krug is trying to increase your pageviews. ;)

    Unfortunately, the way he’s doing it will eventually get called out.

  4. So, you think libel is OK?

    Look, people who publish blogs are responsible for everything they publish, including comments. If you publish it, you own it.

  5. Actually Billg, under law in the US you aren’t legally responsible for comments left on your site. The libel thing is a joke, I could be committing Libel against Tim O’Reilly with this post, libel is subjective. Having said that I agree, you own what YOU post, but some twit shouldn’t be lecturing me on what I should and shouldn’t post.

  6. billg, why isn’t there a link to your site behind your name? Did you use a verifiable email address when you submitted your comment?

    You don’t wanna take responsibility for what you said?

    Anyway, this code of conduct thing is probably the biggest linkbaiting thing to ever hit the blogosphere. It only has weight when it’s linked to, so, please stop linking to it.

  8. Duncan’s got the fire in his belly.

    Good.

    Where does satire fit into O’Reilly’s Manifesto?

    I’d rather be a porn king than a Deputy Dawg.

  9. HAHA .. @Pete .. I just lost my comment typing this in here – due to that 3 minute refresh code.

    According to the pMetrics graphic stats in the sidebar – April 9th had unique visitors of 658 and page views of 6027. I guess that’s why the ratio is so off.

  10. What a load of shite, surely everyone pre-moderates comments… it drives little trolls mad

  11. I let Duncan Riley start flame wars on my website and I didn’t get an icon or a t-shirt or anything. Poor form.

  12. Umm… correct me if I’m wrong, but…
    > – is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others

    Aren’t abuse, harassment, stalking and threats of bodily harm illegal (at least in most states)?

    > – is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,

    Isn’t libel something you can sue for and win, if it really was libel?

    > – infringes upon a copyright or trademark

    Again illegal?

    > – violates an obligation of confidentiality

    A civil matter, but again, addressable in civil/chancery court if there is in fact a contract?

    > – violates the privacy of others

    Varies from state to state, country to country, but still, potentially a legal issue?

    So on the one hand, it seems to me that this “code” is just restating what should be the obvious potential legal issues around blogging. It shouldn’t even be necessary.

    On the other hand, what’s your problem with it? All of these issues are things that are either illegal or potential sources of litigation. Apparently, some bloggers really DON’T know better — what’s the harm in spelling it out?