LATEST ENTRY

BLOGS | Noah Brier

A Code of Conduct?

Is the blogger code of conduct an analog solution to a digital problem?

April 9, 2007 | RSS | EMAIL | PRINT | 5 COMMENTS

I'm sure most everyone has heard the story of how Kathy Sierra had her life threatened. This was a nasty incident and everyone who's outraged has a right to be. However, I'm not sure that code of conduct, as suggested by Tim O'Reilly, is the answer.

The piece of it that stuck out the most for me was number two, "We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person." This seems like a very analog solution to a digital problem. Digital communication is different than the face-to-face variety. Part of what makes the internet wonderful is that you can say things you wouldn't say in person. Just ask the millions of people who are able to get beyond their shyness with the help of the web. I in no way condone hate speech or anything that happened to Kathy, but I don't think pretending the web has the same properties as the physical world is the answer.

The response many seem to have is that we should require more transparency of people. I don't think this is the answer. As I wrote in response to a very interesting post by Mark Lewis:

Would demanding transparency ruin the system, though? I know for myself I trust those who chose to be transparent more than those who don't. If it was required, that separation [between those who are transparent and those who aren't] would go away and I imagine many would find ways to game the system.

This is one of those questions for which an answer won't soon come. Every time the KKK marches around people wonder why no one can make it stop. The problem is that it's really hard to have it both ways. Ultimately digital laws and codes of conduct are unlikely to be the answer, just as there's no good answer for what to do about the KKK or hecklers.

In the end I don't have an answer. What I do know is that we need to accept that the medium carries with it a very different set of rules and protocols and try to build something from there. I am not a big fan of just shooting something down without trying to build on it, but at the moment my head's a little too clogged to think this through all the way. Would love to hear your feedback.

Update (4/9/07): Jeff Jarvis says much of what I'm saying better than I said it.

PREVIOUS ENTRY | NEXT ENTRY

LEAVE A COMMENT

First name, first and last, whatever you feel like.

Required, but not displayed (so don't worry about spam).

If you've got one, flaunt it.

You can use some HTML (a's, br's, p's, oh my!) if you'd like, if you don't know what that means, don't worry about it.
REMEMBER ME?

COMMENTS

1Steven Kalifowitz

Noah, you're dead on with being concerned about point #2 (and the whole concept of a code of conduct). Imagine if the internet existed when there was slavery... would we want to silence Southerners who favored a ban on slavery - just because they likely wouldn't/couldn't say it in person? Their words would certainly be inflammatory and considered offensive by the majority of Southerners (hence the Civil War). Should that kind of discourse be muted? Who determines what is offensive? Remember last summer's riots in Muslim communities because of a cartoon containing the Prophet Muhammad? In the West we were baffled by this reaction.

And suggesting that you can't anonymize (sp?) something is ridiculous. Consider that The New York Times uses "anonymous sources" every day. How else could the Valery Plame incident have been brought to light? Remember how hard the NYTimes fought to maintain their right to keeping their sources anonymous? Why would bloggers so readily accept a code of conduct that their competition, the established media, would never consider?

Any form of attempted censorship (that dirty word O'Reilly chose to omit) shouldn't be tolerated by anyone. It's a reactionary response to a problem open societies will always confront. Noah, you said it best - you can't have it both ways.

April 10, 2007

2Noah Brier

Great points, Steve. I think the parallel between anonymous sources is especially good and something I haven't read anywhere else.

While reading your comment I couldn't help but think about an entry I wrote called "Offensive Ideas", based on an essay by Paul Graham titled "What You Can't Say". One of the interesting things about this debate seems to be the number of people on this side, saying "whoa, hold up for one second, you want to do what?"

Okay, that didn't make any sense, my head is slightly stuffed . . . thanks for the great comment Steve.

April 10, 2007

3Bonnie in Albuquerque

Interesting ideas....I also agree that the space of the internet cannot be thought of in the same way as the physical world. It is a new type of space that does not fit the normal rules that govern other spaces. One of the things that is so amazing about the internet is being able to say things you might not be able to say in person. A space like a blog transcends racial, gender, and cultural boundaries and allows for communication between people that might not be able to exist as freely in the physical world. I don't condone hate speech but also agree that we can't have it both ways. The good has to come with the bad. On a blog for my school newspaper there has been a lot of anti-semitic posts which I have responded to lately. I got angry at how people are allowed to post personally hurtful comments, while mine focused on issues and not on someone's character. I realized though that if they were not allowed the freedom to express their opinions then I would not have the same freedom. The same applies for this issue, if there is a "code of conduct" for blogging, then it takes away from the freedom of expression that is so amazing about it.
Like you, I have no idea what the answer would be, but agree that it cant be governed, judged or thought of in the same sense as the physical world. It just does not fit....

April 10, 2007

4Amelia Torode

I'm not sure that I agree that the digital world has a different set of rules to the analogue world - to my mind, there is just one world regardless of how you access it. When the Kathy Sierra stuff happened and I saw the images and read the stuff that was posted on her blog I was sickened. If you had posted them to her in an envelope they would have been totally illegal, because they were posted on a blog it was considered ok.
I know that this is probably an unpopular view, but I think that the same rules apply, or at least they should do!

April 15, 2007

5Noah Brier

Amelia, I totally agree, what was said to Kathy is a direct threat and that is not cool (or legal) no matter what the medium is.

I guess what I was trying to say is that the ability to say things we wouldn't in the physical world can have some real benefits. I feel like people are willing to be far more confrontational online (in a non-threatening or mean way).

When I said rules, I really meant the underlying rules of the medium, rather than those imposed by outside forces.

April 15, 2007