I Can't Believe They Actually Think This Is A Good Idea

Brad Stone of The New York Times has a front page story on Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales' proposals to bring civility to the world of blogs. I have a ton of respect for both of these guys which is why I am sort of shocked that they are making these proposals.

Sure I hate it when assholes leave anonymous hurtful comments on this blog. Yes, I was annoyed at the thrashing that Katy Sierra got several weeks ago.

But I do not want to see the world of blogging become more politically correct. Blogging is so great because we get to see people's opinions without moderation and editing. We get to see people the way they are.

I've often thought about deleting all anonymous comments on this blog. But I won't do it. It would take some of the color out of this blog. And it's not worth it.

Blogs are the epitome of free speech. Let's not take an iota of freedom away from them.

UPDATE: I posted this before taking a trip around my blogroll to see what others are saying.

I knew I could rely on Jarvis to take the right side of this one. His is a predictably long but juicy post. And Valleywag comes out against it too. I left a comment on Valleywag because I enjoyed the comments there so much.

Comments

[jackson]

Whne I get anonymous comments, I don't delete them, I just respond calling them cowards and such, it's fun!

[fiat lux]

Frankly, I don't see why deciding to moderate one's comments to filter out those that you don't like is such a big deal. We all do something very similar already in order to mitigate spam; this is not all that different. It doesn't need badges and it doesn't need a long, painfully worded Code.

A three-line comment policy is all that's really necessary.

[druce]

I like Ritholz's policies...

This may be a free country, but The Big Picture is my personal fiefdom. I rule over all as benevolent dictator/philospher king/free safety/utility infielder. Fear my wrath, mortals!

I will ban anyone whom I choose from posting comments -- usually, for a damned good reason, but on rare occasions, for the exact same reason God created the platypus: because I feel like it.
...
Free speech advocates (at least those who think they are) can flame away -- on your own blogs.

he has some good music-related posts too... especially liked surf guitar king Dick Dale advising young musicians on telling the music industry where to stick it - http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/04/dick_dale_on_re.html

[Grand Egress]

I think any effort to police civility on the web is hopeless, though i applaud some efforts at separating the fun free-for-all side of things from ostensibly resaoned discourse. we all agree to live with some sort of rules for the common good; that's called "civilization."

fred, i like and admire valleywag, but i find it ironic to see them out front here. after all, they have tight restrictions on comments themselves. one can be "anonymous" and comment on valleywag, but only after being approved by ValleyWag staff. As it says on ValleyWag, to place a comment one must...

Audition to become a commenter. To become a registered
commenter on this site, you first need to be approved by our
team. We're looking for comments that are interesting,
substantial or highly amusing. So write a comment, polish up
your words and choose a username and password below. Your
comment will only appear once (or if) you're approved.

[fewquid]

"well-meaning but misguided" -- Valleywag is bang on.

This is EXACTLY the same as censoring the internet because of all the "nasty" content out there -- pointless, impossible to enforce and missing the point...

I believe blogs should be all about free speech, and I think the few negatives that come with that are more than offset by the benefits of a real conversation.

I'm just glad to see that most of my preferred authors feel the same way...

[Audrey Walton]

Kathy Sierra.

[rustle]

not sure what the big deal is. bloggers are free to accept comments, or not. readers can post comments, or not. bloggers can accept anonymous comments, or not. bloggers can impose a code, or not. readers can abide by the code, or not. as long as no idiot makes anything compulsory (how could they?), who cares?

[phil]

"the world is kept alive only by heretics"

[Drew Meyers]

I couldn't agree more -- I read blogs for the OPINIONS and personality. If those are taken away -- we're just left with a bunch of small publishers that act just as traditional media does (boring).

[AjiNIMC - Gmail my nerve center]

Even if they want to do it, they can't do it.

[Giordano]

I´ve personally enjoyed harrassing and being harrassed by people since the Usenet days... and it was much more virulent and weird back then. Leave the political correctness out of it!

[Shripriya]

While I am not a fan of the Code of Conduct (especially the part that makes me responsible for and liable for all comments), I will say this - each blogger has the right to determine how his/her blog works. If you are getting stalked by someone from a certain IP, if you want to ban them, do so. If you want to moderate comments, so do. If you want so set up rules of conduct for your blog, do so.

While, I am not at all a fan of one single code of conduct, decided by a few and imposed on many, especially one that dictates what tone I should use and how I can interact with a reader who leaves comments, by the same token, I am not a fan of judging a blogger who choses to moderate comments or one who deletes comments. There is definitely some sort of tacit approval of and admiration for the "macho" blogger who allows every form of abuse on his/her blog. "Hey, I leave ALL abuse on my blog" - great! That's a decision the person is entitled to make. Another blogger may decide to moderate. That should be fine too. Each to his/her own.

This is an issue I have been struggling with since I have an anon (and extremely obnoxious) poster posting with multiple names on my blog (but same IP) - I still haven't decided what to do.

[Cyanbane]

Isn't weeding through half the insane ramblings of blog commenters half the fun of having a blog?

[P-Air]

While I feel terrible about what Kathy Sierra went through recently, what's happening now seems to fall into the same type of over the top reaction that we get fm our government in the spirit of protecting the children. The world isn't a pretty place, but trying to legislate it or set-up rules to make it more pretty isn't going to solve the root cause of this behavior, not one bit...sadly. My answer to any one who doesn't like what I moderate/censor on my site or groups I'm involved with is, "well go write about what you want on your own site, as mine doesn't tolerate your difference of opinion" :)

[TheBillfold]

Sometimes when people go off on a wild tangent, it can be funny to see how certifiable they are and just laugh it off. We are our own worst critics and when it comes down to it, the most important relationship we have is with ourselves. Right?

[Mitch Rubin]

I don’t find the proposal surprising knowing the source. Let’s take a look at O’Reilly. This is a guy who claims to coin a phrase “Web 2.0” and then sues anyone who uses it at cocktail parties because it belongs to him. He advertises conferences that require you to apply and be hand selected before your $1,500 is accepted (“velvet rope conferences” – I coined that). Not to worry, he throws less interesting conferences in big venues where the plebs can spend their money.

My problem with his blogging proposal is, and I quote from the NYT, “approval represented by logos.” Am I going to trust a blogger more because O’Reilly’s silly logo is on the site? If a blogger wants to edit out anonymous comments, do it, tell people you’re doing it, and if your readers don’t care, that’s fine.

Again from the NYT, “Under a third set of guidelines, bloggers would pledge to get a second source for any gossip or breaking news they write about.” Great! Then I can trust their websites as much as my local news. Oh wait – in 2005 the Bush Administration admitted to distributing fake news segments to local TV stations. Hey O’Reilly: Can we get a logo for that?

[Clyde Smith]

I found it rather bizarre to discover that banning ahole commenters and deleting ridiculous comments is a controversial issue in some sectors.

I have to make really strong choices at my blog or the whole thing would be a huge mess. But I allow some pretty odd stuff.

When a policy seems like something my readers should know, I share it. If they ask, I answer. My values are on display in that blog and they just don't fit neatly with that code.

And the little sheriff's badge makes them look like punks, IMHO.