[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Enric]

I think the point is that there is not a limited number of gatekeepers
for content and activity on the net.  Anyone can setup a website (blog
or otherwise) with their own rules, filters and gatekeeping.  If
someone doesn't like that, they can create their site.  A code of
conduct starts to places governance rules on the net.  It is work to
bring central governing or government to the net.  It has some of the
aspects of governmental rule: reaching rules by consensus, protecting
the rights of the weak.  One of the next steps is enforcing the rules
accepted.

  -- Enric
  -==-
  http://cirne.com

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 but the internet is not unfilted now, and I am not saying that I 
 think a code of conduct badge is the right answer and yes it can 
 very much be a slippery slope, this whole thing reminds me a lot of 
 the creation of the comic code authority for comics back in the 
 50's I won't go into great detail here but it's a fasinating story 
 and the parrells are very interesting
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code
 
 Heath
 http://batmangeek.com
 
 --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], mattfeldman78 
 mattfeldman78@ wrote:
 
  I suppose I might have jumped the F-word (fascist) a bit early on 
 this
  one--however i do still stand behind my argument that this is not a
  good idea and should be opposed by people interested in preserving
  freedom online.  I think this quote from Robert Scoble says 
 alot:  I
  do find disquieting the social pressure to get on board with this
  program. Tim O'Reilly is a guy who really can affect one's career
  online (and off, too). I do have to admit that I feel some pressure
  just to get on board here and that makes me feel very uneasy.
  
  Lets keep in mind that this code is not coming from individual 
 media
  makers who are expressing their individual ethics on their own 
 sites.
   It's coming from a very influential man, who wants bloggers to
  conform to a set of rules that he has created.  As more and more
  bloggers (and vloggers) begin to earn a living from their efforts I
  can see a time when  advertisers will refuse to pay bloggers who do
  not have a mock sheriff badge on their site.  It's not worth the 
 risk
  to them. This will render the web as useless as traditional media.
  
  As I said earlier, we already have all the laws in place that we 
 need
  to take care of these issues.  Using the threats that were made to
  Kathy Sierra as a pretense feels very wrong to me.  It's like the
  government demanding all of our search records from Google to find
  kiddy porn, or tapping our phones to fight terrorism, or
  unconstitutionally searching your bag in the subway.  It's a 
 slippery
  slope to introduce draconian codes into the last bastion of 
 unfiltered
  information that we have, no matter how subtle or seemingly 
 reasonable
  they may seem on the surface. 
  
  I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up best:  Those who would give 
 up
  Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
  neither Liberty nor Safety.
  
  Fight the power!
  website:  http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
  twitter:  http://twitter.com/nobloggerscode
  
  --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh Wolf inthecity@ wrote:
  
   Someone please explain this to me, I am very confused about this 
 debate.
   
   Let's look at it this way, if I as a media maker decide to make a 
 page 
   detailing my own code of ethic and an attached wiki to further 
 refine 
   and develop my own ethics through a public conversation is this 
 in any 
   way fascist? I don't feel it is, but if you do, please explain.
   
   Now, what if others elected to adopt my own code for their sites? 
 What 
   if other codes began to develop and some chose to adopt those and
  others 
   remained unaffiliated. If this develops organically and without 
 any 
   outside or heavily weighted influence is put on taking part in 
 any 
   particular school of thought then such a development would 
 actually 
   serve to enhance the visitors experience and abilities to discern 
 how 
   much weight to give any particular report.
   
   Any real concerns about this being a fascist development seem to 
 me to 
   revolve around whether some group or company attempts to dictate 
 their 
   values schema on the larger mass of bloggers. At which point, I 
 would 
   tend to agree with your thesis that this is an assault on our 
 first 
   amendment freedoms. Perhaps this is already the case; I've been 
 out of 
   the loop for a while and am coming into this conversation without 
 much 
   recent background information.
   
   Josh
   
   mattfeldman78 wrote:
   
Hi,
   
I have taken the LIBERTY to create a wiki for those who oppose
draconian measures on the internet. Please help to build this 
 up if
you feel that this is important!
   
site: http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
  http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
password: knowfascism
   
--- In [EMAIL 

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Heath]

All things eventually become goverened, it's a byproduct of life.  I 
as a parent govern my childern, my company govern's my actions during 
the time that I am there, (and sometime for some even after). And so 
on.  Goverenering happens either by group decree or outside forces, 
it happens and the net will be no different.  It already is goverened 
to a degree now.

Not saying I agree with that but it does happen.  Regardless it will 
not change those who promote hate, who start flame wars, those who 
just want to cause chaos.  Because just as surly as there is 
goverenance there will be those who oppose it.  Again a byproduct of 
life.

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I think the point is that there is not a limited number of 
gatekeepers
 for content and activity on the net.  Anyone can setup a website 
(blog
 or otherwise) with their own rules, filters and gatekeeping.  If
 someone doesn't like that, they can create their site.  A code of
 conduct starts to places governance rules on the net.  It is work to
 bring central governing or government to the net.  It has some of 
the
 aspects of governmental rule: reaching rules by consensus, 
protecting
 the rights of the weak.  One of the next steps is enforcing the 
rules
 accepted.
 
   -- Enric
   -==-
   http://cirne.com
 
 --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heath heathparks@ wrote:
 
  but the internet is not unfilted now, and I am not saying that 
I 
  think a code of conduct badge is the right answer and yes it 
can 
  very much be a slippery slope, this whole thing reminds me a lot 
of 
  the creation of the comic code authority for comics back in the 
  50's I won't go into great detail here but it's a fasinating 
story 
  and the parrells are very interesting
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code
  
  Heath
  http://batmangeek.com
  
  --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], mattfeldman78 
  mattfeldman78@ wrote:
  
   I suppose I might have jumped the F-word (fascist) a bit early 
on 
  this
   one--however i do still stand behind my argument that this is 
not a
   good idea and should be opposed by people interested in 
preserving
   freedom online.  I think this quote from Robert Scoble says 
  alot:  I
   do find disquieting the social pressure to get on board with 
this
   program. Tim O'Reilly is a guy who really can affect one's 
career
   online (and off, too). I do have to admit that I feel some 
pressure
   just to get on board here and that makes me feel very uneasy.
   
   Lets keep in mind that this code is not coming from 
individual 
  media
   makers who are expressing their individual ethics on their own 
  sites.
It's coming from a very influential man, who wants bloggers to
   conform to a set of rules that he has created.  As more and more
   bloggers (and vloggers) begin to earn a living from their 
efforts I
   can see a time when  advertisers will refuse to pay bloggers 
who do
   not have a mock sheriff badge on their site.  It's not worth 
the 
  risk
   to them. This will render the web as useless as traditional 
media.
   
   As I said earlier, we already have all the laws in place that 
we 
  need
   to take care of these issues.  Using the threats that were made 
to
   Kathy Sierra as a pretense feels very wrong to me.  It's like 
the
   government demanding all of our search records from Google to 
find
   kiddy porn, or tapping our phones to fight terrorism, or
   unconstitutionally searching your bag in the subway.  It's a 
  slippery
   slope to introduce draconian codes into the last bastion of 
  unfiltered
   information that we have, no matter how subtle or seemingly 
  reasonable
   they may seem on the surface. 
   
   I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up best:  Those who would 
give 
  up
   Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
   neither Liberty nor Safety.
   
   Fight the power!
   website:  http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
   twitter:  http://twitter.com/nobloggerscode
   
   --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh Wolf inthecity@ 
wrote:
   
Someone please explain this to me, I am very confused about 
this 
  debate.

Let's look at it this way, if I as a media maker decide to 
make a 
  page 
detailing my own code of ethic and an attached wiki to 
further 
  refine 
and develop my own ethics through a public conversation is 
this 
  in any 
way fascist? I don't feel it is, but if you do, please 
explain.

Now, what if others elected to adopt my own code for their 
sites? 
  What 
if other codes began to develop and some chose to adopt those 
and
   others 
remained unaffiliated. If this develops organically and 
without 
  any 
outside or heavily weighted influence is put on taking part 
in 
  any 
particular school of thought then such a development would 
  actually 
serve to enhance the visitors experience and abilities to 
discern 
  how 
much weight to give any particular 

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Enric]

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 All things eventually become goverened, it's a byproduct of life.  I 
 as a parent govern my childern, my company govern's my actions during 
 the time that I am there, (and sometime for some even after). And so 
 on.  Goverenering happens either by group decree or outside forces, 
 it happens and the net will be no different.  It already is goverened 
 to a degree now.
 
 Not saying I agree with that but it does happen.  Regardless it will 
 not change those who promote hate, who start flame wars, those who 
 just want to cause chaos.  Because just as surly as there is 
 goverenance there will be those who oppose it.  Again a byproduct of 
 life.

As governance is imposed those that oppose it will escalate.  Have a
rule of no anonymous posting except under a myriad of exception, and
hackers will find ways to break that.  That will lead those that
govern to propose making it easier to find out who is posting. 
Tracking IP# centrally, new laptops with chips that allow
identification, etc.  If that's implemented, hackers will find a way
to sabotage that.  Which will require a more drastic solution to break
privacy.  All in the name of the good of the people.

Those that govern will use those that hate as a reason for all to give
up more of their freedom.  

  -- Enric

 
 Heath
 http://batmangeek.com
 
 --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Enric enric@ wrote:
 
  I think the point is that there is not a limited number of 
 gatekeepers
  for content and activity on the net.  Anyone can setup a website 
 (blog
  or otherwise) with their own rules, filters and gatekeeping.  If
  someone doesn't like that, they can create their site.  A code of
  conduct starts to places governance rules on the net.  It is work to
  bring central governing or government to the net.  It has some of 
 the
  aspects of governmental rule: reaching rules by consensus, 
 protecting
  the rights of the weak.  One of the next steps is enforcing the 
 rules
  accepted.
  
-- Enric
-==-
http://cirne.com
  
  --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heath heathparks@ wrote:
  
   but the internet is not unfilted now, and I am not saying that 
 I 
   think a code of conduct badge is the right answer and yes it 
 can 
   very much be a slippery slope, this whole thing reminds me a lot 
 of 
   the creation of the comic code authority for comics back in the 
   50's I won't go into great detail here but it's a fasinating 
 story 
   and the parrells are very interesting
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code
   
   Heath
   http://batmangeek.com
   
   --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], mattfeldman78 
   mattfeldman78@ wrote:
   
I suppose I might have jumped the F-word (fascist) a bit early 
 on 
   this
one--however i do still stand behind my argument that this is 
 not a
good idea and should be opposed by people interested in 
 preserving
freedom online.  I think this quote from Robert Scoble says 
   alot:  I
do find disquieting the social pressure to get on board with 
 this
program. Tim O'Reilly is a guy who really can affect one's 
 career
online (and off, too). I do have to admit that I feel some 
 pressure
just to get on board here and that makes me feel very uneasy.

Lets keep in mind that this code is not coming from 
 individual 
   media
makers who are expressing their individual ethics on their own 
   sites.
 It's coming from a very influential man, who wants bloggers to
conform to a set of rules that he has created.  As more and more
bloggers (and vloggers) begin to earn a living from their 
 efforts I
can see a time when  advertisers will refuse to pay bloggers 
 who do
not have a mock sheriff badge on their site.  It's not worth 
 the 
   risk
to them. This will render the web as useless as traditional 
 media.

As I said earlier, we already have all the laws in place that 
 we 
   need
to take care of these issues.  Using the threats that were made 
 to
Kathy Sierra as a pretense feels very wrong to me.  It's like 
 the
government demanding all of our search records from Google to 
 find
kiddy porn, or tapping our phones to fight terrorism, or
unconstitutionally searching your bag in the subway.  It's a 
   slippery
slope to introduce draconian codes into the last bastion of 
   unfiltered
information that we have, no matter how subtle or seemingly 
   reasonable
they may seem on the surface. 

I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up best:  Those who would 
 give 
   up
Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety.

Fight the power!
website:  http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
twitter:  http://twitter.com/nobloggerscode

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh Wolf inthecity@ 
 wrote:

 Someone please explain this to me, I am very confused about 
 this 
   debate.
 
 Let's look 

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Heath]

But life with no governance will lead to chaos.  It's been proven by 
history time and time again.  But now we are speaking in complete 
generalities, you can say, Those that govern will use those that 
hate as a reason for all to give up more of their freedom. and I 
could say it's because we have those who hate, who would kill, who 
have no regrard for humanity, it's because of them that we need to be 
goverened

Both statements can be true, based on context and application.  The 
world is not perfect, far from it.  Does it mean we should give up 
and no longer try?  I don't believe that, but honestly I look around 
and sometimes I wonder if we will still be here in a hundred years, 
or even fifty.

How many cultures have been lost through time because of hate or fear 
or mother nature or God if you prefer.  We continue to unearth proof 
that many of our advancements especially in science and math were 
discovered 1,000 of years ago.  History, cultures, people all gone 
and their civilizations gone with them.  Did goverance destroy them 
or hate?  Or both?  We may never know.  But this I do know, very few 
absolutes exsist in this world and there has to be a balance.  What 
that is, I hope we live to find out.

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heath heathparks@ wrote:
 
  All things eventually become goverened, it's a byproduct of 
life.  I 
  as a parent govern my childern, my company govern's my actions 
during 
  the time that I am there, (and sometime for some even after). And 
so 
  on.  Goverenering happens either by group decree or outside 
forces, 
  it happens and the net will be no different.  It already is 
goverened 
  to a degree now.
  
  Not saying I agree with that but it does happen.  Regardless it 
will 
  not change those who promote hate, who start flame wars, those 
who 
  just want to cause chaos.  Because just as surly as there is 
  goverenance there will be those who oppose it.  Again a byproduct 
of 
  life.
 
 As governance is imposed those that oppose it will escalate.  Have a
 rule of no anonymous posting except under a myriad of exception, and
 hackers will find ways to break that.  That will lead those that
 govern to propose making it easier to find out who is posting. 
 Tracking IP# centrally, new laptops with chips that allow
 identification, etc.  If that's implemented, hackers will find a way
 to sabotage that.  Which will require a more drastic solution to 
break
 privacy.  All in the name of the good of the people.
 
 Those that govern will use those that hate as a reason for all to 
give
 up more of their freedom.  
 
   -- Enric
 
  
  Heath
  http://batmangeek.com
  
  --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Enric enric@ wrote:
  
   I think the point is that there is not a limited number of 
  gatekeepers
   for content and activity on the net.  Anyone can setup a 
website 
  (blog
   or otherwise) with their own rules, filters and gatekeeping.  If
   someone doesn't like that, they can create their site.  A code 
of
   conduct starts to places governance rules on the net.  It is 
work to
   bring central governing or government to the net.  It has some 
of 
  the
   aspects of governmental rule: reaching rules by consensus, 
  protecting
   the rights of the weak.  One of the next steps is enforcing the 
  rules
   accepted.
   
 -- Enric
 -==-
 http://cirne.com
   
   --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heath heathparks@ 
wrote:
   
but the internet is not unfilted now, and I am not saying 
that 
  I 
think a code of conduct badge is the right answer and yes 
it 
  can 
very much be a slippery slope, this whole thing reminds me a 
lot 
  of 
the creation of the comic code authority for comics back in 
the 
50's I won't go into great detail here but it's a fasinating 
  story 
and the parrells are very interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], mattfeldman78 
mattfeldman78@ wrote:

 I suppose I might have jumped the F-word (fascist) a bit 
early 
  on 
this
 one--however i do still stand behind my argument that this 
is 
  not a
 good idea and should be opposed by people interested in 
  preserving
 freedom online.  I think this quote from Robert Scoble says 
alot:  I
 do find disquieting the social pressure to get on board 
with 
  this
 program. Tim O'Reilly is a guy who really can affect one's 
  career
 online (and off, too). I do have to admit that I feel some 
  pressure
 just to get on board here and that makes me feel very 
uneasy.
 
 Lets keep in mind that this code is not coming from 
  individual 
media
 makers who are expressing their individual ethics on their 
own 
sites.
  It's coming from a very influential man, who wants 
bloggers to
 conform to a set of rules that he has created.  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Josh Wolf]

So this whole idea of a blogger code is nothing new -- I found a list of 
several here on the net.

Blogging codes of ethics:

http://www.yourcodeofethics.com/honorable_words/blogging_see_also_internet_use/index.html

  

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Steve Garfield]

Here's what Lisa Williams wrote about it:

1/14/2005
We’re Making The Rules Around Here: Blogger-developed Blogging Policies

http://www.cadence90.com/wp/?p=3476

And here's her blog policy:

12/26/2003
Some blogging principles

http://www.cadence90.com/wp/index.php?p=2179


On Apr 11, 2007, at 3:10 AM, Josh Wolf wrote:

 So this whole idea of a blogger code is nothing new -- I found a  
 list of
 several here on the net.

 Blogging codes of ethics:

 http://www.yourcodeofethics.com/honorable_words/ 
 blogging_see_also_internet_use/index.html






 Yahoo! Groups Links




--
Steve Garfield
http://SteveGarfield.com





 
Yahoo! Groups Links

* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/

* Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

* To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

* To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[David King]

I'm finding this whole uproar about blogger policies interesting. Working in
a library, we generally make sure to create guidelines for our staff before
we start pretty much anything... and we definitely have blogging guidelines!

Those guidelines are really similar to O'Reilly's - be nice to people, don't
say mean things, etc. Play nice!

David

On 4/11/07, Steve Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Here's what Lisa Williams wrote about it:

 1/14/2005
 We're Making The Rules Around Here: Blogger-developed Blogging Policies

 http://www.cadence90.com/wp/?p=3476

 And here's her blog policy:

 12/26/2003
 Some blogging principles

 http://www.cadence90.com/wp/index.php?p=2179


 On Apr 11, 2007, at 3:10 AM, Josh Wolf wrote:

  So this whole idea of a blogger code is nothing new -- I found a
  list of
  several here on the net.
 
  Blogging codes of ethics:
 
  http://www.yourcodeofethics.com/honorable_words/
  blogging_see_also_internet_use/index.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Yahoo! Groups Links
 
 
 

 --
 Steve Garfield
 http://SteveGarfield.com






 Yahoo! Groups Links






-- 
David King
davidleeking.com - blog
http://davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Aldon Hynes]

This has been a fascinating discussion.  I tend to agree with others here
that anyone should be free to come up with whatever rules they want to use
for their own blogs and that if they do a good job of it, others might want
to follow suit.

As people have noted there are many different types of blogging (Journalism,
Activism, Personal Diaries, etc.) and the rules adopted probably need to be
reflect the type of blogging being done.

From the political world, the blog DailyKos imposes these rules on people
wanting to post diaries there:
   1. One diary daily maximum.
   2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid,
original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
   3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been
blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this
topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
   4. Use the Body textbox if your diary entry is longer than three
paragraphs.
   5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting
service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com,
allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
   6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do
quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original
source, and use the blockquote tags to clearly identify the quoted
material. Violations of this rule are grounds for immediate banning.
   7. Be civil. Do not call out other users by name in diary titles. Think
very carefully before using any profanity in a diary title. Don't write
diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.

At the other end of the spectrum, MyLeftNutmeg has a much simpler set of
rules:
RULES
Don't be an asshole.

Personally, I like the later code of conduct better.

Aldon

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Heath]

You're not that out of the loop here Josh, it seems to me after 
reading all of the posts here is that there, as there always seems to 
be, a bit of misscommunication and retoric.  It's for those reasons I 
tend to stay out of these conversations.  What I find interesting 
is that to some degree most if not all of us already adhere to some 
sort of code.  Our own moral compass that we have developed.  

Some here do not listen to anyone unless they know your real name, 
some on their blogs do not allow anonymous comments, some moderate 
(mainly because of spam but I am sure sometimes for other stuff).  So 
it already happens and for the life of me I can not fathom why anyone 
would not agree to delete comments that promoted hate, or threatend 
somone's life.  

Fee speach is important, but it is not a blanket to do and say 
whatever you want with no regard, words have meaning, they have power 
they always have and always will and with that comes a 
responability.  People may not like that but it's the truth.

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Someone please explain this to me, I am very confused about this 
debate.
 
 Let's look at it this way, if I as a media maker decide to make a 
page 
 detailing my own code of ethic and an attached wiki to further 
refine 
 and develop my own ethics through a public conversation is this in 
any 
 way fascist? I don't feel it is, but if you do, please explain.
 
 Now, what if others elected to adopt my own code for their sites? 
What 
 if other codes began to develop and some chose to adopt those and 
others 
 remained unaffiliated. If this develops organically and without any 
 outside or heavily weighted influence is put on taking part in any 
 particular school of thought then such a development would actually 
 serve to enhance the visitors experience and abilities to discern 
how 
 much weight to give any particular report.
 
 Any real concerns about this being a fascist development seem to me 
to 
 revolve around whether some group or company attempts to dictate 
their 
 values schema on the larger mass of bloggers. At which point, I 
would 
 tend to agree with your thesis that this is an assault on our first 
 amendment freedoms. Perhaps this is already the case; I've been out 
of 
 the loop for a while and am coming into this conversation without 
much 
 recent background information.
 
 Josh
 
 mattfeldman78 wrote:
 
  Hi,
 
  I have taken the LIBERTY to create a wiki for those who oppose
  draconian measures on the internet. Please help to build this up 
if
  you feel that this is important!
 
  site: http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com 
http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
  password: knowfascism
 
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup joly@ wrote:
  
   http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html 
  http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
  
   04.08.07
   Tim O'Reilly
  
   Tim O'Reilly
   Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct
  
   When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I
  suggested some ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't
  actually put forth a draft that people could subscribe to. We're 
not
  quite there yet, but we have a plan.
  
   We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted 
on
  bloggingcode.org, and created a badge that sites can display if 
they
  want to link to that code of conduct. Civility Enforced Badge
  
   But because we want a period of review, we don't want to 
finalize
  that code yet. I've put a draft below (and you'll see it's based
  closely on the BlogHer Community Guidelines that I linked to last
  week.) But we're also working with wikia to put the draft through 
a
  wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com. (There's an easy 
to
  remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC 
  http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC) Please
  feel free to join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging 
others
  to do so. We'll post the final version on bloggingcode.org, along 
with
  the html to display the badge and link to the code.
  
   (While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want 
it to
  be a moving target once people have signed up for it.)
  
   Here's the first draft:
  
   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.
  
   1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments
  we allow on our blog.
  
   We are committed to the Civility Enforced standard: we will 
not
  post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain 
it.
  
   We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to
  that:
   - is being 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[RANDY MANN]

there should be one set of rules


and i should be the one to make the rules

randy

On 4/11/07, Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   You're not that out of the loop here Josh, it seems to me after
 reading all of the posts here is that there, as there always seems to
 be, a bit of misscommunication and retoric. It's for those reasons I
 tend to stay out of these conversations. What I find interesting
 is that to some degree most if not all of us already adhere to some
 sort of code. Our own moral compass that we have developed.

 Some here do not listen to anyone unless they know your real name,
 some on their blogs do not allow anonymous comments, some moderate
 (mainly because of spam but I am sure sometimes for other stuff). So
 it already happens and for the life of me I can not fathom why anyone
 would not agree to delete comments that promoted hate, or threatend
 somone's life.

 Fee speach is important, but it is not a blanket to do and say
 whatever you want with no regard, words have meaning, they have power
 they always have and always will and with that comes a
 responability. People may not like that but it's the truth.

 Heath
 http://batmangeek.com


 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com,
 Josh Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Someone please explain this to me, I am very confused about this
 debate.
 
  Let's look at it this way, if I as a media maker decide to make a
 page
  detailing my own code of ethic and an attached wiki to further
 refine
  and develop my own ethics through a public conversation is this in
 any
  way fascist? I don't feel it is, but if you do, please explain.
 
  Now, what if others elected to adopt my own code for their sites?
 What
  if other codes began to develop and some chose to adopt those and
 others
  remained unaffiliated. If this develops organically and without any
  outside or heavily weighted influence is put on taking part in any
  particular school of thought then such a development would actually
  serve to enhance the visitors experience and abilities to discern
 how
  much weight to give any particular report.
 
  Any real concerns about this being a fascist development seem to me
 to
  revolve around whether some group or company attempts to dictate
 their
  values schema on the larger mass of bloggers. At which point, I
 would
  tend to agree with your thesis that this is an assault on our first
  amendment freedoms. Perhaps this is already the case; I've been out
 of
  the loop for a while and am coming into this conversation without
 much
  recent background information.
 
  Josh
 
  mattfeldman78 wrote:
  
   Hi,
  
   I have taken the LIBERTY to create a wiki for those who oppose
   draconian measures on the internet. Please help to build this up
 if
   you feel that this is important!
  
   site: http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
 http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
   password: knowfascism
  
   --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com
   mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup joly@ wrote:
   
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
   http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
   
04.08.07
Tim O'Reilly
   
Tim O'Reilly
Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct
   
When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I
   suggested some ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't
   actually put forth a draft that people could subscribe to. We're
 not
   quite there yet, but we have a plan.
   
We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted
 on
   bloggingcode.org, and created a badge that sites can display if
 they
   want to link to that code of conduct. Civility Enforced Badge
   
But because we want a period of review, we don't want to
 finalize
   that code yet. I've put a draft below (and you'll see it's based
   closely on the BlogHer Community Guidelines that I linked to last
   week.) But we're also working with wikia to put the draft through
 a
   wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com. (There's an easy
 to
   remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC
   http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC) Please
   feel free to join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging
 others
   to do so. We'll post the final version on bloggingcode.org, along
 with
   the html to display the badge and link to the code.
   
(While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want
 it to
   be a moving target once people have signed up for it.)
   
Here's the first draft:
   
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.
   
1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments
   we 

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Heath]

but the internet is not unfilted now, and I am not saying that I 
think a code of conduct badge is the right answer and yes it can 
very much be a slippery slope, this whole thing reminds me a lot of 
the creation of the comic code authority for comics back in the 
50's I won't go into great detail here but it's a fasinating story 
and the parrells are very interesting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code

Heath
http://batmangeek.com

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mattfeldman78 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I suppose I might have jumped the F-word (fascist) a bit early on 
this
 one--however i do still stand behind my argument that this is not a
 good idea and should be opposed by people interested in preserving
 freedom online.  I think this quote from Robert Scoble says 
alot:  I
 do find disquieting the social pressure to get on board with this
 program. Tim O'Reilly is a guy who really can affect one's career
 online (and off, too). I do have to admit that I feel some pressure
 just to get on board here and that makes me feel very uneasy.
 
 Lets keep in mind that this code is not coming from individual 
media
 makers who are expressing their individual ethics on their own 
sites.
  It's coming from a very influential man, who wants bloggers to
 conform to a set of rules that he has created.  As more and more
 bloggers (and vloggers) begin to earn a living from their efforts I
 can see a time when  advertisers will refuse to pay bloggers who do
 not have a mock sheriff badge on their site.  It's not worth the 
risk
 to them. This will render the web as useless as traditional media.
 
 As I said earlier, we already have all the laws in place that we 
need
 to take care of these issues.  Using the threats that were made to
 Kathy Sierra as a pretense feels very wrong to me.  It's like the
 government demanding all of our search records from Google to find
 kiddy porn, or tapping our phones to fight terrorism, or
 unconstitutionally searching your bag in the subway.  It's a 
slippery
 slope to introduce draconian codes into the last bastion of 
unfiltered
 information that we have, no matter how subtle or seemingly 
reasonable
 they may seem on the surface. 
 
 I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up best:  Those who would give 
up
 Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
 neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
 Fight the power!
 website:  http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
 twitter:  http://twitter.com/nobloggerscode
 
 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf inthecity@ wrote:
 
  Someone please explain this to me, I am very confused about this 
debate.
  
  Let's look at it this way, if I as a media maker decide to make a 
page 
  detailing my own code of ethic and an attached wiki to further 
refine 
  and develop my own ethics through a public conversation is this 
in any 
  way fascist? I don't feel it is, but if you do, please explain.
  
  Now, what if others elected to adopt my own code for their sites? 
What 
  if other codes began to develop and some chose to adopt those and
 others 
  remained unaffiliated. If this develops organically and without 
any 
  outside or heavily weighted influence is put on taking part in 
any 
  particular school of thought then such a development would 
actually 
  serve to enhance the visitors experience and abilities to discern 
how 
  much weight to give any particular report.
  
  Any real concerns about this being a fascist development seem to 
me to 
  revolve around whether some group or company attempts to dictate 
their 
  values schema on the larger mass of bloggers. At which point, I 
would 
  tend to agree with your thesis that this is an assault on our 
first 
  amendment freedoms. Perhaps this is already the case; I've been 
out of 
  the loop for a while and am coming into this conversation without 
much 
  recent background information.
  
  Josh
  
  mattfeldman78 wrote:
  
   Hi,
  
   I have taken the LIBERTY to create a wiki for those who oppose
   draconian measures on the internet. Please help to build this 
up if
   you feel that this is important!
  
   site: http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
 http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
   password: knowfascism
  
   --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
   mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup joly@ 
wrote:
   

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html 
   
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
   
04.08.07
Tim O'Reilly
   
Tim O'Reilly
Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct
   
When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last 
week, I
   suggested some ideas of what such a code might contain, but 
didn't
   actually put forth a draft that people could subscribe to. 
We're not
   quite there yet, but we have a plan.
   
We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be 
posted on
   bloggingcode.org, and created a badge that sites can display if 
they
   want to link to that 

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Steve Watkins]

Thanks. I already ranted about this earlier in the other thread ont he
subject, but I'll have another little rant I think, hopefully flush
this out of my system.

Im more than a little bit saddened about a code of conduct which
mentions trademark protection and other such things, as seems entirely
obsessed with comments, rather than the actual conduct of the blogger.

Its all about dictating ethics to others who would comment, and
nothing about the ethics, standards etc of the blogger themselves. 

When I think code of blogging conduct, I think of things like
disclosing certain things, having an ethical approach towards any
marketing, sponsorship, etc. Well that sort of stuff doesnt seem to be
on the agenda here. 

The draft is expanding on their wiki:

http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC

The section I moaned about before has now expanded to include, of all
things, patents!!!

infringes upon any copyright, trademark, trade secret or patent of
any third party

Although to be fair it does link to the rather excellent EFF legal
guide for bloggers (although its understandably US-centric):

http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/

A quick browse of that reveals that libel and copyright are issues
which a blogger should pay most attention to in this sphere, I
struggle to think how likely it is that trademarks or patents could be
violated by comments/links? OK spam thats trying to pass off some
dodgy entity or product as being the genuine trademarked article would
count, but I assume spam is already presumed to be evil, its not
mentioned int he code. Hey maybe 'how much bloggers promote themselves
in other peoples comments' could be part of a blogging code, but again
maybe thats too close to home, lets make all the rules apply to
activities we'd never dream of doing ourselves anyway, thus easy for
us to achieve, unlike conduct committed by those barbarians that the
code is designed to protect us against.

Rant over

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
 
 04.08.07
 Tim O'Reilly
 
 Tim O'Reilly
 Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct
 
 When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I
suggested some ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't
actually put forth a draft that people could subscribe to. We're not
quite there yet, but we have a plan.
 
 We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted on
bloggingcode.org, and created a badge that sites can display if they
want to link to that code of conduct. Civility Enforced Badge
 
 But because we want a period of review, we don't want to finalize
that code yet. I've put a draft below (and you'll see it's based
closely on the BlogHer Community Guidelines that I linked to last
week.) But we're also working with wikia to put the draft through a
wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com. (There's an easy to
remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC) Please
feel free to join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging others
to do so. We'll post the final version on bloggingcode.org, along with
the html to display the badge and link to the code.
 
 (While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want it to
be a moving target once people have signed up for it.)
 
 Here's the first draft:
 
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.
 
1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments
we allow on our blog.
 
We are committed to the Civility Enforced standard: we will not
post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.
 
We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to
that:
- 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
 
We define and determine what is unacceptable content on a
case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list.
If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We
reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]
 
2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
 
3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
 
When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the
blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to
the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before
we publish any posts or comments about the issue.
 
4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take
action.
 
When someone who is 

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Steve Watkins]

The thing is that most of the draconian elements to their proposals,
is already technically covered by law in many parts of the world. Its
just a question of there being any resources to follow up every
potential violation. Imagine how many libelous comments have been made
on the net, compared to how many every go anywhere near a court.

As for the rest of it, I presume that most states rely on society,
peer pressure, accepted norms, to provide some control over how civil
people are to eachother. Its not going to be regulated against very
often. Where the law does apply it often drags way behind the society
the law serves, eg the stand up comedians  rock stars who had to
endure lewd conduct type charges in decades past. But a culture thats
learnt to emulate such behaviour, teenagers who cant get enough of it,
and cant get enough of the internet, along with similar stuff from
many adults out there, makes it hard to see how the sheer volume of
this stuff could be policed by the state or volunteers on the net.

All I know is that this code isnt going to intimidate any
intimidators. Intimidation is a powerful tool that gets people to
shutup far more effectively than this code will, and that is a tragedy
but a human reality. There are many ironies in this field, such as the
potential intimidation w would face if lots of people in the
blogosphere attempted to deeply explore intimidation and coercion and
how humans use them, and how the internet is merely a new light shon
onto this sick underbelly of human 'civilisation', rather than a new
and shocking thing.

Cheers

Steve Elbows

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hello,
 
 I have a really bad feeling about all this.
 
 I know people have good intentions with all this.  But alot of things
 start out that way.
 
 Hopefully this code stay voluntary.  (And people aren't forced to
obey it.)
 
 
 See ya
 
 On 4/10/07, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
 
   04.08.07
   Tim O'Reilly
 
   Tim O'Reilly
   Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct
 
   When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I
suggested some
  ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't actually put
forth a draft that
  people could subscribe to. We're not quite there yet, but we have
a plan.
 
   We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted on
bloggingcode.org,
  and created a badge that sites can display if they want to link to
that code of conduct.
  Civility Enforced Badge
 
   But because we want a period of review, we don't want to finalize
that code yet. I've
  put a draft below (and you'll see it's based closely on the
BlogHer Community
  Guidelines that I linked to last week.) But we're also working
with wikia to put the
  draft through a wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com.
(There's an easy
  to remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC)
Please feel free to
  join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging others to do so.
We'll post the final
  version on bloggingcode.org, along with the html to display the
badge and link to the
  code.
 
   (While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want it
to be a moving target
  once people have signed up for it.)
 
   Here's the first draft:
 
   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.
 
   1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments
we allow on our blog.
 
   We are committed to the Civility Enforced standard: we will not
post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.
 
   We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to
that:
  - 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
 
   We define and determine what is unacceptable content on a
case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list.
If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We
reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]
 
   2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
 
   3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
 
   When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the
blogosphere, we make every
  effort to talk privately and directly to the person(s)
involved--or find an intermediary who
  can do so--before we publish any posts or comments about the issue.
 
   4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take
action.
 
   When someone who is 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Josh Wolf]

Hey everyone, this is my first post after being released! It feels good 
to return to the land of message groups...

I just read Tim O'Reilly's proposed draft (I haven't examined its 
current state on wikia yet), and I'm quite displeased with this code. 
For one thing, it's focal point seems to be on comments and not original 
content. It seems a bit puzzling to me that I can't sign onto this code 
*and* allow anonymous comments. Is this about creating a set of 
principles that the blogger adheres to, or is this about creating a set 
of principles for the commenter in order to establish a safe place for 
them to engage in an open dialogue.

 From my vantage point this code seems less about the blogger and more 
about the commenters  and I feel that merging the two of these together 
in this way is deceptive and tactically unsound.

Josh

Steve Watkins wrote:

 The thing is that most of the draconian elements to their proposals,
 is already technically covered by law in many parts of the world. Its
 just a question of there being any resources to follow up every
 potential violation. Imagine how many libelous comments have been made
 on the net, compared to how many every go anywhere near a court.

 As for the rest of it, I presume that most states rely on society,
 peer pressure, accepted norms, to provide some control over how civil
 people are to eachother. Its not going to be regulated against very
 often. Where the law does apply it often drags way behind the society
 the law serves, eg the stand up comedians  rock stars who had to
 endure lewd conduct type charges in decades past. But a culture thats
 learnt to emulate such behaviour, teenagers who cant get enough of it,
 and cant get enough of the internet, along with similar stuff from
 many adults out there, makes it hard to see how the sheer volume of
 this stuff could be policed by the state or volunteers on the net.

 All I know is that this code isnt going to intimidate any
 intimidators. Intimidation is a powerful tool that gets people to
 shutup far more effectively than this code will, and that is a tragedy
 but a human reality. There are many ironies in this field, such as the
 potential intimidation w would face if lots of people in the
 blogosphere attempted to deeply explore intimidation and coercion and
 how humans use them, and how the internet is merely a new light shon
 onto this sick underbelly of human 'civilisation', rather than a new
 and shocking thing.

 Cheers

 Steve Elbows

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
 mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Hello,
 
  I have a really bad feeling about all this.
 
  I know people have good intentions with all this. But alot of things
  start out that way.
 
  Hopefully this code stay voluntary. (And people aren't forced to
 obey it.)
 
 
  See ya
 
  On 4/10/07, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html 
 http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
  
   04.08.07
   Tim O'Reilly
  
   Tim O'Reilly
   Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct
  
   When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I
 suggested some
   ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't actually put
 forth a draft that
   people could subscribe to. We're not quite there yet, but we have
 a plan.
  
   We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted on
 bloggingcode.org,
   and created a badge that sites can display if they want to link to
 that code of conduct.
   Civility Enforced Badge
  
   But because we want a period of review, we don't want to finalize
 that code yet. I've
   put a draft below (and you'll see it's based closely on the
 BlogHer Community
   Guidelines that I linked to last week.) But we're also working
 with wikia to put the
   draft through a wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com.
 (There's an easy
   to remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC 
 http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC)
 Please feel free to
   join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging others to do so.
 We'll post the final
   version on bloggingcode.org, along with the html to display the
 badge and link to the
   code.
  
   (While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want it
 to be a moving target
   once people have signed up for it.)
  
   Here's the first draft:
  
   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.
  
   1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments
 we allow on our blog.
  
   We are committed to the Civility Enforced standard: we will not
 post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.
  
   We define 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Rupert]

Yay! I'm happy for your return.

I don't know what to think about this code.  I just know that laws or  
rules made in response to an event or a public outcry are usually  
badly thought through.  Would have been more sensible IMO if they had  
just said, OK, we're going to think about this for a while and when  
it's cooled off in a while, we should set up an entirely Wiki created  
response if people still feel strongly enough that it's a good idea.

What I don't understand is why any one person would want to set  
themselves up for a fall by drafting something like this in this  
space.  Other than because they're driven by ego or lust for power or  
fame, in a blind Sophoclean kind of way.

Rupert
http://twittervlog.blogspot.com/
http://www.twitter.com/ruperthowe/
http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/


On 10 Apr 2007, at 23:28, Josh Wolf wrote:

Hey everyone, this is my first post after being released! It feels good
to return to the land of message groups...

I just read Tim O'Reilly's proposed draft (I haven't examined its
current state on wikia yet), and I'm quite displeased with this code.
For one thing, it's focal point seems to be on comments and not original
content. It seems a bit puzzling to me that I can't sign onto this code
*and* allow anonymous comments. Is this about creating a set of
principles that the blogger adheres to, or is this about creating a set
of principles for the commenter in order to establish a safe place for
them to engage in an open dialogue.

 From my vantage point this code seems less about the blogger and more
about the commenters and I feel that merging the two of these together
in this way is deceptive and tactically unsound.

Josh

Steve Watkins wrote:
 
  The thing is that most of the draconian elements to their proposals,
  is already technically covered by law in many parts of the world. Its
  just a question of there being any resources to follow up every
  potential violation. Imagine how many libelous comments have been  
made
  on the net, compared to how many every go anywhere near a court.
 
  As for the rest of it, I presume that most states rely on society,
  peer pressure, accepted norms, to provide some control over how civil
  people are to eachother. Its not going to be regulated against very
  often. Where the law does apply it often drags way behind the society
  the law serves, eg the stand up comedians  rock stars who had to
  endure lewd conduct type charges in decades past. But a culture thats
  learnt to emulate such behaviour, teenagers who cant get enough of  
it,
  and cant get enough of the internet, along with similar stuff from
  many adults out there, makes it hard to see how the sheer volume of
  this stuff could be policed by the state or volunteers on the net.
 
  All I know is that this code isnt going to intimidate any
  intimidators. Intimidation is a powerful tool that gets people to
  shutup far more effectively than this code will, and that is a  
tragedy
  but a human reality. There are many ironies in this field, such as  
the
  potential intimidation w would face if lots of people in the
  blogosphere attempted to deeply explore intimidation and coercion and
  how humans use them, and how the internet is merely a new light shon
  onto this sick underbelly of human 'civilisation', rather than a new
  and shocking thing.
 
  Cheers
 
  Steve Elbows
 
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
  mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   Hello,
  
   I have a really bad feeling about all this.
  
   I know people have good intentions with all this. But alot of  
things
   start out that way.
  
   Hopefully this code stay voluntary. (And people aren't forced to
  obey it.)
  
  
   See ya
  
   On 4/10/07, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
  http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
   
04.08.07
Tim O'Reilly
   
Tim O'Reilly
Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct
   
When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I
  suggested some
ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't actually put
  forth a draft that
people could subscribe to. We're not quite there yet, but we have
  a plan.
   
We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted on
  bloggingcode.org,
and created a badge that sites can display if they want to  
link to
  that code of conduct.
Civility Enforced Badge
   
But because we want a period of review, we don't want to finalize
  that code yet. I've
put a draft below (and you'll see it's based closely on the
  BlogHer Community
Guidelines that I linked to last week.) But we're also working
  with wikia to put the
draft through a wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com.
  (There's an easy
to remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC
  

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Steve Watkins]

Welcome to freedom :)  Here are the rules for freedom, enjoy your
stay... ;)

I agree totally with what youve said, Ive just been on the discussion
part of their wiki and added some thoughts to this. Theres disturbing
stuff there on so many levels, I dont think this code is salvagable,
there are others proposing to start again wth something simpler for a
start.

I make it my business to forget who these a list blogger are, so I
cant remember what the guy who created this drafts form is, but Im now
far too cynical to look to that corner of the blogosphere for any sort
of conduct code that covers the realms of commercial interests,
sponsorship, marketing or any of that sort of stuff. Anyway if I look
to industry I am highly suspicious of most industry created voluntary
codes.

videobloggingweek made me very happy and renewed some of the energy I
had lost this year (and previous years) through seeing various
commercial  maketing interests seep into some blog  vlog realms in
ways that made me queasy.

That code makes me cry 'would the real blogosphere please stand up'.
Not that I believe there is one blogosphere, which is one reason I
dont like the code, but rather that I was busy when all the original
hype about blogs started, and so when I now see all these a-list blogs
about blogs, Im unsure if they are the real deal, how much they think
they are the guardians of the blogosphere, what other diverse
blognetworks are out there. I dont doubt they are influential, but
only ithin certain spheres. Do they se outside their own bubble, or is
this really a code of conduct for certain sorts of
marketechweb2.0pinion realms only?

Now a code of conduct covering commercial nature of blogs and the
commercial interests of their creators, along with editorial policy,
does interest me, as a purely voluntary thing. One model wouldnt fit,
so it would have to be like creative commons and have various
different options. If it actually caught on then it could even be used
to classify 'commercial use' better in some cc licenses, you could
specify what sort of bloggers could have diffferent rights to your
content, based on specific details of what sort of 'commercial' they
are. OK thats probably going to far but Im just thinking out loud
through my fingers.

Ack. Pledges not to violate copyright, patents, trademarks, various
human emotional rights, but where is the pledge not to lie, not to
shill, not to seek to influence me for the sake of profit. Parpsicles
to the integrity of the blogosphere, I guess whatever happens with
these codes it will all boil down to the individual, and truth isnt a
commodity anybody seems interested in forming into a tradeable trust
commodity. Truth has no place in a culture of advertising eh! 

Cheers

Steve Elbows
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hey everyone, this is my first post after being released! It feels good 
 to return to the land of message groups...
 
 I just read Tim O'Reilly's proposed draft (I haven't examined its 
 current state on wikia yet), and I'm quite displeased with this code. 
 For one thing, it's focal point seems to be on comments and not
original 
 content. It seems a bit puzzling to me that I can't sign onto this code 
 *and* allow anonymous comments. Is this about creating a set of 
 principles that the blogger adheres to, or is this about creating a set 
 of principles for the commenter in order to establish a safe place
for 
 them to engage in an open dialogue.
 
  From my vantage point this code seems less about the blogger and more 
 about the commenters  and I feel that merging the two of these together 
 in this way is deceptive and tactically unsound.
 
 Josh
 
 Steve Watkins wrote:
 
  The thing is that most of the draconian elements to their proposals,
  is already technically covered by law in many parts of the world. Its
  just a question of there being any resources to follow up every
  potential violation. Imagine how many libelous comments have been made
  on the net, compared to how many every go anywhere near a court.
 
  As for the rest of it, I presume that most states rely on society,
  peer pressure, accepted norms, to provide some control over how civil
  people are to eachother. Its not going to be regulated against very
  often. Where the law does apply it often drags way behind the society
  the law serves, eg the stand up comedians  rock stars who had to
  endure lewd conduct type charges in decades past. But a culture thats
  learnt to emulate such behaviour, teenagers who cant get enough of it,
  and cant get enough of the internet, along with similar stuff from
  many adults out there, makes it hard to see how the sheer volume of
  this stuff could be policed by the state or volunteers on the net.
 
  All I know is that this code isnt going to intimidate any
  intimidators. Intimidation is a powerful tool that gets people to
  shutup far more effectively than this code will, and that is a tragedy
  but 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Welcome back!

On 4/10/07, Josh Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hey everyone, this is my first post after being released! It feels good
  to return to the land of message groups...

  I just read Tim O'Reilly's proposed draft (I haven't examined its
  current state on wikia yet), and I'm quite displeased with this code.
  For one thing, it's focal point seems to be on comments and not original
  content. It seems a bit puzzling to me that I can't sign onto this code
  *and* allow anonymous comments. Is this about creating a set of
  principles that the blogger adheres to, or is this about creating a set
  of principles for the commenter in order to establish a safe place for
  them to engage in an open dialogue.

  From my vantage point this code seems less about the blogger and more
  about the commenters  and I feel that merging the two of these together
  in this way is deceptive and tactically unsound.

  Josh


  Steve Watkins wrote:
  
   The thing is that most of the draconian elements to their proposals,
   is already technically covered by law in many parts of the world. Its
   just a question of there being any resources to follow up every
   potential violation. Imagine how many libelous comments have been made
   on the net, compared to how many every go anywhere near a court.
  
   As for the rest of it, I presume that most states rely on society,
   peer pressure, accepted norms, to provide some control over how civil
   people are to eachother. Its not going to be regulated against very
   often. Where the law does apply it often drags way behind the society
   the law serves, eg the stand up comedians  rock stars who had to
   endure lewd conduct type charges in decades past. But a culture thats
   learnt to emulate such behaviour, teenagers who cant get enough of it,
   and cant get enough of the internet, along with similar stuff from
   many adults out there, makes it hard to see how the sheer volume of
   this stuff could be policed by the state or volunteers on the net.
  
   All I know is that this code isnt going to intimidate any
   intimidators. Intimidation is a powerful tool that gets people to
   shutup far more effectively than this code will, and that is a tragedy
   but a human reality. There are many ironies in this field, such as the
   potential intimidation w would face if lots of people in the
   blogosphere attempted to deeply explore intimidation and coercion and
   how humans use them, and how the internet is merely a new light shon
   onto this sick underbelly of human 'civilisation', rather than a new
   and shocking thing.
  
   Cheers
  
   Steve Elbows
  
   --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
   mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Charles Iliya Krempeaux

   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
Hello,
   
I have a really bad feeling about all this.
   
I know people have good intentions with all this. But alot of things
start out that way.
   
Hopefully this code stay voluntary. (And people aren't forced to
   obey it.)
   
   
See ya
   
On 4/10/07, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
   http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html

 04.08.07
 Tim O'Reilly

 Tim O'Reilly
 Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

 When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I
   suggested some
 ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't actually put
   forth a draft that
 people could subscribe to. We're not quite there yet, but we have
   a plan.

 We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted on
   bloggingcode.org,
 and created a badge that sites can display if they want to link to
   that code of conduct.
 Civility Enforced Badge

 But because we want a period of review, we don't want to finalize
   that code yet. I've
 put a draft below (and you'll see it's based closely on the
   BlogHer Community
 Guidelines that I linked to last week.) But we're also working
   with wikia to put the
 draft through a wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com.
   (There's an easy
 to remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC
   http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC)
   Please feel free to
 join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging others to do so.
   We'll post the final
 version on bloggingcode.org, along with the html to display the
   badge and link to the
 code.

 (While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want it
   to be a moving target
 once people have signed up for it.)

 Here's the first draft:

 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 

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[mattfeldman78]

The fact that this is being discussed as something that needs to be
done is a horrible problem.  We have all of the laws that we need on
the books to protect bloggers and anyone else online.  This is a
slippery slope and once we concede that this is something we need to
implement, whether its O'Reilly's code or another, we have already
lost the battle.  

Having 20-30 versions does not solve the problem either.  The internet
is our last hope for unfiltered truth-i fear that if we continue to
allow the debate to be framed in this way we stand to lose more than
the space on our blogs that will be occupied with ridiculous badges.


--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I don't know... I see this as being a horrible problem if the only code 
 to be subscribed was O'Reily, but I still think that if there were
20-30 
 different codes that people were crafting and anyone could elect to 
 abide by any or none of them then this wouldn't be fascist in any way. 
 It's certainly something to think about, but you're right -- the very 
 suggestion of an authorized code of conduct is not a positive thing and 
 anyway; especially when loosely connected to a for-profit corporation.
 
 Josh
 
 mattfeldman78 wrote:
 
  DO NOT LET THIS GUY GET AWAY WITH THIS
 
  this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard of in my life.
  this o'reilly guy should be ashamed of himself. he is trying to kill
  one of the last bastions of free speech. all of us should be weary of
  such things-especially in times like this.
 
  and josh-i am surprised at your response. i'd think that you would be
  able to spot subtle fascism when u see it. didn't u go to jail to
  fight against people/ideas such as this?
 
  do u really want the future of the internet to look like this?
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTL3XMDwY0c 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTL3XMDwY0c
 
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf inthecity@
wrote:
  
   As far as I knew, no one was talking about imposing anything on
anyone.
   I thought this was an attempt to identify a common creed that many
   bloggers and videobloggers could adopt as they share in its mutual
   values of respect, understanding, etc. It seems to me that there
would
   be absolutely no reason for their to be one code either.
  
   Think of it like Creative Commons licensing; you could find a
code of
   ethics if you choose that fit your own ideological viewpoint and
elect
   to brand your site with it. Or, perhaps you can't find an
existing code
   and choose to craft your own. Or, as you personally may feel could
   decide not to adopt any formalized code at all. Adding one new means
  for
   people to synchronize their own personal ethics as a media maker, or
   journalist, or whatever, may not be a bad idea. It is certainly a
  better
   approach than the rather ominous suggestion put forward by Deborah
   Saunders stating:
  
   The courts are going to end up deciding who journalists are,
because,
   unfortunately, this administration is really pushing the envelope in
   jailing journalists, and it won't end with the Bush
administration. It
   will get bigger as people point fingers in many ways, and that means
  the
   courts are going to decide who journalists are. You may not like it,
  but
   that's the way it is.
  
   I don't think that's the way it has to be, but I am uncertain as to
   whether such volunteer codes will help or hinders the governments
   efforts to register and license bloggers and other journalists.
  
   Josh
  
   Enric wrote:
   
Human values of respect, understanding, etc. are natural to
express
and act on. To impose a code of conduct is an insult and
mockery of
those values.
   
-- Enric
-==-
http://cirne.com http://cirne.com http://cirne.com 
  http://cirne.com
   
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com
mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf inthecity@
  wrote:

 Hey everyone, this is my first post after being released! It
  feels good
 to return to the land of message groups...

 I just read Tim O'Reilly's proposed draft (I haven't
examined its
 current state on wikia yet), and I'm quite displeased with this
  code.
 For one thing, it's focal point seems to be on comments and not
original
 content. It seems a bit puzzling to me that I can't sign onto
  this code
 *and* allow anonymous comments. Is this about creating a set of
 principles that the blogger adheres to, or is this about
  creating a set
 of principles for the commenter in order to establish a
safe place
for
 them to engage in an open dialogue.

 From my vantage point this code seems less about the blogger and
  more
 about the commenters and I feel that merging the two of these
  together
 in this way is deceptive and tactically unsound.

 Josh

[videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Enric]

There are those who say we should not open our windows, because open
windows let in flies and other insects. They want the windows to stay
closed, so we all expire from lack of air. But we say, `Open the
windows, breathe the fresh air and at the same time fight the flies
and insects.' 

   - Deng Xiaoping

Perfection through methods like rules on economics, morality and such
is the enemy of the good and road to social control often in the form
is fascism or communism.

  -- Enric

--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I don't know... I see this as being a horrible problem if the only code 
 to be subscribed was O'Reily, but I still think that if there were
20-30 
 different codes that people were crafting and anyone could elect to 
 abide by any or none of them then this wouldn't be fascist in any way. 
 It's certainly something to think about, but you're right -- the very 
 suggestion of an authorized code of conduct is not a positive thing and 
 anyway; especially when loosely connected to a for-profit corporation.
 
 Josh
 
 mattfeldman78 wrote:
 
  DO NOT LET THIS GUY GET AWAY WITH THIS
 
  this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard of in my life.
  this o'reilly guy should be ashamed of himself. he is trying to kill
  one of the last bastions of free speech. all of us should be weary of
  such things-especially in times like this.
 
  and josh-i am surprised at your response. i'd think that you would be
  able to spot subtle fascism when u see it. didn't u go to jail to
  fight against people/ideas such as this?
 
  do u really want the future of the internet to look like this?
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTL3XMDwY0c 
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTL3XMDwY0c
 
  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf inthecity@
wrote:
  
   As far as I knew, no one was talking about imposing anything on
anyone.
   I thought this was an attempt to identify a common creed that many
   bloggers and videobloggers could adopt as they share in its mutual
   values of respect, understanding, etc. It seems to me that there
would
   be absolutely no reason for their to be one code either.
  
   Think of it like Creative Commons licensing; you could find a
code of
   ethics if you choose that fit your own ideological viewpoint and
elect
   to brand your site with it. Or, perhaps you can't find an
existing code
   and choose to craft your own. Or, as you personally may feel could
   decide not to adopt any formalized code at all. Adding one new means
  for
   people to synchronize their own personal ethics as a media maker, or
   journalist, or whatever, may not be a bad idea. It is certainly a
  better
   approach than the rather ominous suggestion put forward by Deborah
   Saunders stating:
  
   The courts are going to end up deciding who journalists are,
because,
   unfortunately, this administration is really pushing the envelope in
   jailing journalists, and it won't end with the Bush
administration. It
   will get bigger as people point fingers in many ways, and that means
  the
   courts are going to decide who journalists are. You may not like it,
  but
   that's the way it is.
  
   I don't think that's the way it has to be, but I am uncertain as to
   whether such volunteer codes will help or hinders the governments
   efforts to register and license bloggers and other journalists.
  
   Josh
  
   Enric wrote:
   
Human values of respect, understanding, etc. are natural to
express
and act on. To impose a code of conduct is an insult and
mockery of
those values.
   
-- Enric
-==-
http://cirne.com http://cirne.com http://cirne.com 
  http://cirne.com
   
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
  mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com
mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf inthecity@
  wrote:

 Hey everyone, this is my first post after being released! It
  feels good
 to return to the land of message groups...

 I just read Tim O'Reilly's proposed draft (I haven't
examined its
 current state on wikia yet), and I'm quite displeased with this
  code.
 For one thing, it's focal point seems to be on comments and not
original
 content. It seems a bit puzzling to me that I can't sign onto
  this code
 *and* allow anonymous comments. Is this about creating a set of
 principles that the blogger adheres to, or is this about
  creating a set
 of principles for the commenter in order to establish a
safe place
for
 them to engage in an open dialogue.

 From my vantage point this code seems less about the blogger and
  more
 about the commenters and I feel that merging the two of these
  together
 in this way is deceptive and tactically unsound.

 Josh

 Steve Watkins wrote:
 
  The thing is that most of the draconian elements to their
  proposals,
  is already technically covered 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello, Enric,

On 4/10/07, Enric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Human values cannot be contained in rules.

  - Rules indicate implicitly that people are not trusted to act
  correctly on their own so they need to follow restrictions.  That a
  few people are untrustworthy is not an excuse to put restrictions on
  those that will naturally express human values and act on them.  It's
  the same reasoning that tried to impose restrictions on internet
  speech to protect children.

I disagree.  I believe that human values... in others words, morals,
ethics, codes of honor, and principles... CAN be expressed with rules.

One can study these things through Axiomatic Logic.


One of the problems some people have is that they have rules that
contradict other rules.

A person who lists out their rules explicitly can reflect on them to
find and realize the contradictions they have... and try to remove the
contradictions.

Another problem is that rules are often forced on others.

Neither of these 2 problems takes away from the fact that a human's
values can in fact be listed out as a set of rules.


  - Rules will need continuous amendments such as allowing anonymous
  posting for whistle blowers, etc.  The complexity of human values and
  future unknowns will eventually create a complex tangles of rules.

Now this sounds like problem #2.  Having rules forced on you.

I guess I'm just arguing semantics now.  (So I should probably stop
talking)  But the problem is not that rules exist.  I'd argue
that The problem is that they are NOT voluntary.  The problem is
that they are being forced.


See ya


- There will naturally be people who will use having a badge or not
  as a means of pressuring others.  That is human nature.

  Don't need no schtinken badges.  And most blogs have come out opposing
  the CoC:

  http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=381
  http://scobleizer.com/2007/04/08/code-of-conduct-or-not/
  http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/04/09/oreillysCodeOfConduct.html

  -- Enric
-==-
http://cirne.com

  P.S.  I want a no-badge badge.


  --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   As far as I knew, no one was talking about imposing anything on anyone.
   I thought this was an attempt to identify a common creed that many
   bloggers and videobloggers could adopt as they share in its mutual
   values of respect, understanding, etc. It seems to me that there would
   be absolutely no reason for their to be one code either.
  
   Think of it like Creative Commons licensing; you could find a code of
   ethics if you choose that fit your own ideological viewpoint and elect
   to brand your site with it. Or, perhaps you can't find an existing code
   and choose to craft your own. Or, as you personally may feel could
   decide not to adopt any formalized code at all. Adding one new means
  for
   people to synchronize their own personal ethics as a media maker, or
   journalist, or whatever, may not be a bad idea. It is certainly a
  better
   approach than the rather ominous suggestion put forward by Deborah
   Saunders stating:
  
   The courts are going to end up deciding who journalists are, because,
   unfortunately, this administration is really pushing the envelope in
   jailing journalists, and it won't end with the Bush administration. It
   will get bigger as people point fingers in many ways, and that means
  the
   courts are going to decide who journalists are. You may not like it,
  but
   that's the way it is.
  
   I don't think that's the way it has to be, but I am uncertain as to
   whether such volunteer codes will help or hinders the governments
   efforts to register and license bloggers and other journalists.
  
   Josh
  
   Enric wrote:
   
Human values of respect, understanding, etc. are natural to express
and act on. To impose a code of conduct is an insult and mockery of
those values.
   
-- Enric
-==-
http://cirne.com http://cirne.com
   
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com
mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf inthecity@
  wrote:

 Hey everyone, this is my first post after being released! It
  feels good
 to return to the land of message groups...

 I just read Tim O'Reilly's proposed draft (I haven't examined its
 current state on wikia yet), and I'm quite displeased with this
  code.
 For one thing, it's focal point seems to be on comments and not
original
 content. It seems a bit puzzling to me that I can't sign onto
  this code
 *and* allow anonymous comments. Is this about creating a set of
 principles that the blogger adheres to, or is this about
  creating a set
 of principles for the commenter in order to establish a safe place
for
 them to engage in an open dialogue.

 From my vantage point this code seems less about the blogger and
  more
 about the commenters and I feel that merging the two of these
  together
 

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Fwd: Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct

[Josh Wolf]

Someone please explain this to me, I am very confused about this debate.

Let's look at it this way, if I as a media maker decide to make a page 
detailing my own code of ethic and an attached wiki to further refine 
and develop my own ethics through a public conversation is this in any 
way fascist? I don't feel it is, but if you do, please explain.

Now, what if others elected to adopt my own code for their sites? What 
if other codes began to develop and some chose to adopt those and others 
remained unaffiliated. If this develops organically and without any 
outside or heavily weighted influence is put on taking part in any 
particular school of thought then such a development would actually 
serve to enhance the visitors experience and abilities to discern how 
much weight to give any particular report.

Any real concerns about this being a fascist development seem to me to 
revolve around whether some group or company attempts to dictate their 
values schema on the larger mass of bloggers. At which point, I would 
tend to agree with your thesis that this is an assault on our first 
amendment freedoms. Perhaps this is already the case; I've been out of 
the loop for a while and am coming into this conversation without much 
recent background information.

Josh

mattfeldman78 wrote:

 Hi,

 I have taken the LIBERTY to create a wiki for those who oppose
 draconian measures on the internet. Please help to build this up if
 you feel that this is important!

 site: http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com http://nobloggerscode.pbwiki.com
 password: knowfascism

 --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com 
 mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html 
 http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/draft_bloggers_1.html
 
  04.08.07
  Tim O'Reilly
 
  Tim O'Reilly
  Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct
 
  When I wrote my Call for a Blogging Code of Conduct last week, I
 suggested some ideas of what such a code might contain, but didn't
 actually put forth a draft that people could subscribe to. We're not
 quite there yet, but we have a plan.
 
  We've drafted a code of conduct that will eventually be posted on
 bloggingcode.org, and created a badge that sites can display if they
 want to link to that code of conduct. Civility Enforced Badge
 
  But because we want a period of review, we don't want to finalize
 that code yet. I've put a draft below (and you'll see it's based
 closely on the BlogHer Community Guidelines that I linked to last
 week.) But we're also working with wikia to put the draft through a
 wiki-based review process on blogging.wikia.com. (There's an easy to
 remember shortcut link at http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC 
 http://blogging.wikia.com/wiki/BCC) Please
 feel free to join in and edit the wiki as well as encouraging others
 to do so. We'll post the final version on bloggingcode.org, along with
 the html to display the badge and link to the code.
 
  (While wikis are great for developing the code, we don't want it to
 be a moving target once people have signed up for it.)
 
  Here's the first draft:
 
  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.
 
  1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments
 we allow on our blog.
 
  We are committed to the Civility Enforced standard: we will not
 post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it.
 
  We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked to
 that:
  - 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
 
  We define and determine what is unacceptable content on a
 case-by-case basis, and our definitions are not limited to this list.
 If we delete a comment or link, we will say so and explain why. [We
 reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]
 
  2. We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
 
  3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.
 
  When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation in the
 blogosphere, we make every effort to talk privately and directly to
 the person(s) involved--or find an intermediary who can do so--before
 we publish any posts or comments about the issue.
 
  4. When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take
 action.
 
  When someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are
 offensive, we'll tell them so (privately, if possible--see above) and
 ask them to publicly make amends.
  If those published comments could be construed as a threat, and