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 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 PROTECTED] > > > > > <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 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 > > > > > the perpetrator doesn't withdraw them and apologize, we will > > cooperate > > > > > with law enforcement to protect the target of the threat. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5. We do not allow anonymous comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > We require commenters to supply a valid email address before > > they > > > > > can post, though we allow commenters to identify themselves > > with an > > > > > alias, rather than their real name. > > > > > > > > > > > > 6. We ignore the trolls. > > > > > > > > > > > > We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us or our > > blog, > > > > > as long as they don't veer into abuse or libel. We believe that > > > > > feeding the trolls only encourages them--"Never wrestle with a > > pig. > > > > > You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Ignoring public > > attacks is > > > > > often the best way to contain them. > > > > > > > > > > > > anythinggoes2.jpg We also decided we needed an "anything > > goes" badge > > > > > for sites that want to warn possible commenters that they are > > entering > > > > > a free-for-all zone. The text to accompany that badge might go > > > > > something like this: > > > > > > > > > > > > This is an open, uncensored forum. We are not responsible for > > the > > > > > comments of any poster, and when discussions get heated, crude > > > > > language, insults and other "off color" comments may be > > encountered. > > > > > Participate in this site at your own risk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > WWWhatsup NYC > > > > > > http://pinstand.com <http://pinstand.com> - > > http://punkcast.com > > > > > <http://punkcast.com> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
