--- 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 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> > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
