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. 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> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ ---- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
