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 h
--- 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
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
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 g
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
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
Variaion on the Golden Rule joke (he who has the gold, rules), who
sets the consensus for a pressure group gains social power.
-- Enric
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "RANDY MANN" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> there should be one set of rules
>
>
> and i should be the one to make the
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 misscommunic
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
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 bl
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 peopl
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 3:1
I'm not sure where the 'rules' part of the debate came in. isn't this code
just guidelines/suggestions that people can adopt if they choose. or ignore
if they prefer. or still call themselves a blogger even if they're not aware
of the code. it's not like this is the all defining blogger manifesto t
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
>
>
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 fascis
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
password: "knowfascism"
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, WWWhatsup <[EMAIL PROTECT
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 p
"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
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'R
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 certai
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
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.
an
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 r
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
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Josh Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone, this is my
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 qu
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 ot
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 w
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
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 h
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
