Bloggers debate code of conduct (SBP - 22 April 2007)
Sunday, April 22nd, 2007An article of mine from today’s Sunday Business Post, featuring comments from Damien Mulley and Tom Raftery.
One of the central figures behind recent calls for a blogger’s ‘code of conduct’, Tim O’Reilly, now says his idea was misguided.
The suggestion, however, has brought focus on the issue of civility online.
Calls for a code of conduct first arose toward the end of March, after developer and former blogger Kathy Sierra blogged about death threats and abuse she had received on her own and other websites.
Sierra, who contacted the police to follow up on the threats, criticised those who had hosted the abuse and decided to retire her own blog as a result.
Both Jimmy Wales, creator of community encyclopedia Wikipedia.org, and O’Reilly, the Cork-born founder of O’Reilly Media, came out in support of Sierra and used her experience as the foundation for a formal code which aimed to root out abuse.
The issue became a hot topic among bloggers, with many media outlets - such as the BBC, the Guardian and the New York Times - quick to pick it up in the following days.‘‘I think it got a lot of coverage just because it was related to a nasty incident,” said internet strategy consultant Tom Raftery of tomrafteryit.net.
‘‘In general, I’d be against the idea [of a code],but any discussion of it at the moment is badly timed anyway, because all discussions now refer to Kathy Sierra and you can’t have a rational discussion about things like this at times like this.”
The immediate and overwhelming response to the suggestion was a negative one. Many Irish bloggers, including Damien Mulley, organiser of the Irish Blog Awards and owner of Mulley.net, detailed their opposition, saying that it was better to ignore abuse than to react.
Raftery said he believed the suggestion of a code of conduct was well intentioned but never workable, something that O’Reilly seems now to agree with. In a recent interview with Wired Magazine, O’Reilly said: ‘‘I’ve come to think the call for a code of conduct was a bit misguided,” suggesting other routes to remove abuse from online debates.
Even if a universal code of conduct were agreed, it would not change the legal protection that bloggers already have from their respective countries.
‘‘If [comments] are abusive to someone on their blog there’s not much you can do unless it crosses the line into libel or threatening behaviour. Then the law can take over,” said Mulley.
‘‘If they are abusive on your blog, then ban them and delete their comments. The Kathy Sierra thing was beyond lack of civility though. Death threats should be reported to the police, who are best equipped to handle these issues.”
The issue of anonymity has also been a major part of the debate, with the original code calling on bloggers to block anonymous users, as they are the most likely source of abuse. But bloggers have argued that anonymity is not the sole reserve of abusers.
‘‘Anonymity should be respected if it is used for the right reasons,” said Mulley.” The press uses whistleblowers and tipsters, but they will not use or tolerate them if they are only going to be abusive about someone. Same goes in blogs.” But while there has been little appetite among bloggers for a formal code of conduct, Raftery believes most bloggers already adhere to its intention.
‘‘I have a comment policy on my website which states my right to remove defamatory or profane comments and I think it’s a good thing to let readers know the boundaries,” he said.
‘‘People, particularly bloggers, don’t like being told what they can and can’t do and, once people started talking about a code of conduct, it wasn’t going to work. But a lot of those opposed to the idea have their own codes already.”
Raftery gave the example of prominent blogger Shel Israel, who has a ‘living room’ policy, which calls on readers to comment with the same respect they would show if they were sitting in his living room. Issues over abuse and anonymity are not unique to blogging.
Chat rooms and message boards have the same potential to be anonymous and to use that to insult people without any comeback.
‘‘Before the internet and before newspapers, people were writing anonymous graffiti on walls slagging other people off,” said Raftery.” It’s just now they have a new technology that allows them to do it in a different way.“
Blogs elsewhere
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
The code of conduct was a publicity stunt from the outset, and received unprecedented coverage in print media.
The question of anonymity is a much bigger one. With anonymising technologies such as TOR readily available, not even the police can track someone if they really don’t want to be tracked. The unfortunate fact is that the internet is an unwholesome place, and the depravity directed at Kathy Sierra is just a glimpse of what exists behind its civil crust. THAT is the culture that must be combatted. There is no point cracking down on ‘genuine’ insults or trolls or colourful language or untruths. Unless some law has been broken, this is the online equivalent of restricting us to 100ml of liquid in a plastic bag.
A code of conduct could do absolutely nothing to change the nature of the darker side of the internet, and until such a time as international law or technology manages to filter out the really bad stuff, then it is up to the individual to keep his/her own corner clean. Bloggers certainly don’t need to be told about this - it is the pharma spam, the porn spam, and the sick individuals who manage to slip past Akismet. ‘Slagging people off’ is a different thing altogether - and I’m certainly not going to ban that.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
The unfortunate fact is that the internet is an unwholesome place
That’s like saying O’Connell St. in Dublin in an unwholesome place because Ann Summers opened an outlet there - or that Ireland is an unwholesome place because murders have occoured here.
That said I largely agree with your overall point that it is up to the individual site-owner or blogger to set the tone of the debate and deal with the odd “unwholesome” comment.
It’s been accepted by pretty much everyone now, but I also think the code of conduct was pointless. The only people that would sign up to it would be the ones who would largely adhere to its spirit already… it would stop abusive comments like a weapons amnesty stops knife and gun crime - the ones who plan on doing ill would pay no attention to what the rational are doing.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
Well the O’Connell St. comparison isn’t the same… I don’t know the exact figure, but I believe it’s over 80% of Internet traffic that consists of spam/viruses/porn. A more apt comparison would be the dodgiest Street in Amsterdam’s Red Light district, where you and I are trying to run travel agencies. Ireland is not an unwholesome place - I have never been murdered, nor am I directly exposed to murder on a regular basis, but if you check my spam queue in my inbox, or my Akismet blocked comments list, or some of the non-automated stuff that has been said to me and about me by anonymous commenters, then you’ll see what I mean.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
I don’t think you can compare spam, viruses and bots to abusive internet users - abuse is conducted online individually (as in someone posting an abusive comment tends to be responding directly to something or someone), while spam, viruses and bots are just created by a small group and automated in an attempt to overwhelm users and protection systems.
My comparison with O’Connell St. or Ireland is in relation to abusive comments, it’s pretty much impossible to make a real-world comparison with online spam and viruses as no other situation allows for the kind of replication that a well-planned programme would.