Call for a Blogger's Code of Conduct
Before I start, I should disclose that in addition to being an author and a conference presenter for O'Reilly, Kathy Sierra is a friend, and I've been talking with her about the situation referred to in this post since I first became aware of it last weekend. (I was not, however, aware in advance of her decision to go public with her story.) I know some of the other protagonists only slightly. In my comments below, I try to be fair-minded, and unlike many others, I took the time to speak to Chris Locke before saying anything publicly, but you should be aware of my potential bias.
I was quoted in a BBC article a few days ago and a San Francisco Chronicle article on Thursday calling for a "Blogger's Code of Conduct" in response to the firestorm that has arisen as a result of Kathy Sierra's revelation that she's been targeted by a series of increasingly violent and disturbing anonymous comments on her blog and on a series of weblogs that appeared to have been created for the purpose of celebrating cyber-bullying.
[Note: Chris Locke argues in email that the meankids site was set up in fun, and while the first posts on the site were apparently about continuing the conversation that had been shut down on Tara's blog, he insists that those comments were not mean-spirited. (Tara confirms that the second post on that blog was a photoshopped image showing her as Dr. Phil, which is hardly inflammatory.) Chris claims that "There was no cesspool of misogynistic attack rhetoric going on there until the stuff Kathy surfaced began to appear." At which point the site was shut down. As a result, he feels that the characterization of the meankids and unclebobisms sites as "set up for the purpose of celebrating cyberbullying" is "false and irresponsible." I have never seen the sites, and they have now been taken down, so I can neither confirm nor deny Chris' statement about the initial tone of the blogs. However, if what he says is true, then the term "cyber-bullying" may be a bit strong, at least when describing the aims of the sites. I understand Chris' concern to make clear that he and the other founders had no intention of creating sites that would encourage the kind of comments posts that ended up there. That being said, as Bert Bates notes in the comments below, the offending items were posts by members of these group blogs, not comments from unknown participants.]
In a discussion the other night at O'Reilly's ETech conference, we came up with a few ideas about what such a code of conduct might entail. These thoughts are just a work in progress, and hopefully a spur for further discussion.
- Take responsibility not just for your own words, but for the comments you allow on your blog.
In his response to Kathy's post, Chris Locke, owner of the unclebobism site where one of the most disturbing images was posted, wrote:
I was a conference host on the Well 15 years ago where the core ethos was acronymized to YOYOW -- You Own Your Own Words. This has remained a guiding principle for me ever since. I will not take responsibility for what someone else said, nor will I censor what another individual wrote. However, it was clear that Sierra was upset, so it seemed the best course to make the whole site go away.
Chris' comment echoes the libertarian ethos that many bloggers and internet pioneers share. However, we now have one more clear object-lesson on what you get when you start a site that not only tolerates but encourages mean comments: there's a quick race to the bottom. It seems to me that there's a big difference between censorship and encouraging and tolerating abuse.
Contrast Chris' statement with The BlogHer Community Guidelines:
We embrace your diversity of opinions and values... but we insist that your content may not include anything unacceptable.
We define unacceptable content as anything included or linked that is:
- Being used to abuse, harass, stalk or threaten a person or persons
- Libelous, defamatory, knowingly false or misrepresents another person
- Infringes upon any copyright, trademark, trade secret or patent of any third party. (If you quote or excerpt someone's content, it is your responsibility to provide proper attribution to the original author. For a clear definition of proper attribution and fair use, please see The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Legal Guide for Bloggers)
- Violates any obligation of confidentiality
- Violates the privacy, publicity, moral or any other right of any third party
- Contains editorial content that has been commissioned and paid for by a third party, (either cash or goods in barter), and/or contains paid advertising links and/or SPAM...
Yes, you own your own words. But you also own the tone that you allow on any blog or forum you control. Part of "owning your own words" is owning the effects of your behavior and the editorial voice you foster. And when things go awry, acknowledge it. It would have been far better for Chris to have deleted the post, and said explicitly on the blog that it was unacceptable, than to have silently shut down the blog and removed all entries and comments without explanation.There's an attitude among many bloggers that deleting inflammatory comments is censorship. I think that needs to change. I'm not suggesting that every blog will want to delete such comments, but I am suggesting that blogs that do want to keep the level of dialog at a higher level not be censured for doing so.
There are many real-world analogies. Shock radio hosts encourage abusive callers; a mainstream talk radio show like NPR's Talk of the Nation wouldn't hesitate to cut someone off who started spewing hatred and abuse. Frat parties might encourage drunken lewdness, but a party at a tech conference would not. Setting standards for acceptable behavior in a forum you control is conducive to free speech, not damaging to it.
We don't usually get inflammatory comments on Radar, but in the past, when they've occurred, we've tended not to delete them, lest we be accused of censorship. But in future, we're going to adopt a policy of deleting comments that are ad-hominem, insulting, or threatening to any individual. I'd like to see other bloggers do the same. Obviously, there's a responsibility on the other side for bloggers not to delete comments solely because they express opinions the poster doesn't agree with.
It's important to be transparent. If a comment is deleted, it's likely good practice to say so, and to explain why. (It would be nice to have mechanisms in blogging platforms to show markers for deleted comments, with the reason shown.)
- Being used to abuse, harass, stalk or threaten a person or persons
- Label your tolerance level for abusive comments..
At our brainstorming session at Etech, Kaylea Hascall suggested something like the Creative Commons badges that sites employ to label the re-use rights provided for their content. This would let people know which sites to avoid, if they aren't willing to put up with foul language and insulting comments, and as in the blogher guidelines, let people know in advance what level of discourse is expected.
Explicit labeling of "danger zones" is probably not going to take off (I can't imagine sites labeling themselves "flaming encouraged"), but the idea of sites posting their code of conduct might gain some traction given some easily deployed badges pointing to a common set of guidelines, as Kaylea suggested. But even absent such a mechanism, self-identifying your level of tolerance, as blogher does, seems to me like a really good idea. We're going to kick around some design ideas here at O'Reilly, and may have something to present in the next week or two.
In the meantime, The BlogHer Community Guidelines are a good place to start.
Deploying moderation mechanisms like slashdot's might also help. I know that there are lots of nasty comments posted on slashdot, but I never see them, because they are below my threshold of visibility. I'd love to see the major blogging platforms offer comment rating systems that would allow automatic moderating down of nasty comments. (Of course, many blogs don't have enough comment volume for this to work, but there are enough sites with large commenter communities where this could be a big help.)
- Consider eliminating anonymous comments.
When people are anonymous, they will often let themselves say or do things that they would never do when they are identified. There are important contexts in which anonymity is important, for example, for political speech in repressive regimes. But in most contexts, accountability via identity changes how people behave. Requiring a valid email address for comments won't prevent people who want to hide their identity from doing so, but it's one more indication that accountability is valued.
- Ignore the trolls.
Sometimes you need to stand up to bullies, but at other times, the best thing to do is to ignore them. As one person advised me long ago when I got in a public tussle with a blog bully, "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." Actors and other public figures have learned long ago not to read the tabloids (although they also have learned to take action when they get out of hand.) It's human nature to flock to controversy. Responding in public to a public attack feeds people who thrive on controversy, substitute abuse for real dialog, and stroke their egos by putting down others.
Obviously, it's hard to miss nasty comments that are sent to you directly in email, and you can't police your own blog without reading the comments, but you can, for instance, ban the IP address of someone who violates your guidelines. And you can let people know that their comments are inappropriate without shaming them publicly.
Looking back at the comment thread on Tara Hunt's blog that apparently led to the launch of the mean kids site, I also see something else: it's important to know when to walk away. That comment thread (absent the comments that Tara deleted, and which as a result I've never seen) is not mean so much as it is an example of comment threads gone awry, with comment piled on comment till no one is very clear at all what the dispute is about. Know when to walk away from a thread. A sure way for an argument to escalate is to try always to have the last word.
- Take the conversation offline, and talk directly, or find an intermediary who can do so.
While Kathy's disclosure of the stalking behavior she encountered has led to much greater awareness of a very serious problem -- we've seen an outpouring of stories from others, especially women, who've experienced similar abuse -- it's also true that in her post, Kathy tarred with a broad brush some people who were guilty only by association. (Doc Searls, for example, is someone I would go to the mat for as someone who is incapable of meanness.)
When I first talked to Chris Locke, he was outraged because he felt that Kathy had named him as the site owner even though "she knows it's not me" who posted the images. I think I was able to convince him that she didn't know that, since she'd been asking for my help tracking down the perpetrator. All she knew was that the same small group of people, Chris prominent among them, had created first one site, and then another, that posted increasingly gruesome comments and images, and then disappeared.
It's an irony of the situation that the very thing that Chris thought exculpated him from blame ("We took the sites down as soon as they got out of hand") is what made these sites particularly terrifying to Kathy.
It's a further irony that both Chris and Kathy, both exponents of networked conversation, communicated about the inappropriateness of the images via comments on the blog rather than by any direct means. (Kathy did communicate directly with several of the meankids protagonists, including Jeneane Sessums and Frank Paynter, but hadn't done so with Chris Locke, who ran the unclebobism site, both because she didn't know him, and because by then the harrassment had escalated to a level that terrified her, and she felt the need to go public.)
I do know that when I was able to act as an intermediary between Kathy and Chris, explaining each to the other, I was able to create a bit more room for a real conversation to begin. (Obviously, this only worked because I knew both parties enough to suspect that there was at least some amount of misunderstanding at work.) Written comments in a public forum are a really terrible way to have an emotionally charged discussion!
I don't know what the result will be now that Kathy and Chris are in direct communication, but I do hope that it will lead to more understanding than a public exchange of accusations. In particular, I'm hopeful that Chris will be able to persuade the person who did create the gruesome image on the unclebobism site to come forward (something that's far more likely to happen in a private conversation than a public confession) so that he can reassure Kathy that no physical threat was actually intended. (Chris clearly knows this person, since when we spoke he at first assumed that Kathy did too.)
It now seems fairly certain that that the images posted on meankids and unclebobism were not intended as actual threats -- but as long as the perpetrator remains anonymous, there is no way to be sure. In particular, as the person who is now seen as the most likely perpetrator insists, after the fact, that his computer must have been hacked, Kathy is left with the fear that there is indeed an unknown stalker at large.
- If you know someone who is behaving badly, tell them so.
Bringing this back to the level of principle: if you know someone who has anonymously published comments that could be construed as a threat, you owe it to them, to their victim, and to yourself, not to remain silent. If there is no actual threat, you need to convince the perpetrator to apologize; if there is, you need to cooperate with the police to avert that threat.
If you know someone who is publishing comments or blog postings that are merely offensive, but not threatening, don't be afraid to tell them so. And if they continue, don't continue to associated with them. As one person I talked to noted, "these are not your friends." A friend is someone who makes you better by your association with them, not worse. And if one of your friends is out of line, you owe it to them and to yourself to let them know it.
- Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person.
The next time you're tempted to vent your anger or frustration online, imagine you're talking to your mother. Or if you have no respect for your mother, imagine you're talking to a big, mean dude that you met on the street. Or simply imagine the person you're speaking to as a real person, standing in front of you. Would you say what you're saying to them if you were in the same room?
Net net: as Doc Searls famously said in The Cluetrain Manifesto, the book he co-authored with Chris Locke and David Weinberger, "markets are conversations." We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation in ways that were long missing from mainstream media and marketing-dominated corporate websites. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. There's no reason why we should tolerate conversations online that we wouldn't tolerate in our living room.
A culture is a set of shared agreements that allows us to live together. Let's make sure that the culture we create with our blogs is one that we are proud of.
tags:
| comments: 191
| Sphere It
submit: 
Subscribe to Comments on this Entry:
11 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://radar.oreilly.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/8984
Death threats against a tech blogger cause Tim O'Reilly and friends to suggest that we are responsible for not only our content, but the content of our comment threads as well. Read More
Code of Conduct for Bloggers Read More
We become part of the stories we discuss on our blogs. We mold, change, and affect the public's perception of... Read More
The New York Times’ Brad Stone has this thoughtful piece about the blogging guidelines that have been floated in the wake of Kathy Sierra’s widely publicized decision to back out of a speaking engagement due to threatening blog comments and... Read More
So, Tim O’Reilly posted his version of a Code of Conduct for Bloggers to adhere to. He admits it is merely a starting point for discussion, and nothing has been templated in stone. As such, I figured I would take the baton and run with it. I ... Read More
Die Welle WEB2.0 bricht nicht und sp√ºhlt weiterhin ungebrochen durch das Internet. Da hat sich der schlaue Tim O’Reilly aus aktuellem Anlass mal ein Paar Ideen gemacht zum Thema “Wie man bloggen sollte“. Herrausgekommen ist der soge... Read More
Courtesy of Dave Simmer at Blogography comes news that Tim O’Reilly would like bloggers to establish a ‘code of conduct’. To which I say: good luck with that, Tim! Forgive me if I don’t sign up. Now, to be fair... Read More
There have been numerous blog entrees regarding blogging etiquette. They range from drastic "codes of conduct" and worry about legal issues over deleting a trollish post to folks that haven't... Read More
Ospito in queste pagine una prima traduzione del Blogger’s Code of Conduct in corso di elaborazione su Blogging Wikia. Proposto a fine Marzo da Tim O’Reilly ed ora attivamente elaborato da una vasta community di blogger di tutte le nazional... Read More
Okay, nobody can actually make bloggers (et al.) follow such codes of civility, but are the proposed rules circulating on the Net actually worth paying any attention to? They were... Read More
Tim O'Reilly has called for and drafted a Bloggers code of conduct, mostly in response to the over-the-top harassment that Kathy Sierra received a few weeks ago. From the O'Reilly Radar blog: We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank an Read More
Comments: 191
Tim,
Just a few comments on what I think is essentially a right-headed piece:
(It would be nice to have mechanisms in blogging platforms to show markers for deleted comments, with the reason shown.)
I encourage you to follow the policy that Teresa Nielsen-Hayden follows on Making Light: Disemvowelment.
The discussion there is often heated, yet generally remains within the bounds of civility. Disemvowelment leaves a marker of the comment, one which can usually be puzzled out by someone sufficiently motivated to rd smthng lk ths. It also tends to publicly shame the rude commentator, yet is playful enough to soften the shame. The very word "disemvowelment" itself conflates the seriousness of the offense with the ridiculousness of the offense.
You'll notice in that article above that there are Movable Type plug-ins for disemvowelment. There are also Wordpress methods, and I believe (though it's not on the page) a Javascript implementation.
Chris' comment echoes the libertarian ethos that many bloggers and internet pioneers share.
For all their knowledge of economics, libertarians often seem strikingly unaware of the concept of externalities. (I'm not saying that about Chris Locke specifically, by the way, but as a general observation.)
Frat parties might encourage drunken lewdness, but a party at a tech conference would not.
I think we might've been to different parties. ;-)
More seriously, I think simple lewdness is of an entirely different category than threat and violence.
But in most contexts, accountability via identity changes how people behave.
The level of discourse in O'Reilly weblogs gained considerably when logons were linked to people's O'Reilly accounts. I urge you to do the same for Radar. (I'm puzzled as to why you didn't do this from the start.)
Deploying moderation mechanisms like slashdot's might also help. I know that there are lots of nasty comments posted on slashdot, but I never see them, because they are below my threshold of visibility. I'd love to see the major blogging platforms offer comment rating systems that would allow automatic moderating down of nasty comments. (Of course, many blogs don't have enough comment volume for this to work, but there are enough sites with large commenter communities where this could be a big help.)
Again, Making Light offers a fine example of how this can be done via community without much technical intervention.
Know when to walk away from a thread. A sure way for an argument to escalate is to try always to have the last word.
On the other hand, the last comment is often taken as the last (in the sense of definitive rather than final) word on a subject. This is a difficult balance to strike, and walking away is sometimes the right thing, but other times it's not.
Finally, I urge you to look into organized self-regulation in United States journalism from the late seventies and early eighties. We went over it in Mass Communications class years ago, and I remember just enough to say it's worth checking out.
Watching all this -- and calls for a "code of conduct" -- I have to confess to some eye rolling. That's because part of me was feeling this isn't about how bloggers should behave. It's just about how people should behave to each other. Yes, don't say (or act) online in a way you wouldn't do in person. I wrote about this recently, http://daggle.com/061220-215331.html, and I'm far from the first or the only one. Blogger, commenter, journalist, posting on a forum, sending email, whatever. Act like decent human and as if the person you are talking to or about was as you say, in front of you.
But to be honest, Tim, some of the other things you write do make sense from a blogging context. Enough with anonymous comments. Yes, email can be faked. But it's a start to making people take more responsibility to have them register before commenting. Sure, it makes it harder to comment. That's fine. It means you care more, and you are less likely to be abusive (since if you abuse your registered account, it gets killed, and you start again).
Be responsible for comments? Sure -- with the caveat that it's worrisome in part to say this. Comments have so far been shown to have some protection as a public forum. If we start editing comments, so we start taking on a more legal responsibility for them? Regardless, if I have a comment I consider abusive, not helpful or whatever, yeah -- I'm going to yank it. Anyone should feel empowered to do so.
Newspapers have lied us into wars, how many innocent people have died in Iraq since Kathy published her paranoia?
Or vice-versa.
Anyway, that's how posters at Making Light call attention to comment spam, and to abusive comments.
Tim,
As another long time veteran of the Well, I have to say that I admire your clarion call for a "Code of Conduct." But when you go out to get one, be sure to pack a lunch and take along plenty of drinking water. You'll be en route for a long, long time on the way to the magic land of "Ain't Gonna Happen."
Still, it is a nice ideal.
Reminds me of Gandhi's reaction to western civilisation: "would be a good idea".
I found the response more interesting than the cause. Lynch mobs doing the same thing as the perpetruator, only they felt justified as it was in a good cause.
It is surprising how controversial and offensive it can be to insist on examining the evidence rather than indulging in emotive responses.
So I am just as wary of those who behave well as I am of those who are overtly offensive. The Stanford Prison experiment illustrates that point very well.
I don't want politeness enforced by design. I want people to behave as they are. If someone is polite, I want to know it is because they feel that way.
On the other hand, I do acknowledge the broken window nature of the problem, so I need to think some more. And a lot of other people do too. Even if they weren't involved.
PS. You mentioned that you would have a bias. I feel this showed in the way you didn't point out that Kathy Sierra's going public and naming people at that point was not the right thing to do.
I like the idea of an optional code of conduct, but Danny Sullivan brings up an important point.
Take responsibility not just for your own words, but for the comments you allow on your blog.
That implies a legal responsibility.
According to the EFF, Section 230 protects bloggers from such legal responsibilities - for good reason.
Lets say, as a hobbiest blogger, some content - just like the vile stuff that was posted against Kathy Sierra - was posted to numerous threads on my blog.
And I take a vacation.
I get back a week later. The damage is done. The content was further published, indexed, etc.
Now if I agree that I am legally responsible - the sanest course of action would be to shut down commenting on my personal blog *entirely*.
Lets take it a step further - I host a grassroots Philadelphia region blogging community. We already do our best to remove comments we think cross the line. We tell our community why when we do so. But sometimes - since the service is ran via a group of volunteers - we just can't keep up.
Would the sane course of action be to shut down the entire community? Because there is no way - just no way - to take full responsibility for everything posted to my service - without having thousands of dollars of budget or a hell of a lot more free time.
This particular part of the code needs to be something akin to the Boy Scout Oath - "I will do my best..." - because to accept full responsibility will mean that those of us without resources will have to shut down the conversations that take place on our pages to avoid liability.
And that will create a stratified web where only those with money and time will be able to provide places to converse - places to connect - places to grow.
I'm pretty sure that's not what you want - or any of us do.
karl,
If you take a vacation, you can put all comments into the moderation queue until you return. That's not ideal, but then, neither is having garbage in your comments.
A sort of related problem that's not commented on here or elsewhere. When the LA Times ill-considered wikitorial project failed, and when newspapers turn off comments because the "community" has become out of control, the assumption is that people with ties to the community are responsible.
But there are a lot of amoral and actually crazy people who have access to the Internet, and they say and do crazy and amoral things. I had a member of a list on a design program that I moderated threaten me via email (from his company's email system, even better) because I wouldn't forward an off-topic post. I called his home and his place of employment, and he didn't apologize, but got freaked out that I knew how to reach him -- and that was all I heard about him.
These days, however, we could have people in Australia threatening people in Colorado (or Kuala Lumpor).
It's not that I think Kathy Sierra's antagonists don't know of her, but it's highly possible that as in other cases the people engaged in anti-social and illegal activities aren't really part of a community that's engaged.
Those people never abide by rules, which is why, Tim, your rules make a fair amount of sense. If you don't allow people tangential or not willing to engage participate in a discussion (or, rather, don't let their extreme thoughts present themselves or persist) then you're cutting off a rich source of bad behavior.
Sorry adamsj, but for an average joe, that kind of solution just doesn't cut the mustard.
Getting folks over the fear of blogging in the first place is difficult enough, warning them that they must be fully responsible not only for themselves - but for the comments others post on their blogs as well will shut down opportunities for discussion that will otherwise not be there.
Take it a bit further adamsj and you might as well say that Wordpress.com should be held responsible for any blogs it hosts. That any ISP should be held liable for any comment it helps transmit.
It's a question of where the buck stops. Do we want a Big Brother state? Or do we want an environment that expects us to take personal responsibility for our *own* personal actions?
I do think we bare some form of moral responsibility for the conversations we participate in and encourage - but the moment we codify that into a legal responsibility..... that's the moment the Web... well it's no longer the Web.
Maybe suggesting a legal responsibility is not your suggestion Tim. And if that's the case, maybe a different wording would help.
Tim, for a year now I have been the victim of harassment. Mind you I have not come close to being the victim of the kind of harassment Kathy has went through, but if you Google my name there are some harsh things said about me. One part of this post I need to take into consideration is
"Ignore the trolls. Sometimes you need to stand up to bullies, but at other times, the best thing to do is to ignore them. As one person advised me long ago when I got in a public tussle with a blog bully, "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it."
I agree that there should be a code of conduct.
The problem is you are not supposed to have you ID on the blog, which would mean no one will have to know you in the first place to be mean or whatever to you. What you're trying to do is convert blogs into a mainstream things where people will have to go out of their way to be nice to each other. That might not cut it in the blog scene, and if that's what you want, become a columnist where you'll have an audience you can interact with, and that as you know it turns off ordinary Joes who just want to be themselves, and when something tells them to be mean they'll be mean without feeling some cry sis will start whining. This only happens when you've your ID there for everyone to see it, and blogs are meant to be anonymous affairs where individuals get very creative, and you respect them for that, not for someone trying to make themselves popular, by divulging who they are. That's mainstream and to play that kind of game on blogs you've to know how to turn a blind eye, and if you are a moderator delete what you don't like because they are doing it everywhere, and don't take everything personally if possible.
I don't get this. For Kathy's case how would rules of conduct matter? People would still post nasty comments, at some point you have to approve/deny them even if they are not anonymous(ie you have to read each one to approve or deny the comment). Your only solution as a blogger is to turn comments off. For the general public people that want that kind of bile will find sites that provide it, onces that don't will leave and never look back. All you could ever do is brush the root issue under the proverbial carpet. People can be evil and disgusting. There really is nothing we can do about it.( at least not in this country)
karl,
I thought your first post made a good point about the current "safe harbor" for unedited forums, but I did want to point out that the first example you gave had a cost-free solution.
You lose me in your second post, though.
I don't speak for Tim, but I'm pretty sure he's not suggesting a legally binding code of conduct. I wouldn't support such a thing myself, and might not support exactly what he might support in a voluntary code of conduct. In particular, if Tim wants to make lewdness in and of itself an issue, then he and I disagree. (In general, that is--if he wants Radar unlewd, more power to him.)
A voluntary code of conduct, though, is just that--voluntary. If someone feels strongly enough that his or her speech is unreasonably limited by such a code, then they're free to violate it.
What I'm interested in is seeing speech that treads sufficiently close to violence discouraged. I think Tim wants to go a bit further, and I'm not necessarily against that.
(I am someone who has used a fair amount of such rhetoric in his day and would use it again if circumstances required, but no longer feels those circumstances arise on a daily basis.)
Mike Smock,
The agora is to market fundamentalism what gaia is to green fundamentalism.
Aaron,
The point is to establish norms. You're right to say people will still violate them. Given that eliminating nastiness isn't possible, reducing it without damaging free speech is still worthwhile.
When you say, "People can be evil and disgusting," again, you're right. Establishing norms is giving people one more weapon with which to resist that aspect of human nature.
Most of this alleged “problem" would be remedied by turning off comments. Comments are strictly optional for blogs.
Hi Tim: judging by your image, I'm guessing you and I are in the Baby Boomer tail: We're grown up, with a lot of mileage, and we've seen a lot of what this planet has to offer.
Your thoughtful reasoned approach completely misses the fact that trolls, stalkers, brats, and just plain rude folks might be mentally insane or psychopathic. Reason won't touch them because they are incapable of understanding deep humanity.
The internet is wide-open and ten percent of your audience are certifiable (check Robert D. Hare for details). If you aren't going to impose restraint you allow whack-jobs to unload in public.
So you, me, our peers, our equals -- and age has nothing to do with this -- we all have to establish some rules to allow society to function without devolving into a jungle.
There has been some pretty nasty stuff directed at me both, publicly, privately, and anonymously because of my blogs. I have been slandered in comments all over the internet. I have recieved email that is nasty and I have banned one bloggers I.P address so that he can not leave comments. My blog is G rated and I protect it. No death threats but there are some sick and twisted people out there. no one can leave a comment on my blog without leaving an email addres which is easy enough to make up.
We have many laws and codes of conduct yet people still committ crimes, the interent just provides a new vehicle for stalking and harrassing.
Tim, it's not just about blogging, accountability, anonymity or cyber-bullying any more. What I'm hearing is that the Internet and the geek culture are so hostile to women that Laura Lemay wrote:
http://blog.lauralemay.com/archives/2007/03/kathy_sierra_or_imminent_death.html
'Honestly until this week I thought this sort of constant harassment was so common and so obvious it wasn't even worth mentioning. It had gone on for so long and I had gotten so used to it that it hadn't occurred to me that this is anything other than what it means to be female on the internet. I told Eric about it and he asked me, aghast, why I had never mentioned that I get death threats. We've known each other for fifteen years. It just never came up. The shocked reactions internet-wide to Kathy's post have made me realize that hm. maybe this isn't normal. And maybe it shouldn't be.'
That's what my outrage is all about. It's not about codes of conduct, but what seems to have happened to the industry in which I have earned a living for almost fifty years.
Interestingly enough, it was 'ignoring the trolls' (or shutting down that conversation) on my blog that incited the meankids.org. When I was trying to please everyone and defend myself, it just kept escalating.
After 2 posts over at meankids, which I ignored for a couple of days, I decided to comment...something to the tune of:
"This is a pretty big honor for me to have an anti-Tara blog erected, where you've obviously spent a great deal of time photoshopping photos of me."
They replied, "Just wait for the next round."
So, I replied, "Excellent, I can't wait." and made a reference to enjoying the attention.
To which they replied in a third post:
"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, but the pig likes it." (same quote you used, but worked it into the Horse Pig Cow thing)
And ceased to bother me at all. In fact, a couple of them actually posted it on their own blogs that they were bored with taunting me and needed juicier victims (ostensibly someone who would become upset from such attacks).
It wasn't so much that I wanted to have the last word in this one, it was that I understood the psyche of someone wanting attention and played on it. So, yes, ignore the trolls, but it's all about snuffing out their own "glory". As a woman who has never shied from the public light, I've had them all of my life. But as a person who is always craving a little attention myself (ask my mom, I was a total princess), I've been able to defiantly out-"perform" them when I need to.
I hear the commenters above when they say that a code of conduct is fruitless, but I still have faith. I, personally, like all of your suggestions and plan to print this out and keep it on my wall beside my computer, reminding myself.
Personally, I'm ashamed of myself for talking to a reporter and not thinking about what I said about Chris Locke. I am trying to build the courage to email him an apology for it. It was uncalled for and said in a moment of anger.
Just a nit. What you wrote here
Before I start, I should disclose that in addition to being an author and a conference presenter for O'Reilly, Kathy Sierra is a friend, ...
states that Kathy Sierra is "an author and a cinference presenter for O'Reilly", which is not, I think, what you meant to say. You should phrase your statements more carefully. And so should we all.
Nice statement. Thanks.
The references to The WELL here and elsewhere are making my head spin, tho. Only partly because I manage The WELL! Partly because I have seen thousands of heated posts inside The WELL debating the meaning of YOYOW over years and years, as user and as a manger, and now Chris has yet another spin on it all, and we're all bouncing off of that.
Being responsible for what you post on The WELL goes with being non-anonymous there. We also refuse service to people now and then. Certainly we don't condone illegal threats. Conference hosts have the power to delete (but not edit) the words of others.
In the original YOYOW, as expressed by Stewart Brand 22 years ago, "own" was more about owning up to and being defined by your words, and that works in a non-anon environment. There are -- and I still believe there must be, somehow -- places for anon speech, but it is harder to collectively self-correct when there's not continuity of identity. Much harder. So that to me is the heart of our larger dilemma on the net.
I wanted to say this now because April 1 is the ironic birthday of The WELL, and all this very odd reference to the site we love is kind of disturbing. Thanks.
Forgive me for being blunt, but I think you're talking utter nonsense.
First, this is an overreaction to an overreaction to an overreaction. If Kathy Sierra is the type of pussilanimous woman who cringes every time a car backfires in the street, or sees a serial killer under every bush simply because someone with impulse control issues made explicit threats, she should go to therapy. People have faced far worse.
As for your underhand stratagem to censor the internet, ponder this: some people like the idea of untramelled discourse. Some even think allowing the worst hate speech outlets to vent is cathartic and healthy. Allow a Nazi skinhead to rant, and he just might not kill someone.
Some think anonymity is good. We all have thoughts we don't express due to social convention. I probably wouldn't be this blunt if I was sitting across a table from you. The sad thing would be that in that instance, you'd never know what I really think. By setting inner thoughts free (and even encouraging anonymity), the internet is richer for it.
The reason blogs have comment forms is because some people actually want to know what others really think. Is';t this suposed to be why web 2.0 is superior to the monologous web of the past? If you want a dialogue, be prepared to hear things you don't like. Otherwise, be like those cowardly writers who have no comment forms.
Lastly, not everyone has such a thin skin. Some do revel in the blood, gore, cut and thrust of no-holds-barred verbal combat. Those who can't take the heat should get out of the blogoshphere.
Code of conduct indeed. Next we'll be calling for UN regulation of the Internet.
Will you let this comment stand, or in your thin-skinned censor-friendly state of mind, will you delete it and silence those voices you don't want to hear?
What about when bloggers get a story entirely wrong and simply echo it around for eternity without bothering to do any research at all? Should that not also be part of any Blogging Ethics?
I'm also not entirely sure Tara's comments are accurate. She, like me, doesn't have clean hands in this discussion she we're both part of it.
Best,
Joey
I assume Tim is smart enough not to be suggesting a "rule" when he says there should be a code of conduct. There obviously isn't any one organization of bloggers - and it's a conceit to even suggest such a thing - so there are no rules, really.
And he obviously isn't suggesting a law either.
I agree - there should be a code of conduct. There should be several, and I should be able to choose the appropriate one (if I want to) and disclose it on my site. I'm not sure Tim's proposed code would be the right one for me, but that doesn't mean I want anarchy.
The real take-away message here for me is that YOU should have a code of conduct for YOUR blog. Whether it's a cute icon referencing a standard code, or just a paragraph on your About page, you should decide what your code is, then tell your readers, and do whatever enforcement is necessary.
I couldn't handle a "you own everyone's words" code myself - sometimes a blog or forum is too large for the owner to keep up with it. But I can handle having an open line of communication for people to let me know when somebody's crossed the line, and promptly taking action when they happen.
Forum moderators have been dealing with this stuff for a long time. I don't consider hate "free speech" on my forums, and the readers know the guidelines, so it's rare that anyone cries Censorship when we remove a post.
So...
1. Choose a code of conduct.
2. Take whatever enforcement actions it requires.
3. Be reachable so that people can let you know when someone has broken the code, or when the code needs to be changed to maintain civility and community.
Before everyone in the discussion get too opinionated, let's remember what Kathy Sierra was supposed to do.
She was supposed to give a presentation at eTech in San Diego. If you've never heard Kathy, pick up her podcast from SXSW, and/or the transcription at my blog, nobletranscription.wordpress.com.
Listen or read for some context.
"7. Don't say anything online that you wouldn't say in person."
My usual advice here is a bit stronger. I tell people when you're writing online, always write to the embassy. Be polite, charming, magnanimous, careful and persuasive. Spell check. Write like you're trying to convince the ambassador to get you out of a Turkish prison. Because someday, you might be, and in the age of Google and the Wayback machine, every post could be a letter to the ambassador.
While I am personally opposed to a rating system particularly any sort of mandated rating system, I don't see any problem with people voluntarily rating their blogs. Something like the movie ratings and now video game and music ratings could be useful for the more sensitive among us.
Donít expect it to be universally adopted unless mandated by law. When that happens we all lose.
I donít know any of the players involved but have read the comments that Ms. Sierra has made public on her blog (the offending blogs have been completely deleted). What she has posted is very tame compared to the everyday conversation in the political blogosphere.
Take Tony Snowís announcement of his Cancer returning. Literally hundreds if not thousands of his detractors and political adversaries cheered what they hope is his impending death.
Popular progressive blogger Glenn Greenwald has had several very unflattering photo shopped images of him posted far and wide on the net mocking everything from his political positions to his sexual orientation.
Want to see a real credible death threat?
A well known scandal in the political blogosphere involved real life Ex CIA Agent Larry Johnson anonymously (until he was caught) threatening a mid level political blogger Seixon with physical violence.
Mr. Johnson has the know-how and means to really hurt someone. In the end the police did nothing.
Please google any of the above examples.
The comments leveled at Ms. Sierra pale in comparison (unless there are things I am unaware of).
The moment you decide to blog, podcast, or publicly publish any content you make yourself a public figure. People will respond to what you have created. The more people are exposed to it the more response you are going to receive good bad and ugly.
Anyone who publishes anything ever without knowing this is naive.
You may wish the world was different but it is not, never has been and never will be.
Greetings. I'm not directly an part of any of this KS issue; just came upon it at BlogHer, and have been following from link to link to try to get a general idea of the whole story (being the "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" type).
As I commented on another thread:
There are alot of valid points made in the original post here, as well as by many of the commenters. I myself, have had strong and varying feelings and thoughts on this topic since first catching wind of it.
Here are just a few:
"OMG!! That's taking it too far. This is NOT satire. Noone should be threatened this way."
"KS is so overreacting"
"How irresponsible to link to a hate site"
"Wait, was it a hate site or a juvenile satire site"
"What about free speech?"
"How can people be so hateful toward each other"?
"Who is crying wolf now"?
I could go on, but I suppose what I'm trying in my fumbling way to express is that I am constantly surprised by my own naivetee. I'm repeatedly getting caught up in "Spin". It's difficult to keep the facts straight, especially when we don't really know what the facts are.
If there was a death threat made it should be appropriately investigated and adjudicated.
If it's a matter of character assassination it's Civil. (whether against or by KS or both)
Intimidation is a tool of the ignorant, and Trolling and Baiting and Flaming have practically become an Internet institution unto themselves.
I have a delete key and am willing to use it.
That said, I really think that the bloggers and site owners that would abide by your "Code of Conduct", probably already are, for the most part and as they see fit. Although you have made some valuable suggestions, in it's entirety your "Code" is flawed in some of the ways already mentioned, and perhaps in ways as yet unforeseen. As a blogger and a citizen of this so-called "free" country, we are already plagued by legal provisions in the Patriot Act and elsewhere that impinge seriously on our right to express ourselves freely, and guilt by association is again (as in the days of McCarthy, Hitler, and countless others) is a tool of the powers that be.
Will and should we as bloggers attempt to implement a "Code" that amounts to censorship? Or shall we continue to each operate our blogs in the way that meets our own comfort level? KS is not some 13 year old that has been lured to a remote site by a sexual predator, and she herself, has fallen short of your proposed "Code".
By your "Code" should I be ostracised for posting this, I Repudiate Fear
publicly, in my personal life journal after having doors in my house kicked in, my grandmother and daughter terrified, and my life directly threatened face to face?
Let's think, people.
On the rule of anonymity, it's probably futile and undesirable. People can easily fake identity and some valid comments get posted without disclosure. Unless there's some digital signature (maybe OpenID), it's unrealistic, IMHO.
Mod +1: Tara Hunt's comment.
Those of us who have never really been attacked or threatened cannot meaningfully comment on the issue, imho.
It's like men who try to have really strong opinions on abortion: they just do not come out looking so hot (regardless of the side) no matter how you slice it.
motmaitre,
Two points, possibly connected:
First, "word master" is better translated as "maitre de mot".
Second, what you are accusing Kathy Sierra of is being "pusillanimous"--only one s. You have two.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to consider whether your command of etymology and lexicography might suggest something about the basis of your argument.
A useful conversation, thanks to Tim and others. Earlier I made a suggestion on Scobleizer as to what a voluntary code of conduct should be called:
"Zero Tolerance Internet"
That was inspired by an earlier suggestion and graphic on Scoble's blog.
http://brandcurve.com/zero-violence-blog
It's meant to have shock value - and of course to allude strongly to the clean up that has worked (as far as I can tell) in places like New York. But, as is being discussed here, it's the content of the code that is key. Disemvowelling is a lovely weapon to add to the armory, in my view. But who decides what's part of the code and how? There are some initial suggestions on that which I won't repeat here:
http://scobleizer.com/2007/03/26/taking-the-week-off/#comment-316731
Hmmm -- we really need to install provision for nested comments. It's hard being away for a day and then coming back at the end of a long thread. But let me try.
Steve, you write: "PS. You mentioned that you would have a bias. I feel this showed in the way you didn't point out that Kathy Sierra's going public and naming people at that point was not the right thing to do."
But I did. One of the principles I suggested was to go backchannel before making public accusations. And I pointed out that Kathy had failed to talk to Chris and had tarred people by association in her post.
In her defense, Kathy was scared, and was hoping to get some collective action focused on the issue. But the reason I reached out to Chris and got him talking to Kathy was because I felt she'd erred in not doing so herself, and that this could be a way to shed more light on the situation, and less heat.
That's also why I didn't "pile on" like lots of others when the flap first erupted. I wanted to make sure I really understood the situation first.
Danny, you say: "Comments have so far been shown to have some protection as a public forum. If we start editing comments, so we start taking on a more legal responsibility for them?"
This may be a real concern, but like you, I think we have to get over it, and take the responsibility to police our online space. I'm sure that everyone deletes spam comments without a thought.
I'm also not sure that this is analogous to other common carrier cases, but I'm not a lawyer, so I won't opine further on the subject.
Karl, I don't know what words in "Code of Conduct" suggest legal responsibility. I'm suggesting blog labeling, and a move away from a libertarian ethos that suggests that it's *wrong* or equivalent to censorship, to delete inappropriate comments. I'm suggesting that blogs that encourage or tolerate nastiness let people know that they do so, and that those that enforce civility do likewise.
Aaron -- here's how rules of conduct would have mattered in Kathy's case. If meankids and unclebobism followed this rule, they would likely have nipped the increasingly sexual and violent comments in the bud before they reached the level that they did.
Of course, if they wanted to encourage those kind of comments, they can't then say "we're not responsible."
As Kurt Vonnegut famously said, "You are what you pretend to be. So you'd better watch what you pretend." (Mother Night.)
The point is that if people acknowledge responsibility for the tone they foster on their blog, then they either build a more civil community, or they don't. And if there is a general assumption that bloggers are responsible for the tone of their blog, then people are incented to moderate, and to encourage civil behavior.
As someone mentioned, it's the broken windows problem. If you don't look after your neighborhood, it gets worse, and eventually you have to move out. That's what happened to both meankids and unclebobisms.
Joe -- I don't agree that comments are optional for blogs. A blog without comments loses a great deal of its value. We blog to learn. We blog to meet new minds and to engage with them. A blog without comments is a publication, not a blog.
Ed, I agree that a huge amount of what we're talking about isn't civility, really, but sexism and racism, as those are at the heart of many of the most egregious violations. Laura Lemay's comments were eye-opening. And I've had similar conversations with many other prominent women. It's sad.
But there's a continuum, and the fact that many of us allow people to make inappropriate comments without action, encourages the slide.
People who are disturbed misbehave to test boundaries. If there are no boundaries, they misbehave further. Parents learn that about kids, and many of the problems come from kids whose parents never set boundaries for them (or children of parents with that same problem.)
I remember when I was a kid, my father thought nothing of collaring some other local kid who was out of line, and frogmarching them home to their parents. In those days, every parent took responsibility for every child, at least in the circles I traveled in. We've lost that sense of community ownership of standards.
There are two views of morality: one is that it is innate, and the other is that it is a process of social formation. I think there are elements of both. We are our own work of art, with raw materials, the gift of inspiration, and hard work producing either a mediocrity or a masterpiece.
Tara --
A couple of points. Going back and reading the discussion on horsepigcow that led to the meankids thing, I have to say that it doesn't look to me that it started at all as a troll. Chris looks to me like he really was a bit outraged to see Henry Ford held up as a hero, when he was a Nazi sympathizer. When you seemed to miss that point, and dismissed him as merely trolling, then things went back and forth, and after a while it seemed that people were enjoying the muddle and piling on for the fun of it.
As to your response to meankids -- you're right. sometimes taking it all in stride takes all the fun out of it for mean kids. That can be a great strategy.
As can calling them on it. Marty Graham, a woman reporter for Wired News with whom I talked about this issue, told a great story. One time, she had an anonymous email that said, "I'm going to cut your head off and stuff sh*t down your neck." She said, I was a private detective before I was a reporter, so it wasn't hard for me to track down the person involved. I called him up on his home phone and said, "Hi, this is Marty Graham. I understand you want to cut my head off and ... Want to talk about it?" The guy apparently started blubbering that he didn't mean it.
When people can't hide behind anonymity, many of the outrageous statements that are made do in fact evaporate, because people are ashamed to have people know that they are the ones behind the statement.
Gail, it's great to have you clarify what the Well policy actually is. Thanks! It's nice when someone invokes the ancestors, to have someone else come along and say, "not exactly..."
Motmaitre -- of course I'll let that comment stand. You don't seem to understand what I'm calling for: responsibility, not censorship; dialogue, not name-calling. You don't agree with me, fine. You didn't call anyone nasty names or say anything inappropriate, so why would I want to delete your comment, based on what I said in this post or what you said in your comment?
Joey -- You're absolutely right that bloggers have a responsibility to get their facts right. That's why I thought that many people's rush to pile on after Kathy's post was inappropriate. (It was fabulous for people to tell their own stories, but sometimes, people were making judgment of others without knowing the facts.)
That being said, people will always disagree about the facts, and your responsibility is only to tell the truth as you see it, and to listen to others doing the same. You don't need to tell their story for them.
I'll also point out that one of the big distinctions between bloggers and professional journalists is fact checking. This came up for me recently when I first heard rumors of the layoff meeting at the Chronicle. When I asked if it was OK to blog, the reporter who'd leaked the news to me said, "I'd feel more comfortable if you had a second source," which led me to contact Phil Bronstein, the Chronicle editor in chief, directly.
This is a really good point to bring out. I think I'll make a second, separate post on this subject.
Shanti, you say "Those of us who have never really been attacked or threatened cannot meaningfully comment on the issue, imho."
If you take that attitude, most of us couldn't comment on any issue, let alone take a stand against evil in the world that doesn't touch us directly.
Edmund Burke said it over 200 years ago: "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men [and women] to do nothing."
But never mind evil: we can never truly know what anyone else's experience is. That's why we communicate, trying by speech and imaginative reconstruction to inhabit the world of another. It's the most profoundly human thing we can do.
Three ideas:
1. I agree with Ed Borasky above. It's not about civility, it's about a culture of hate, a culture that attacks women on a regular basis for fun and entertainment.
2. Tim's calling for the blogging equivalent of the film industry's rating system. I don't think that's enough. The real issue is violence, death threats, assault. There is a difference between assault and speech. In the US we've defined that in specific legal ways and anyone operating a web community based in the US should become well versed in those distinctions. A code of conduct won't change that.
3. I've disabled comments on my personal blog ( http://www.elainevigneault.com/ ) because I am NOT developing a community. But I encourage comments on my community blog ( http://www.2kblogges.com/ ). A blog is just a web publishing platform and it takes whatever shape the blog owner desires.
Tim, you say, "A blog without comments is a publication" OK, so? That's why I'm calling for a web publishers code of conduct rather than a blogger's code. Bloggers in general tend to be more civil, more responsible, less anonymous than the average Internet user. Remember, the death threats came from blog readers, not bloggers. Those readers will likely make those comments elsewhere on the web, not just on blogs.
It's ridiculous to limit this conversation about misogyny, death threats, assault, free speech and so forth to the blogosphere when it clearly involves the entire web.
Elaine, you're totally right that this isn't just about blogging. It's about comment moderation on any site that allows comments. A number of folks have pointed me to the completely inappropriate comments on the Washington Post's coverage of Tony Snow's cancer. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032501218_pf.html
I think they too would be well served by deleting this kind of commentary, and not giving a voice to the nasties. Setting norms for taste and appropriateness is not the same as censorship.
And yes, my comment that "a blog without comments is a publication" might have been too strong -- there are other elements about blogs: their personal tone, their time-sequenced posting, etc. that makes them unique.
And you're completely right that all web publications, not just blogs, should be thinking about this issue.
I'm not saying that we can't have sites that are devoted to nastiness either, just that they should be clearly labeled. You expect dirty jokes and stories about sex in Penthouse; you don't expect them in Vogue or Time. What many online sites have done by failing to moderate their comments has been to damage the clarity of their brand.
Subject: Terrorism...
It would be very helpful if you would all wake up and realize that what happened to Kathy Sierra was another example of terrorism, unacceptable behavior on the part of an angry individual. While the blogosphere may have contributed, the problem is obviously much larger and will not be cured by any kind of conduct code.
We all know the cause of this sort of thing -- just go back to your days in grade school and think about some of the "king-of-the-hill" kind of games that were played and how it felt to be at the bottom of the hill, unable to make it to the top. These kind of games create frustrated, angry people -- some of which might very well get violent.
The blogosphere creates angry people because it is exclusionary, it is designed to control or exclude the reader by controlling the process of communication. The ranking system (A-List) determines the actual participation, not the total number of bloggers. Techmeme is the grown up "king-of-the-hill" game.
You want to fight terrorism -- start working to include readers -- develop an inclusive system that rewards new contributions -- switch to forums -- off-line forums: http://nationalcomputerassociation.com.
Got it Tim. That makes more sense to me.
Elaine, "It's ridiculous to limit this conversation about misogyny, death threats, assault, free speech and so forth to the blogosphere when it clearly involves the entire web."
Absolutely. Ya know, a lot of this reminds me of an old Clay Shirky piece "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy".
Tim,
Every blogger should take your advice about approaching a flamer / troll via back channel. I try to respond to every first time commenter on my blog via email particularly those who disagree and always those who insult me. My tone is always civil and I always thank them for taking the time to comment.
The most abusive usually respond with gratitude, often times surprised and tend to become valuable contributors to some real constructive debates.
Very rarely do they respond with more hatred and insults. Almost always no matter the disagreement a level of respect is established.
As for the misogyny angle to this story, most trolls are intended to make the target angry or make other people laugh at the target's expense. Anything is fair game for the troll. Your weight, your looks, your age, your race, your citizenship, your race, your sex, your sexual preference, your job, your relatives, your politics, your intelligence, your education and of course the old standby the spelling correction (as already witnessed in this thread).
Maybe the tech industry is full of misogynists and racists /shrug. If the techy's say it's so then maybe it is.
Rick,
I will own up to being the person you refer to:
Anything is fair game for the troll...and of course the old standby the spelling correction (as already witnessed in this thread).
I was snarky in my reply to motmaitre. I considered not making it or making it differently.
What I was trying to get at was this: motmaitre chose a pseudonym containing a word, maitre/master, which is both male in gender and which has some sexual overtones. He (I assume he) also put an extra s in pusillanimous so that it started p-u-s-s-i. Whether he did so consciously or not, I read that in context to indicate at least a little misogyny.
I don't think Tim is saying that we should never be snarky or sarcastic (though I do think he would like for it to be toned down considerably), but that we should a) be more thoughtful in what we say and b) not cross certain lines. I agree with him whole-heartedly on a) and agree with him on b), with the caveat that I might draw different lines.
I may not have expressed myself as well as I could have, and for that I'm sorry.
I was looking for a way to say just what I found so objectionable in motmaitre's post. I don't believe I was trolling, and I don't think I went over the line--but I'll give it more thought.
Hey Tim,
Yeah...thanks. I know. And I've totally changed the way I respond to comments since. I should have probably deleted the tiny reference I made to Ford from my post, which was insignificant, but very much undermined my point anyway (which I think is what Chris Locke was trying to say, but David W. said amazingly well later on). That whole fiasco actually changed the entire way I handle my comments section. Now, I have a personal policy of stepping back for a day or so and 'thinking' about what was said. I get defensive offline (usually telling Chris M. the story), then think about it, then return to respond once I understand the perspective of the commenter. That was me owning my own words, so to speak.
But the trolling did occur when, out of frustration that I wasn't listening, Chris sent an email to his muckruckers list calling for help. Then there was a swarm (and I probably deleted 20 comments that were purely taunting and mean and non-productive).
At Rick Calvert -
RE: Maybe the tech industry is full of misogynists and racists /shrug. If the techy's say it's so then maybe it is.
Maybe I wouldn't go as far as saying misogynists and racists, but check out the comments on this thread:
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/27/ning-demo-video/#comments
Yikes. At first it's flattering, then it's downright condescending. Ning is one of the geekiest things out there and Gina is a super geek (she rocks). I highly doubt she wants to be objectified when proudly showing off her work.
Rick -- great idea about introducing yourself to new commenters via back channel email. (A bit hard to do with lots of new commenters.) Certainly worth trying for people who are on the snarky edge.
Adams, I thought of remarking that your comments to motmaitre seemed to be an ad-hominem attack rather than a response to the substance, but it wasn't really over a line I'd feel the need to draw, unless the personal name-calling escalated. That was partly because motmaitre seemed to be trolling a bit himself.
The point isn't to shut down every bit of snarkiness, but just to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
Tim,
As you can see, I had ambivalence about it myself. Harping on spelling errors is often an ad hominem.
In this case, I thought there was a misogynistic tint, and I was looking for a way to call attention to it. I also didn't want to use what I think you'd consider inappropriate language, so I didn't want to explicitly spell out what I thought was so notable about the misspelling of pusillanimous. (Which I ended up doing anyway.) Possibly the explicit way would've been better.
That's been the subtext to a lot of this conversation,I think: Misogyny, not always expressed openly. The open expressions are easy to deal with, relatively speaking. The others aren't.
Regarding the backchannel.
Kathy tried using the backchannel. Ten days before her post, Kathy emailed Frank and Jeneane with her concerns about the "noose".
Adams, I for one appreciate the effort you've made to expose the sly misogyny that I now see was definitely there (though being in a hurry I didn't see it when I first read monmaitre) and that in the context of Kathy's suffering is a lot less than a joke
But look how much time it took you. Compared to the minimal amount it took the anonymous perp, who can morph right away into some other guise, for some other slyness.
It's that unevenness of effort required to 'be good' that increasingly bothers me, that convinces me that our idea of goodness itself needs to be questioned. Among other things, it makes me question the simplistic 'only delete the grossly offensive, not just because you disagree with the poster'. If you had been Tim (which you no doubt you both are gratefeul that you're not!), and you'd read this post the way you did, a quick delete would have been a perfectly acceptable option. In my book. All power to the owner, for the sake of clarity and focus. One of the aspects of web culture we just need to vaporise is this sense of affront if the owner vanishes our stuff. Just like mine here. Thanks, Tim!
I have a comment that's been in moderation all day. I don't think I said anything 'troll-ish' in it. I did insert a link?
Tara -- found it. Somehow MT decided it was junk. I don't usually review junked comments, as it's usually pretty good. It should be posted now.
We won't rein in the increasingly harsh tone of so much commentary on the Web unless those of us who favor respectful dialogue take a stand against the trolls.
Tim is absolutely righ