blogging policy
tommySo, should Sticks of Fire have a blogging policy?
Tommy Duncan the rock ‘n’ roll singer isn’t too keen on censorship.
Tommy Duncan the blogger is more conflicted.
Although he admits that voluntary principles may be a good idea, Duncan believes in a sort of natural law of censorship. If blogs regularly traffic in untruths, slander and meanness, most readers will simply stop reading them.
Here is Jimmy Wales and Tim O’Reilly’s proposed “Bloggers code of conduct,” and the NYTimes story about the effort to improve the manners on blogs. Basically, it’s an effort to reign in trollish commenters.
I don’t know about this. As I explained to Scott Barancik for his article in the St. Pete paper, limiting comments in any way will limit the possibility of great, extended discourse. What do you think?
Tags: blogs, SoF - the site
Loading ...
April 10th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I don’t see how such rules could be enforced.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I say…if you’re using a name that can be easily tracked…say your real name or an online identity with history…then let the comment through.
What I don’t like are those throwaway names that link back to Hotmail addresses and have no online presence. If you can’t stand behind your words, I really don’t have an interest in what you have to say.
That’s just me. I firmly believe: “It’s your blog. It’s your rules.”
April 10th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
my first thought is ooooh how unhappy some must be to have their names mentioned in an unflattering way. Instead of curtailing their behavior (or at least hiding it like a decent criminal/perp/neer do well) they choose to seek ways to shut the person up who reveals the truth about them.
Elia
Iorio
What else would cause some guy at the SP times to care? Or you?
When a person has a history of threatening lawsuits and payback for someone TALKING and exercising their rights to free speech … it stands to reason that they believe this would carry them around through life.
Bloggers and citizens have rights.
Any impediment to free speech would certainly NOT be conducive to the health of a blog.
If someone is telling the truth — there is not the first thing that can be done about that being aired in any venue imaginable.
That’s when the threats ensue.
Any good attorney knows not to ask a question you don’t know the answer to. The reason they will never sue you is because there would be subpoenas and oh my god the s.storm of truth would overwhelm them. And, they know it. Apple v. Doe.
I have way more on this but wouldn’t want to make the comment too long.
I don’t curtail comments in any way. Neither does Michael Hussey or any of the ‘better’ blogs. I’m right away wondering what’s up with the person who does?
My two cents.
Feel free to edit.
April 10th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Can such rules be enforced? - No. That doesn’t seem to be the intent either.
I’m pretty sure that if we revisit that list in about 3 years we can all get a good laugh out of it. The alternate code of conduct (borrowed from the Gentoo Linux Code of Conduct) seems a little more realistic.
Whatever the case, each blog is owned and managed by its respective blogger and the beauty of it all is that just like radio and television, if we don’t like what is being presented to us, we can go elsewhere.
I read 2 blogs just about every day: Sticks and Techcrunch. I read in Information Week a few months ago that Techcrunch is bringing in over $100,000 per month in advertising revenue. I’m sure Tommy isn’t knocking down anywhere near that much, but he would be bringing in a lot less if his posts & comments weren’t applicable to the context that his blog was designed to offer…simply because we would all go elsewhere to get our daily fix of Tampa commentary. Even if he wasn’t in it for the money, which I suspect that he is not, without readership, what is the point?
“Web 2.0†or whatever you want to call it, is about collaboration and the democratization of the Internet. If bloggers wants to censor their content, that’s up to them. Another interesting alternative is to offer registered readers the ability to rate the posts and comments on the blogs they read. Again, this is up to the blogger. To me, occasionally reading controversial articles like rachel*’s bum fight story helps to add a little spice my day.
April 10th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Ugh, I hate when people try to act like blogging is more important than it really is.
Unless you really are an accredited expert writing within your field, GET OVER YOURSELF.
Trying to set up rules sounds boring as all hell and like you probably need to make more friends and spend more time outdoors. Besides, freedom of expression and rights to publicity rules already exist.
Even discussions of anonymous commenters are a waste of time, because, hey, we get it, you’re an angry and/or lonely b*tch who’s afraid to stand behind your words. How is that someone worth discussing?
April 10th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Can’t say I totally agree with Rachel about the subject not being worth discussing, but I can see where she’s coming from.
Let the idiots comment, and then let the community destroy them. It’s more fun that way.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
blogging censorship is another move in the wrong direction, but its in line with the current mood in many sectors, as we are seeing in the spate of public floggings of public figures who say unpolitic things, i.e, imus, mel gibson, michael richards, joe biden, joe redner etc. if people say or write dumb things, either dont listen or dont read, but defend their right to put their feet in their mouths. its a fundamental freedom, which many simply just dont get…
April 10th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Compared to some other local blogs Sticks seems to have a noticeable lack of trolls. I wonder if even the minimal additional effort that Wordpress requires over Blogger(Wordpress at least has you input something other than a default radio button for anonymous) may have helped. Seminole Heights blog went through this a short while ago. Scott required registration for about a two week period of time. IMO it was the nicest time on the blog in over a year. Now it’s a veritable virtual cesspool in the comment fields. Last week I stopped commenting there altogether as it was down to about 1 non-anonymous comment in 50, having to track anon’s by timestamp made discussion troublesome at best. So far I’d say Sticks has a way to go before there needs to be any policy shift. The SH blog needs to restart one desperately.
April 10th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
I’ll admit that I haven’t had time to read the Code of Conduct mentioned, but most of the time trolling can be at effectively reigned-in with a simple registration. Hardly censorship, it just makes a commenter take that extra effort to invest in the worth of their words.
April 10th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Sorry just trolling by!
April 10th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Fuckidy fuck.
Just testing.
t…
An angry and/or lonely b*tch/bastard who’s afraid to sit/stand behind his and/or her words. How is that worth discussing?
Off now to shut down my useless blog/life.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Samuel Clemens.
What a waste.
April 10th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Cute
April 10th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
i love tiny …
April 11th, 2007 at 9:20 am
yeah, code of conduct my ass. anonymous simply stands for scared asshole. there are a bajillion other sites out their, so if one begins to suck, move on. thankfully sticks doesn’t have that problem. good job tommy!