Argh!

[yendi]

No, the death threats against Kathy Sierra are not evidence of a need for a blogging code of conduct. They were death threats, which means that there are already codes -- legal ones -- in place for them. As far as any of the bad behavior leading up to the threats (stuff like meankids.org, etc), there are already accepted social mores and ethical codes of conduct for dealing with people (and deal with people who insist on being assholes). They translate to the blogosphere You can't manually force a new code of conduct without crippling blogs as a whole (and bitchslapping the First Amendment), and anything that's unenforceable would accomplish little.

Comments

[crwilley.livejournal.com]

I hear ya.

In a way, we already have an unenforceable code of conduct: "Don't be an ass." If that's not enough to stop you, I don't think specifically defining "leaving death threats on someone else's blog" as "being an ass" is going to help.

[yendi]

Exactly! If people can't figure out that they're being an ass, or that someone they read is being an ass, no code is going to help.

[litch.livejournal.com]

but Kathy Sierra is a hot blond! we as a society MUST protect her

[asim.livejournal.com]

I would respectfully disagree.

Maybe I do take this kind weird-serious. I'm not sure why. But I am certain that the main thrust is to actually start calling out people on this, and the social mores you speak on are all about "don't ask, don't tell" wrt to this kind of activity -- shadesong being a rare, rare example of the opposite. A "blogger's code" is a first step towards that, in my opinion.
When the currently-extant social codes fail to even create the most basic protections, as they regularly do in these cases, I feel it's encumbant upon people of goodwill to do what they can to underline what is acceptable, and not, in Internet discourse. To make the understood social mores more concrete, and to say "this is The Sandbox, and these are the rules for playing in that Sandbox."
In that wise, a voluntary code of conduct, which is what I'm taking form the discussions I've read, is far from an attack on the 1st Amendment. It's simply codifying "don't be an ass", as crwilley put it, and defining what happens, in a non-legal basis, when you are an ass.

If, when people are attacked, the Code encourages us to raise our voices, to say "this is wrong"? That's voluntary, that's simply applying peer pressure in a positive way. In doing so, we're supporting the reams of women and minorities who feel real, live terror over being public on the net.
That, to me, is a fine and solid balance between my firm belief in an open 'Net (wanna be an ass? Go outside the group of adults, please), and my equally firm belief that we have to aid in leveling the playing field, and that's not done simply by threatening legal action.

[asim.livejournal.com]

Point of order:

I didn't know what Kathy looked like until this debacle. And I've been a reader of Creating Passionate Users pretty much since it started, and own two Head First books.

It's not about her looks.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

As far as any of the bad behavior leading up to the threats (stuff like meankids.org, etc), there are already accepted social mores and ethical codes of conduct for dealing with people (and deal with people who insist on being assholes).

But that's exactly what DIDN'T happen. THe creators and mods of the blogs/boards that began this mess not only failed to step in and MODERATE like they are supposed to do but they also failed to publicly (blog-wise) denounce what happned until they were part of the investigation. And what did Locke and Powers and well gee everyone except Payton say? "too bad for Kathy, yeah that wasn't good but WHINE CRY MOAN It's making US look bad!! no fair!!"

Well gee, if that's the attitude then I can't say as the moderators of the websites are much better than the commentors who started it all.

Besides, the article pretty much is talking about coming up with a unfied code of conduct that can act as a self-regulating standard: google something and see which sites adhere to the code. Make your choice. We're not talking about government regulation of the blogs themselves, we're talking about a unified effort among all bloggers to agree to better moderation and say so publicly.

Any assholes don't like it, they can create their own sites and we'll all stay away. I'm perfectly fine with allowing shitheads who act like that all staying with each other and staying away from good intelligent discussion since they can't handle that.

Kinda like the idea of self-segregation amongst political groups: hey, I prefer all the right-wing nutjobs to hang out in the same place; they can pat each other on the back and leave me and mine the hell alone.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

and as far as I'm concerned, Id be happy if no site ever let anyone comment anonymously. I really can't think of any good reason to have anonymous commenting. If self-regulation means a bit more heavy on the "info" when registering well so what?

[yendi]

I'm not sure we necessarily disagree as much about the conclusion as the methodology. There's no question that there's a need to raise our voices and say, "this is wrong." Likewise, applying peer pressure to the situation is essential -- publicly shaming the assholes behind places like meankids is a damned good thing.

But setting behavior down in a non-enforceable code strikes me as providing an individual (or a handful thereof) with something resembling the right to impose their personal ethics as social mores. I just don't buy that as a good idea, and I think that it'll seed more chaos than anything else (in terms of debates about the code, debates about what not "signing" the code means, and providing something of a checklist for the trolls out there).

That said, I'm all for an effort to create an atmosphere that discourages the assholes, and forces them to take ownership of their online actions.

[yendi]

That's irrelevant and insulting. The reaction here has nothing to do with her looks (in fact, I still don't know what she looks like). No one wants to protect her because of what she looks like (nor would she want that, from what I've read); folks are upset because of the actions taken, and (in an obvious and valid extrapolation), the potential for those threats and behavior to be applied to themselves.

[yendi]

But folks like Scoble virtual "mob" are reactions using the existing social mores to the idiocy of Locke et al, done without any sort of code of conduct. I see that as exactly what should happen.

As far as the mods go, I'm not overly inclined to assume they're even as "innocent" as they make themselves out to be; afaik, they certainly encouraged the bad behavior (if not the threats) and deserve the (non-code-of-conduct based) flames they're receiving online.

[yendi]

Damned straight (which is one of many reasons I ban anonymous comments in my LJ).

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I don't think you guys are disagreeing so much as seeing the code enacted in different ways. I'm not one for a MPAA rating style system wherein you submit your "credentials" or whatever to an "independant" board and I'm not one for even a Music industry style rating system wherein a checklist is given and you compare how your game/CD rates and post it on your packaging. I think merely having a uniformly agreed-upon code that can be posted and ENFORCED by mods might not be a bad idea. Most communities on LJ have their own rules that they post on the userpage, it might be nice to have something that is simple and uniform.

Although, upon reflection, I guess the real question is "what happens when you DON'T enforce the code?"
Do the blog police come? Do you lose your four-star rating? Do you have to bump your board down to a lower level of accessibility?

I think there's possibly good answers to that... but I just woke up and cant' think of them now.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

now, you know, I hadn't thought of it like that... the backlash against the supposed "Mob mentality" is annoying to me - after all if the MODS don't like the heat, they should have left the blog-kitchen. I agree with you that I and VERY skeptical as to their level of innocence (guilty dog barks loudest) and this is the blogosphere, yes you CAN be tried and tarred and feathered without the whole "innocent til proven guilty" gee just ask Kathy Sierra! and you can't advocate it being "free speech" about her attackers (I dont' care if it was "mean" rather than vile and threatening, it was still attack-talk) but not free speech for her supporters.

But so far, the "mob" isn't threatening anyone with death. The mob is only annoying Locke et al into writing whiney posts. Where they get to be as snarky and mean as they love being anyway. So hmm... this whole whine-fest by them really is simple resulting in MORE of the same type of friction they seem to thrive on.

[ogre42.livejournal.com]

One of the responses to her posting summed things up for me pretty well. Why is it that the companies don't get more aggressive about enforcing their own Terms of Use agreements and simply delete these users. Yes, they can create new accounts, but make them jump through the hoops. This is not cencorship, per se, it is enforcing a company's code of conduct. deal with it. It is not illegal in any way to say "fuck" or racist comments at the grocery store, but the management will ask you to leave because of it. How is this any different.

Do not tolerate it. As bloggers we need to stand up and say "this is wrong". It is difficult to draw the line between asserting what is right and engaging in sophomoric flame wars, but we still have to try. To simply ignore it is to allow it. When the trolls cross the line the autorities need to be involved. Get these petty scum arrested and tried. I have not looked up the specifics on defining death threats, but if it does not include internet chatter then it needs to be changed, post haste.

This is just my opinion, what do I know.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

I think that's part of the whole issue, when confronted with the whole problem, the sites' creators and moderators got petty and spiteful and resentful, rather than doing "what's right" - issuing an apology, booting the accounts responsible and admonishing all members to act accordingly. Instead, Locke and his coterie of juvenille defenders got snippy and "rather than censor any one individual" took down the site and continue to whine that their fun is being tromped on. Most site mods will usually act decent when faced with such vile behavior but the site mods on meankids and unclebob are too busy whipping up what little support for THEIR reputations that they can.