Is it too late to bring civility to the Web?
The conversational free-for-all on the Internet known as the blogosphere can be a prickly and unpleasant place. Now, a few high-profile figures in high-tech are proposing a blogger code of conduct to clean up the quality of online discourse.
This will surely get lots of attention in the blogosphere.
My own commitment is to promoting thoughtful and civil discourse, here and elsewhere.
Claims to free speech protection for anonymous rants and personal attacks posted to blogs leave me perplexed.
In what sense, if any, is "moderation" of comments on one's blog inconsistent with first amendment values?
What exactly is the value of allowing anonymous posts? (I may differentiate consistent "screen names", with real identities known to the moderator but not identified to the general public/readership--still thinking about that.)
Illuminations?
2 comments:
The value of unattributed comments is...
if you judge what someone is saying based on who they are, you miss an awful lot of unsolicited advice that is sorely needed today.
Also, you plump up the throughts and reasoning of those with superior credentials, regardless of whether they are saying.
Listen to those who you don't know. Judge their words on the merits, not on your preconceived notions of who has "worth" based on your credentialling. hth
I've published this anonymous comment, based on its substantive merit (necessarily, as I evaluate that). But it seems to me to confuse identity with "credentials."
A real name and email address permit offline communication and clarification of what may seem cryptic comments, and enhance the likelihood of an ultimate posting, at least in this venue. That may take some work on both our parts, and require more than a fleeting and unreflective thought.
Whether that is a realistic expectation in this medium remains to be seen.
Post a Comment