[iDC] Re: Bloggers Code of Conduct

[Trebor Scholz]

I was curious about your unusual use of the plural -- internets; would you like to elaborate? 

With regard to your comment:

I wrote-- "Let me point you, however, to a few links surrounding the recent discussion on Tim O'Reilly's 'Bloggers Code of Conduct' triggered by death
threats against the blogger Kathy Sierra."

Angela wrote-- "I'm not so sure the 'code of conduct' was prompted by the death threats as is being suggested."

Tim's call for a "Bloggers Code of Conduct" was indeed triggered by Kathy Sierra's case as he himself makes clear:
 
"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."
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/call_for_a_blog_1.html

On another--unrelated--note, I just read "Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication" by John Durham Peters. And for me, this
somewhat relates to a Code of Conduct on the Sociable Web. Do you have to respond to all emails? Does each list post addressed to you call for a
response?

"Bartleby is a martyr to the cold righteousness of dialogism. For a Bruce Ackerman, the refusal to engage in dialogue can only be an act of violence, not a
principled moral decision. Consider the power play implicit in his words: "I can use neither force nor reason to impose dialogue on you. All 1 can do is ask
my question and await your reply. If you try to stare me down and impose brute force upon me, I will act in self-defense. If, instead, you answer my
questions, I will answer yours, and we will see what we will see. The choice is yours."'" The choice is ours. in this apparently "free and open encounter,"
but the choice to opt out of the game " will be greeted as a prelude to hostilities. Ackerman's persuasive invitation to chat, despite its protestations
otherwise, is persuasive invitation to chat, despite its protestations otherwise, is can suffocate those who prefer not to play along. At their worst,
dialogians deploy the inspectionism of the lawyer-narrator in Melville's "Bartleby" under the hegemonic cloak of goodwill."
p159