[iDC] Re: Bloggers Code of Conduct

[s0metim3s]

Trebor,

On the first, and while I have no way of verifying it, I doubt anyone 
travels through, or experiences, cyberspace in any comprehensive or 
complete way.  Not even automated spiders or surveillance agencies.  And 
then there are divisions of language, among other things.  But these are 
the trivial points.  The larger one is that the internets are indeed 
shot through by forms of violence, by decisions and boundaries.  This is 
in no way reducible to bullies or trolls, who are annoying, but I think 
a distraction and pretext for the proliferation of other kinds of 
violence, decisions and boundaries that, as in the exploitation of 
network and competition, like to present themselves as 'non-violent', or 
bully themselves forward in the form of a claim to end violence.

On the second point - there has long been discussions of how to treat 
comments, etc, particularly on group blogs.  In any case, one doesn't 
suggest the general application of rules (or codes) on the basis of 
single events or experiences, but because they are perceived as dealing 
with more or less systematic or widespread circumstances.  Of course, 
it's much easier to market something (or persuade) if what it purports 
to deal with is perceived as so beyond the pale as to place those who 
disagree as, similarly, beyond the pale.

Btw, John Durham Peters makes a similar argument to Rebecca Comay in 
"Interrupting the Conversation", as well as Ellen Rooney, in _Seductive 
Reasoning_.

best,
Angela

Trebor Scholz wrote:
> 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 . 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