BlogHer - Blogher Founders Featured in New York Times - Comments

Computerworld's Heather Havenstein

Lisa Stone — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:16:33 -0500

and I had a great conversation about every community's need to decide their own guidelines:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&...

Great article.

Jennifer Satterwhite — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 21:04:08 -0500

So many points have already been made that mine would be redundant. I do want you to know that I am proud to be a part of this organization and the standards it is setting.

Another thing I learned is that from that picture, I would NEVER get into a scrap with any one of the 3 of you. You are three tough women, to say the least! :-)

~Jenn~
Mommy Needs Coffee | Mommybloggers
BlogHerContributing Editor, Mommy and Family

Congratulations! A subtext

kperfetto — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:15:25 -0500

Congratulations!

A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.

This is so true. You wouldn't go to someone's house, break a lamp or pour sangria on the carpet. (Well, you could, but chances are you wouldn't be invited back.)

Five Dollar Camera

Of surly waitrons and other cultural norms

Lisa Stone — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:31:25 -0500

Fair enough -- to suggest other people judge from the inside. Thanks for the thoughts.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Thanks Deaf Mom! And I agree

Lisa Stone — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:29:09 -0500

...terrific examples Nordette. Thanks.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

Nordetter-- well said! And

Deaf Mom — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:40:33 -0500

Nordetter-- well said!

And congrats to BlogHer for the front page news!

Karen
"Life is too short to pout all the time."
A Deaf Mom Shares Her World
Commercials for your website!

Nordette, great examples!

Elisa Camahort — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:35:34 -0500

Love these examples. I think the article does talk about activities that do indeed cross the line from talking about what we all can (and probably should) do to define our own online spaces, to talking about creating a rating system or set of standards (or code) that everyone should choose to follow or not. As per Lisa's comment above, we subscribe to the former idea, and not the latter.

As for BlogHer: we think the guidelines have worked remarkably well at encouraging civil discourse, even civil disagreement. But as you point out, we are all free to not frequent sites with policies we don't like...including sites whose policy is to have no policy!

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

Congrats, ladies! :D

Bill Cammack — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:59:59 -0500

Congrats, ladies! :D

--
Bill Cammack
Video Editor
BillCammack.com

Freedom of Speech on the Web

Nordette — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:35:08 -0500

First let me say congratulations.

While the phrase "managed civil dialogue" bothers me, I still marvel at people who seem to think each individual website having a set of standards defining its understanding of civil discourse to be a threat to free speech. Do they not realize that in hard print editors and publishers manage speech all the time by not publishing letters to the editor with unsubstantiated allegations against private citizens?

If you're a member of certain website and feel their code of conduct rules are too strict for you, or if you really like websites where members are allowed to harass other members through personal attacks and vitriol then you're free to drop your membership at sites with code of conduct rules you don't like and join sites with loose conduct rules.

Also, this is still America. If a blogger deletes your comments and locks you out from conversation, you can always get your own blog and promote whatever cause you wish or criticize as many people as you like. It's not illegal to be ultra critical. It's illegal to stalk people and threaten others with physical harm or solicit or directly encourage people to commit crimes against others.

Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to verbally vandalize other people's publications or website and as a blog owner, I don't have to tolerate nastiness posted by others in my blog's comments section any more than I have to tolerate spam posted in my comments section.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

avoidance or censorship?

Sarah McGowan — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:06:08 -0500

Having just launched The Women's International Perspective, The WIP, we have yet to establish our own etiquette guide. We'd like to think that the current level of civility we're seeing on our site will continue as our readership grows, but we also know that we won't always be spared from someone's vitriol or hate speech.

We've struggled with this concept before, because even though our contributor guidelines maintain that we will not publish hateful content, we have not done the same for our commenting feature.

I'm sure that in some ways, popularity begets the ranter or troll...it seems that many people who post these ugly diatribes are just looking for a platform and someone to listen. Like any bully, the best defense is to avoid contact and keep them at arm's length. But does that amount to censorship in cyberspace?

I remember sighing to myself last summer while closely following Beirut Live and the unfortunate devolvement of the conversation that at one time had been so informative and respectable. It wasn't long before a troll named, Sam, joined the discussion and took every opportunity to personally attack each commenter, including me.

The sad thing was that people responded to his taunts and gave in to his school-yard tactics. The adults reverted to child-like behavior, began responding to his attacks and thus managed to completely derail an important dialog.

Even the avoidance tactic has its limitations. While one commenter told another who'd been riled up to "just ignore Sam...eventually he'll go away", the opposite proved true. Sam never went away and many of the really thoughtful, well-spoken commenters moved on instead. All that was left in Sam's wake was a ranting, driveling, dying discussion.

So what's worse...a little moderation or a complete loss of the dialog?

Fantastic

Kalyn Denny — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:34:46 -0500

Very fun to see the three of you looking serious about internet civility on the front page of the NY Times. I sent the article to my brother Rand, who's a blogger and a big fan of Blogher.

Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen

Excellent Point

shelleyp — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:15:30 -0500

Donna, and thank you for making it so I didn't have to.

I wrote on this at my weblog and frankly I'm heavily disappointed at what has happened.

I don't know if many women realize how much this can be used to marginalize us.

Community building starts with rules of conduct

Mary Clare Hunt — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 12:13:39 -0500

Women settled the wild, wild west and now they are settling the wild, wild Internet by being the first to establish the concept of civility.

I hope that when the wiki rules of order are more or less set, that the women who took the first stand in this "civil" war, Lisa, Elisa, Jory and lightening rod Kathy Sierra are given the primary recognition they deserve as founding mothers. (not a footnote)

Community building is far more important than nation building. If we are to proceed as an intelligent species, then a few rules to keep us talking are in order. Otherwise, as my husband commented this morning, "We're just wrapping our tails around tree limbs, shaking branches and screaming at each other."

store fronts?

Bert Bates — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 11:30:16 -0500

What a great conversation.

Donna, you said "I do wonder when civility turns into managed conversation that is controlled by the social powers that be. As a woman alone, I naturally am wary of that creeping control and question the trade-off." I find that truly thought provoking.

I've been trying to figure out what I really believe is "the right thing", and I must confess that I'm not sure. The closest thing I've come up with so far is the "store front" metaphor. Is it reasonable to think of a website or a blog as a store front? If so, you can draw some conclusions that might make sense:

- Nazis can get a permit to parade down the street in front of your store, but they can't get a permit to spray paint on your windows.
- You can choose to put offensive material on your windows, but there are limits to what can be put on public display.
- You can say "XXX" on the outside and do stuff inside that you couldn't do in front of a window.
- You can, as a store owner, "reserve the right to refuse service to anybody".
- You can, as a store owner, moderate what happens in your store.
- You can't limit offensive conversations in the next store down the block, as long as those offensive conversations don't break any laws.

What's interesting about the internet is that your little one-person store front has as good a location as Home Depot. In other words, it's no harder for a "shopper" to visit your site than it is for a shopper to visit Home Depot. On the internet there's no such thing as "prime" real estate.

You all rock!!!

Beth Kanter — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 10:55:03 -0500

I'm so proud to be a member of this community! Great article, great coverage!

Blogher Founders Featured in New York Times

Elana Centor — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 06:45:27 -0500

In their front page story today " A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs," BlogHer founders Jory Des Jardins, Lisa Stone, and Elisa Camahort are featured.The reason -- long before Kathy Sierra's cyberstalking raised the consciousness of the rest of the blogging community that perhaps a Code of Conduct was a good idea, BlogHer was already there.

Good Work. Here's an excerpt from The Times.

â€œAny community that does not make it clear what they are doing, why they are doing it, and who is welcome to join the conversation is at risk of finding it difficult to help guide the conversation later,â€ said Lisa Stone, who created the guidelines and the BlogHer network in 2006 with Elisa Camahort and Jory Des Jardins.

A subtext of both sets of rules is that bloggers are responsible for everything that appears on their own pages, including comments left by visitors. They say that bloggers should also have the right to delete such comments if they find them profane or abusive.

That may sound obvious, but many Internet veterans believe that blogs are part of a larger public sphere, and that deleting a visitorâ€™s comment amounts to an assault on their right to free speech. It is too early to gauge support for the proposal, but some online commentators are resisting.

Robert Scoble, a popular technology blogger who stopped blogging for a week in solidarity with Kathy Sierra after her ordeal became public, says the proposed rules â€œmake me feel uncomfortable.â€ He adds, â€œAs a writer, it makes me feel like I live in Iran.â€

Mr. Oâ€™Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. â€œThat is one of the mistakes a lot of people make â€” believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,â€ he said. â€œFree speech is enhanced by civility.â€

You can comment on Code of Conduct where BlogHer is given credit.

Image Credit: Darcy Padilla for The New York Times.