Apr
9
2007

Blogger's Code of Conduct

Not that anyone asked me, but the Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct currently being discussed here and there seems vague and subjective. Worse, it's a "solution" that is attempting to deal with an unstated, and hence unclear, problem.

A lot of the Code applies to blog comments, which (you may have noticed) we don't have here. Back when I started, comments seemed to be more trouble than they were worth; if anything, my feelings against them have strengthened. I was a denizen of Usenet for many years, and blog-comments remind me of those good old days, where each new post starts off a thread potentially containing abuse, spam, off-topic drift, and (almost always) a very low signal-to-noise ratio. Been there, done that, moved on.

Apart from the comment-specific parts:

  • The proposed Code needlessly lumps together illegal behavior (copyright infringement, libel, threatening) with rude-but-legal behavior. There are legal remedies available for illegal behavior, and the courts will do a decent job of disambiguating and assigning liability. (Not perfect, sure, but better than a "Code of Conduct" is likely to.)

  • Among the criteria for "unacceptable" content is "ad-hominem". Please. Why not just deem all logical fallacies as "unacceptable"? Even if a Code could define "ad-hominem" unambigously, what's the point? Readers can judge such content on its (low) merit.

    And while ad-hominem may be weak at making a valid argument, it can be funny. Gosh, maybe the code should say it's OK if it's funny?

  • Another verboten area of content is "abuse". Again, please. I can't abuse self-important politicians? Get over yourself. Also, prepare for endless legalistic meta-discussions whether a set of words constitute "abuse" or not. Prepare for being abused during said discussions.

  • "[We reserve the right to change these standards at any time with no notice.]" Fine. But maybe—just maybe—in that case, you'll want to use some other word besides "standards"? I suggest "whims".

  • "We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person." Why not? It's normal and acceptable to have different rules for different audiences.

  • "We connect privately before we respond publicly." That might be a good idea sometimes. Maybe most times. In all possible cases? Doubtful.

But mainly, the Code falls into the same trap university speech codes did. Shorn of rhetoric and detail, it wants to say, simply: Be Nice. Adding more verbiage to this sentiment doesn't really make it any less vague and subjective. And, eventually, an unenforceable laughing stock.

But if they really want to go after despicable blogger conduct, I wish someone would ban "This posting will remain on top". Cripes, that grates my cheese.