God fucking damnit all to hell. Here I was, halfway through writing my first post, and I fucking hit the back button and lost it all. FUCK! Well, that's a lesson learned, write these damn things in Word first, then play with the fucking appearance.
Anyway, here's the gist of what I was posting:
I hate blogs, but was finally sucked in to making one by the pure idiocy of Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales. These two jackasses want to bring civility to the net, by taming the 70 million plus blogs floating on the net with a "Code of Conduct." This is in response to the death threats, harassment, and abuse someone got, and subsequently hid in their house for a month. Who fucking takes internet harassment so seriously that they lock themselves in their house for a month?
Anyway here's the code of conduct:
THE CODE OF CONDUCT
■We will not post unacceptable content.
■We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
■When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation, we make every effort to talk directly to the person(s) involved before we publish.
■When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we act.
■No anonymous comments.
■We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us, as long as they aren't abusive or libellous.
As far as I know, the system is completely voluntary, with some shield bullcrap the bloggers who do follow it can display. Honestly, I just think its an attempt to spread politcally correct bullshit to the web.
My Counterpoints to the Blog CoC:
"We will not post unacceptable content"
Define unacceptable. For example: What may be unacceptable to a religious fanatic, is definately acceptable to me. Or what may be acceptable to a leftist wingnut, may be unacceptable to a rightist wingnut. Anyway you look at it, its an attempt to bury you in someone else's morals.
"We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person."
What the fuck does that mean? How do you know what someone will and won't say in person? Does the rule apply if its something I would say in person, but most people wouldn't?
"When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation, we make every effort to talk directly to the person(s) involved before we publish."
Myself, I prefer the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, or making things as public and messy as possible. But I guess there is a certain level of satisfaction in belittling someone one on one.
"When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we act."
Hmmm, mob rule, I don't see how this could ever go wrong. Here's the scenario I see: "Oh noes, someone is posting an opinion contrary to mine, he's unfairly attacking me. Quick, while he's breaking the Blog CoC zerg him! ZERG HIM NOW!" Or however blog mobs respond to being contradicted.
"No anonymous comments."
The whole great and wonderful thing about the internet is the anonymity of it all. If people couldn't be anonymous on the internet, I don't think we would see news stories about the "13 year old girl who was actually a 50 year old man arrested by the 12 year old boy he seduced who was actually an FBI agent." And I for one find those stories amusing. Or would we still have all the internet tough guys, 12 year olds talking shit, or even half of the amazing viral videos that are out there today. Without anonymity, the internet would be just another boring extension of society. So why should comments be any different? Or why should we discriminate against those who are too lazy to sign up to a site just so they can comment.
"We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us, as long as they aren't abusive or libellous."
Well, can't any nasty comment toward someone be construed as "abusive or libellous" in some way or another? If so, then you would prefer to respond, and thus this point is moot.
The main point of all this being, please keep your hippy, liberal, politically correct bullshit of the internet. If you don't like the internet as it is now, then you can get the hell off it.
Join me next time as I chose another topic that pisses me off and rip it to shreds, much like a dog with a squirrel.
Here's the link to the latest article I read on this shit: Blog CoC not well recieved.
Anyway, here's the gist of what I was posting:
I hate blogs, but was finally sucked in to making one by the pure idiocy of Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales. These two jackasses want to bring civility to the net, by taming the 70 million plus blogs floating on the net with a "Code of Conduct." This is in response to the death threats, harassment, and abuse someone got, and subsequently hid in their house for a month. Who fucking takes internet harassment so seriously that they lock themselves in their house for a month?
Anyway here's the code of conduct:
THE CODE OF CONDUCT
■We will not post unacceptable content.
■We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person.
■When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation, we make every effort to talk directly to the person(s) involved before we publish.
■When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we act.
■No anonymous comments.
■We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us, as long as they aren't abusive or libellous.
As far as I know, the system is completely voluntary, with some shield bullcrap the bloggers who do follow it can display. Honestly, I just think its an attempt to spread politcally correct bullshit to the web.
My Counterpoints to the Blog CoC:
"We will not post unacceptable content"
Define unacceptable. For example: What may be unacceptable to a religious fanatic, is definately acceptable to me. Or what may be acceptable to a leftist wingnut, may be unacceptable to a rightist wingnut. Anyway you look at it, its an attempt to bury you in someone else's morals.
"We won't say anything online that we wouldn't say in person."
What the fuck does that mean? How do you know what someone will and won't say in person? Does the rule apply if its something I would say in person, but most people wouldn't?
"When we encounter conflicts and misrepresentation, we make every effort to talk directly to the person(s) involved before we publish."
Myself, I prefer the "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, or making things as public and messy as possible. But I guess there is a certain level of satisfaction in belittling someone one on one.
"When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we act."
Hmmm, mob rule, I don't see how this could ever go wrong. Here's the scenario I see: "Oh noes, someone is posting an opinion contrary to mine, he's unfairly attacking me. Quick, while he's breaking the Blog CoC zerg him! ZERG HIM NOW!" Or however blog mobs respond to being contradicted.
"No anonymous comments."
The whole great and wonderful thing about the internet is the anonymity of it all. If people couldn't be anonymous on the internet, I don't think we would see news stories about the "13 year old girl who was actually a 50 year old man arrested by the 12 year old boy he seduced who was actually an FBI agent." And I for one find those stories amusing. Or would we still have all the internet tough guys, 12 year olds talking shit, or even half of the amazing viral videos that are out there today. Without anonymity, the internet would be just another boring extension of society. So why should comments be any different? Or why should we discriminate against those who are too lazy to sign up to a site just so they can comment.
"We prefer not to respond to nasty comments about us, as long as they aren't abusive or libellous."
Well, can't any nasty comment toward someone be construed as "abusive or libellous" in some way or another? If so, then you would prefer to respond, and thus this point is moot.
The main point of all this being, please keep your hippy, liberal, politically correct bullshit of the internet. If you don't like the internet as it is now, then you can get the hell off it.
Join me next time as I chose another topic that pisses me off and rip it to shreds, much like a dog with a squirrel.
Here's the link to the latest article I read on this shit: Blog CoC not well recieved.
