The two main subjects were of genuine interest. My thinking on a blogging code of conduct is that anyone who would take such a code seriously probably already behaves themselves without having to be told to do so. It’s the people who seem to be without finer feelings who make things unpleasant, and I would imagine these are the last people in the world who would be swayed by a hypothetical code of conduct. In point of fact, it would probably amuse them to break the ‘official rules’.

If you’re dealing with pathological individuals, rules don’t work. If, however, you are dealing with rude people, I believe peer pressure will be the most effective method of curbing their unwanted conduct. Appearing foolish or ‘uncool’ in the eyes of blogging peers would likely seem a fate worse than death to anyone immature enough to leave rude, attention-getting remarks, so it is likely that self-government will have to remain the way of handling this situation.

The one issue that I would like to see discussion on in regards to this is the effects unpleasant comments have on the repuation of the host (a blog, a social media site, etc.). At this point in the game, Digg’s users have created an atmosphere that is being called juvenile, hostile, nasty, profane by scores of Internet users. While I realize that buzz and action are the things Digg wants to create, do they really want to be known as the nasty site? I don’t re-visit sites that I find to be offensive. I wonder how many other people feel this way, and what other bloggers or social media hosts feel about allowing users to create an unpleasant atmosphere in their place of business.

Thank you, Elizabeth, for posting this. A real treat.
Miriam

Prescriptive codes do define kinds of behavoir, and are much easier to understand, discuss, and follow. On the negative side, they tend to be much longer than an aspirational code.

If one were to write a code of conduct, perhaps the best approach might be to mix aspirational and prescriptive aspects together, and clearly label them as one or the other.

Sure, some kinds of behavior are covered by existing law. Defamation, death threats, and the like, are things that people should really know better than engaging in. Perhaps thats partially why I’m not certain that we really need to have a “blogger’s code of ethics.”

I wonder if it’s too early to do too much defining of baselines that are specific to blogging, or if they will even be needed. Aren’t some baseline-type things that can apply to the blogosphere already covered by existing law? Perhaps what is needed is more like an easier-to-grasp clarification of how existing law can apply to online life.

I was talking with Loren and Mike in the hotel lobby, and we were getting into a pretty interesting conversation about local and ethics when Mike suggested that we take the conversation to video.

In some ways, I wish the beginning of that conversation was captured on camera. Loren raised some great points about Google’s new local search by phone, and sponsored advertisements for those results.

While I don’t like the idea of a handful of people trying to legislate morality and conduct for anyone who wants to blog, I also questioned their approach in doing so. The difference between aspirational codes of conduct, and defining a baseline is that setting up a baseline code of conduct makes it a lot easier for people to understand and follow that code. The baseline doesn’t have to be a “lowest common denominator” kind of conduct, but just rather expressed in a way that’s easier to follow and understand.

Saying “don’t write something online that you wouldn’t say offline” isn’t that helpful. It’s a lot easier to ask people to not engage in personal attacks against each other (attack the post and not the poster), not to threaten one another, not to use offensive and x-rated language. The standards aren’t necessarily different, but the ways of expressing them are.