Conducting the Freedom of Speech

by Carlos Menezes

Little could have stirred as much controversy in the blogosphere as Tim O'Reilly and Jimmy Wales' recent statements that a code should be adopted to steer behaviour for online commentary in a more positive direction.

No matter what the contents of the code (of which a proposed draft can be found here), one cannot imagine the vast majority of bloggers accepting it. The notion of a code, of rules, of guidelines, of imposed structure goes against the very nature of your typical, everyday blogger.

However, the recent death threats to O'Reilly's friend, Kathy Sierra, have added great impetus to his argument. Sierra is a well-known figure, and a code which might have been immediately discarded a few weeks ago is now giving rise to some very serious debate. And yet Sierra and Chris Locke (who at one stage seemed poised like mortal enemies in the turf surrounding the death threats) published a joint statement declaring that “it would be tragic if this incident were used as a weapon by those who would limit free and open exchange.”

It's pretty resounding to see the two people hurt the most by the incident still championing free speech. It shows just how seriously bloggers take their freedom of expression. After all, it's what social media is all about – empowering the individuals and not forcing them to conform to any established decorum.

O'Reilly offers the idea that somebody that adheres to the code can then place a badge on their blog stating that it adheres to the code. The intent here is to lend credibility to the blog and give an indication of the standards that it strives for.

But will it? Will displaying a badge not mean that the site will be perceived less as a blog and more as a press room? The reason that blogging is so well poised to take off in marketing terms is mostly founded on the fact that it generated by “natural authors”.

By “natural author” I mean that the bloggers themselves are generally perceived as having little external agenda as they are not held to account by any entity larger than themselves. In general we view anything that governs a large number of people's actions as being more distant from our human nature than something that operates under its own steam. Any universal solution that can be devised will inevitably end up compromising on its relationship with its stakeholders.

Think of the law – how often have we scoffed at how wrong and twisted it can be? How many criminals escape charges due to legal technicalities, and how many people who conducted their actions with the best intentions are penalised when they tread that path where law and morals diverge? Deemed to be legal entities, complete with their own rights and duties, corporations try to appear as human as possible. Branding aids this to a great extent – the first thing Marketing 101 students are likely to be asked by their lecturers is probably, “If your favourite brand were to walk through the door, what type of person would it be?”. But when you think about the irony inherent in someone like Steve Jobs getting ousted from a company that he himself built one realises just how far from people large, blanketing entities really are.

Now this isn't some quasi-philosophical rant. Laws and corporations are the way they are due to the fact that they aim to be utilitarian in nature. They are designed to serve a large amount of people, or rather society as a whole.

That, as a general rule, does not apply to blogs as we are accustomed to them. What has made blogging so successful is that it can be extremely personal and relevant on an individual level. Implementing a blanket solution to anything as profound as conduct is sure to detract from the relationship of readers with the blogs they frequent. How can a blog remain credible when you know that it's conforming to acceptable behaviour? You never feel that you know who ends up deciding on what is acceptable.

I understand that a lot has been written about this already. Honestly, the reason that I took such a long time to write this is because I didn't feel that I had anything to say that hadn't already been said. With so many blog posts and their resulting comments present pretty much every angle has been covered. But, for whatever reason, no matter how redundant my opinion may be, I find it important to state where I stand on this.

The greatest asset that any blog has is that it operates under the assumption that anything goes within the limits of what the author finds appropriate. Why would we limit this?

Adhering to the proposed code in my eyes displays a lack of faith in the blogosphere. Yes, there are people writing posts and comments that we wish wouldn't. And yes, I do agree that if people were to adhere to what is written in the code chances are that the blogosphere would end up being a much more “pleasant” place to operate.

But what I feel exceptionally strongly about is that we have to have faith in our own ability to deal with the obstacles of blogging on an individual basis. This is one arena where we have to trust in our ability to govern ourselves.

2007/04/16 | permalink | comments (2) | trackbacks (0)

  Bookmark this on ... BlinkBits BlinkList Blogmarks Buddymarks CiteUlike Connotea del.icio.us Digg it FeedMarker feedmelinks Furl Give a Link Gravee igooi Lilisto Linkagogo Linkroll ma.gnolia Maple.nu Netvouz Onlywire RawSugar reddit Scuttle Shadows Simpy Sphinn Spurl tagtooga TalkDigger Wink Yahoo MyWeb