It feels weird to be the one arguing *against* a 'kill 'em all' policy

[alexsarll]

"You don't have to insult people to be frank," says Wikipedia's co-founder. Yes you do, you prick. If you're being frank about people who are one or more of arses, liars, racists or general dicks, then the use of all these insults and more is clearly necessary. What next, blogs to be regulated under the principle of 'If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all', or the old lie about swearing being a sign of an impoverished vocabulary? The Draft Blogger's Code of Conduct is at best a prissy irrelevance, and at worst a sign of creeping (self-)censorship. I hope I'm not the only person who would find myself losing a great deal of respect for any site sappy enough to sign up to it.

John Lanchester argues wisely and persuasively that intellectual property rights, which began as a safeguard for creators, have instead become a feeding trough for corporations. I just wish I shared his optimism about the chances of changing that.

"I knew something about ISNA and asked Syeed why—if his group truly supported peace and suchlike—its board included members directly linked to Islamic extremism and anti-Semitism, including the notorious Wahhabi-trained Brooklyn imam Siraj Wahhaj. The professorial Syeed dropped his polite mask, shook his fist at me, told me that I would one day "repent," and compared my question with a Nazi inquisition." An informative/terrifying piece on the methods Islamists use in attempting to skew debate and demonise anyone who stands up to them, and how it's all done "with the declared aim of improving relations".

Comments

[guntrip.livejournal.com]

His draft loses it four words in when "blogosphere" pops up.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

It's bad, but I think all hope was lost the moment 'blog' caught on, so cussing its derivatives is a bit shutting-the-stable-door.

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to put a ridiculous link to a 'charter' on my site, any more than I'd join a webring or put up a ribbon, but I do enforce a "no personal attacks" rule on one of my blogs - the Popular No.1s review project.* This is quite simply because people with interesting things to contribute were being driven away by people with thicker skins (who also had interesting things to say), so I judged that on this occasion the free market of ideas could use a bit of regulation. Or, to put it another way, "my gaff, my rules". Both groups have largely stuck around so it seems to have worked.

*an exception is made for random googlers and their comedy mis-spellings. An exception is also made for people who want to attack me: it's my site and I can deal with it, but I'd prefer it if they laid into their fellow guests outside.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that seems fair. Obviously individual people and organisations will want to moderate their own sites their own way; in some instances I may not like the rules they apply, but it's the centralisation inherent in this policy that really sticks in my throat.

Also, keeping abuse out feels intrinsically more appropriate on Popular than on eg a politics site. You're discussing Number Ones and even if the judgments can sometimes be pretty damning, it's an area where there's really never going to be a genuine need to call anyone a self-deluded, snivelling apologist for neo-fascism (or similar).

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

it's an area where there's really never going to be a genuine need to call anyone a self-deluded, snivelling apologist for neo-fascism (or similar).

We'll see what happens when we get to the Lennon Murder Era, eh?

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Well, for all that 'Jealous Guy' was clearly Roxy's nadir, and its outpacing all their other singles a damning statement on the British public - it did make for a very handy loo break when I saw them at Wembley, so at least it did some good.