Wed. Apr 14, 2004
Domains, Responsibility, and Conversation
There are two sites which shall remain unnamed (because they seem to be taking this very personally, and without bending, so I’m sure my words are pretty irrelevant to them), one on the left, and one on the right, where the site owner has been taken to task for content placed on their site by others. They are just two examples of a much wider trend.
In both cases, the argument is being made that it’s some kind of open forum, or comments are moderated (just not the way you’d like), or it was a “member” not the site owner posting the offensive words, or “it’s all in the disclaimer,” or some other excuse for not taking responsibility over the content on their site.
In both cases, the sites get tons of traffic, and the visitors do often contribute much of the content. But also in both cases, the sites started off as essentially Just One Guy who bought a domain. The sites then grew and evolved into the very different structures they have today. Therefore, the site owner isn’t responsible for the content anymore.
Say what?!?
Is there no accountability left in this world whatsoever? In what name is that domain registered? Just who built this Frankenstein they now say they can’t/won’t control? Who is collecting the hundreds of dollars a week in Blogads from that site? How you can possibly think that a domain owner is not responsible for what appears on their site, and if they are not aware of the content, that’s not a glaring fault on their part? Would you buy an argument from the editor of your local newspaper that he/she is not responsible for the content his reporters and columnists put in the newspaper, because he/she hadn’t seen it?
Do you not recall the recent fiascoes at the Kerry and Bush web sites when they allowed visitors to put their own content on those highly trafficked sites? Everybody said, “boy, that was dumb.” Yes, it was. Pause. Think about that for a second.
If the buck doesn’t stop with you, Mr. Site Owner, where does it stop? Nowhere? How convenient for you in these difficult times.
I don’t buy the argument that you simply can’t moderate that much content. If you can’t, you’ve created yourself a problem. Because it is on the web in your name, if you own the domain on which it appears, no matter who wrote it. There is no obligation to provide access to comments on the web, or add additional “Authors,” or anything else. Those are all choices that a site owner consciously makes. And if you make the choice, you have an obligation to deal with the results.
If you don’t, there is no one else to blame for any repercussions except the name that shows up when you WHOIS the domain. You bought it, you own it, you made the choices about who can use it, and you also own the consequences.
Of course, Mr. Site Owner, on the web, that domain is yours to do with as you please. It’s your right. But it then becomes your obligation to deal with the fallout from those choices. Luckily, we’re not talking about business sites, or a potential loss of income, so the consequences only really impact one thing.
Your reputation.
And on the web, isn’t that about all we’ve got?
Sure, you might think it’s easy for me to take this stand, since I don’t get thousands of visitors and hundreds of comments per day. I’m actually quite thankful I don’t. Because I do like the two way interaction of comments on this site.
But I can assure you of one thing. There are two domains registered in my name, this one, and a community site with multiple authors. If either one of them should suddenly become so popular as to generate hundreds of comments per day, and if I did not have the time to properly oversee them (or hire an intern to do so with the ad bucks such traffic would bring), I would shut comments down. In a heartbeat.
I’ve seen too many trolls, too much anonymous slash-and-burn ad hominem, and too much hatred on highly trafficked web sites to perpetuate it on any site attached to my name. Comment threads peppered with that kind of crap demean the whole concept of “conversation.” They serve no one, and no purpose, except as a fodder for your “enemies.” Then you get to act surprised, defensive, and offended when they use it against you, pointing everyone to the ugly content on your site.
But it’s not just about domains and the web. Dean Esmay recently said: “I’m tired of people who can’t just say, ‘I dislike and disagree with this politician, but I’m going to try to be fair to him. I’m not going to quote him out of context, I’m not going to twist his words, I’m not going to disparage his character. I’m going to talk about his ideas and his policies, and try to understand where they’re coming from without snide accusations about his motives.’ I’m tired of partisan hackery from all sides.”
It’s my opinion most of the political spectrum has been coarsened by this “partisan hackery,” and it fully infects our process of choosing leadership. It’s got to stop, or we will get exactly what we deserve; a fractured country which no one can lead.
At this point, you might be nodding your head, saying, “yep, it’s about time those people on the other side get a grip.” If so, you only see half the problem. I can assure you, as someone who is a centrist and currently uncommitted, the ugly din is equally loud from both the right and the left. Trust me, even if you see your side as blameless, or certainly not as bad as “those guys” ... you’re wrong. It frankly makes it difficult to support anybody, given some of the “backing” both candidates are getting from their end of the spectrum.
But that’s my problem. The larger issue here is simple civility and intelligent discourse on heated political topics. This year, when it is most needed, it’s nearly completely AWOL. And one person can only do so much. Like, within their own personal “domain.” On this one, I not only won’t tolerate such “partisan hackery” from either side, I will attempt to point it out when I see egregious examples of it elsewhere, for just what it is: intentional damage to our political process.
That’s about all this one guy can do. Do you own a domain? Then maybe you should think about it, too. Maybe it’s not too late to have the kinds of conversations we need to have, devoid of name calling and rhetorical fire bombing.
But first, you’ve got to create an environment where that can happen, and we’re headed the opposite direction. Fast.
Published 08:55AM, Wed, Apr 14 2004
Category: Politics Weblogs
Previous: «« Spilled My Google Juice ««
Next: »» Atlanta Time Machine »»
Peanut Gallery
Ooops, my bad. Didn’t check your formatting rules for Textpattern. Sorry…
J.
Well, they’re not my formatting rules, they are the default in Textpattern. They’ve take some “getting used to” for me, as well. But I added the blockquote for you, as well as a link to your original article (well said).
And a tangential note … your original comment used a row of dashes as a “separator” (I assume because the blockquote didn’t work for you). If you do that in a comment on an MT site, when that poor soul exports a text file and later tries to use it, they will find your row of dashes messes up their import, because MT uses 7 dashes as a separator between entries in the text export file.
I speak from personal experience on that one. I spent hours combing through an 8MB text file looking for offending dashes that were messing up my import.
“Sadly, I expect things to get worse before they get better.”
I do, too. Sadly, I think our words will have little impact on this phenomenon. It’s a whole lot bigger than you and me, and it’s happening on sites that get a hundred times the traffic you and I do.
Beyond that, for some people, I think it’s simply too much fun for them to abandon. And I think that “fun” comes at the expense of coarsening our political process, to the detriment of us all.
One word: Slashdot. The idea that you can specifically relate blogs to print, and that an editor has, or should have, the same job and responsibilities as a blogger, is a silly one. Perhaps you want to have that job, and that’s great. It’s your site. Other people, however, can be, should be, and are able to turn the comments section over to whatever trolls, gatse.cx linkers, and flamers happen to show up. Just because you registered the domain does not mean you are now magically responsibile for the speech contained in a comment section that’s clearly marked as UNmoderated.
Again, slashdot. Go have a look at how they do it there. if there’s any site onthe net that has managed to:
make comments useful
discourage trolling
respect free speech
encourage fluidity
foster self-created community
it’s slashdot.
Having said that, nobody should get burned for comments that are obviously unmoderated, regardless of advertizing dollars or anything else. If your comments are unmoderated, you shouldn’t be punished. Nobody should try and claim they didn’t see the comments… just a flat “not my problem” should suffice.
Me, I do my share of partisan hackery in the name of humor on my own site, but I’m always courteous & respectful when I visit someone else’s place.
Other people’s couches are for sitting on, not pooping on.
Tony: “Just because you registered the domain does not mean you are now magically responsibile for the speech contained in a comment section that’s clearly marked as UNmoderated.”
And that’s where you and I will have to disagree. There's nothing magical about it, it's very deliberate. You bought it, you pay for it monthly, and you made the choices about how the site is used (including making comments unmoderated). It’s yours, and in my opinion, no disclaimer changes that fact. You even say “it’s your site” to do with as you please.
But no matter what you do, it’s still “your site.”
Marking it with a disclaimer doesn’t change the responsibility. If I put “death threats allowed” on this page, that would not remove my responsibility for what followed. In fact, it would nail it to the wall.
Slashdot is an excellent example of how a community can moderate itself, through ratings and other means. But they are a rare exception, and they also don’t specialize in political discussion. That’s where the “heat” is today, and that’s where we find the problems.
And, you know, if it was just one or two guys blowing their reputation with their own site, then I’d let the marketplace deal with that. The impact would be contained within that domain. But my point is that now we’re seeing this kind of “trolls and flamers” approach applied to our political process, all over the place.
It’s highly detrimental.
Harvey: “I do my share of partisan hackery in the name of humor on my own site”
I’m a big fan of satire and irony, so humorous setups aren’t what I’m talking about, or else I’d be all over Leno, Letterman, and Conan for what they do in their monologues. What I’m talking about is deliberate, humorless, slash and burn commentary.
It’s all over the place, and it’s not funny. It’s sad.
Recent Comments
- Ryan Ward (The Original Dither)
- Reid (The Not So Public Option)
- elburro (The Not So Public Option)
- Stephanie Hunter (The Not So Public Option)
- Reid (We Are Covered In Bipartisan Bull)
- Susan (We Are Covered In Bipartisan Bull)
ReidStott.com
Photography
by Reid Stott
A decade of web design experience. Two decades of photography experience. All available to you, and your project. View my portfolio online, then let's talk about your needs.ReidStott.com
I posted the following on my site.
J.(Tried to use the ‘blockquote’ tag, didn’t seem to work… sorry for the formatting.) [Ed: fixed]
I can disagree with someone, and have a reasonable conversation with them (as evidenced by some of my commentors) but I’ll delete obvious trolls in a hearbeat and if someone’s really intent on pushing rhetorical buttons I’ll ban their IP. Only had to do this once so far…
But you’re right – there’s very little civility. The emphasis is on WINNING, BY ANY MEANS and if you’ve got to burn down the house to do it then that’s all part and parcel of the game, right?
Sadly, I expect things to get worse before they get better. And I don’t know how to change that except by trying to get people to realize somethings WRONG, and not allow it in my own site.
J.