Code of Ethics for Bloggers?
The hilarity never seems to end. After supposedly lifting the ban on Blogspot blogs (the ban remains in place for 17 sites), there has been talk floating around for incorporating a “code of ethics for bloggers” in the IT Act . Insanely stupid and downright hilarious? My reaction exactly…you cannot make this stuff up. India is fastly catching up to China…if not economically then in terms of such ‘authoritarian stupidities’.
“I will tell the truth… Will write deliberately and accurately, will never delete a post (and importantly) disagree with other opinions respectfully,” says one set of code circulated by a global research firm Forrester Research (India).
Such code for blogging should be included in the IT act, suggested Forrester’s India head Sudin Apte.
“Minimise harm… Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief… use special sensitivity when dealing with inexperienced sources or subjects,” said another post on possible codes for the weblog community.
Oh gosh! blogs are now a prime instrument for inciting hate? I never knew my personal rambling and myopic opinions had such a profound impact on Indian current affairs and people say I am not doing enough for my country by living away from it. Thank god, it has been mooted by cyber scribes (errr…scribes = bloggers or journalists?). The article is largely faulty for implying that ‘netizens generally agree for self restraint’. I am further surprised that this ‘code of ethics’ was proposed by a global research firm, Forrester Research. What were they thinking? The article ends on a seeminly optimistic note:
The government has already asked internet service providers to allow ‘unhindered access’ to net users except for some specified webpages.
Well, not a word on those ‘some specified webpages’. How many are some? Will that list be expanded to say, include my blog if I write something against Muslims or Sonia Gandhi? Or worse, try to incite a communal riot? Imagine a bunch of nerdie bloggers getting all violent after reading my blog. I said, imagine.
“Code of Ethics for Bloggers?” [Short URL: http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=1533] was published Saturday, July 22nd, 2006 at 12:51 pm by Patrix, filed under Governance, Weblogs, and tagged as Governance. Both comments and linkbacks are closed.
Related Posts
Hilarious and shocking. Are blogs the most important worry issue in India right now? We have made so much impact!
4 years ago replyI dont understand. When you talk about blank noise or tsunami relief, you want the whole world to take notice and wish that people read your blogs and make a difference out there. And now if it does make a difference (positive or negative), why are you crying foul ?
Its not so hard to imagine a bunch of people getting misled by some popular blog.
4 years ago replyOfcourse India is catching up to China when it comes to ‘Authoritarian Stupidities’. The govt is also planning to come with a Photo-Id plan for Cyber Cafes similar to China. They are planning to ammend the Right to Information Act, which helped catch many napping babus and cut red tape. Congress Party is starting to show its true colors, wonder what took them so long?
4 years ago replybloghopper,
what the hell exactly is misled?
4 years ago replyPratyush, sadly the awareness is growing at the cost of obfuscating the medium and getting all paranoid. Remember the “evils of MTV”?
Bloghopper, nope! I am complaining against the kind of effect it has on people. I am just worried about the expectation of certain authorities to “behave ourselves”.
4 years ago replyJatin, lets not forget the Emergency! We have been there before sadly haven’t learnt anything.
This is an extreme interpretation, and certainly not what the post seems to imply. Blogs can certainly be used to agitate.
As for what expectation authorities have from bloggers, its no more than the code of ethics you sign when you enter the examination room. If you can honour that, you may as well honour this one too. If one doesn’t, it gives a legal right to the government to block that weblog. Part of the solution right!
4 years ago replyFor nerdie bloggers may not get all that violent (you’re taking things too literally here!!), but in a rage of emotions, they may end up supporting (financially) violence/terrorism.
Oh thats a different question altogether (the authorities I mean)
The point I was driving at is that one has to have certain ethical guidelines by which he/she adheres to while blogging. Just because the blogosphere gives you a cloak of anonimity, you should not go about expressing anything and everything.
You wouldn’t spare a “Rohan Pinto”, beacuse he did something unethical, Right ?
4 years ago replySach1tb, firstly the government has no business dictating a code of ethics to me or my fellow bloggers. I may use extreme examples but I feel they reflect the paranoid government. I make no bones about not trusting the government (the bitter experience in 1975 is enough!).
Secondly, the government has no legal right at any time to censor anything and if they do, they are expected to be open about reasons for doing so. Blogs have had no history of inciting violence…ever. Thus to imply that they might simply suggests paranoia and attempt to stifle free speech.
Bloghopper, I feel that any code of ethics should come from within the blogging community and it can merely be suggestive. A errant blogger is punished by lack of traffic and refusal of other bloggers to link to him/her. The declining trackbacks and hit counter can work wonders to a bloggers morale, trust me.
I personally have been on the receiving end of blogger’s anonymity but wouldn’t do more than ignore the offending blogger. And BTW, if you remember a “Rohan Pinto” was “disciplined by the blogosphere and not the government, the same way as an errant academic would be reprimanded by his peers. He has been welcomed back into the fold since then.
4 years ago replyWell, the government is paranoid, and it has reasons for being so. In fact, I’ll interpret this as a cautious measure. If in bringing a code of ethics it is trying to do some right to what was percieved as wrong, I don’t see a problem at all. Nor do I see any reason to get all excited about it.
As for blogs having no history of inciting violence, it’ll be part of history the day it happens! Not to mention there is no way to actually gauge the amount of influence blogs have on a particular incident that may happen tomorrow.
My point — I don’t support censorship either, but I look at this as compliance. Something like the ‘I accept’ checkbox when you signed your flickr account. Only thing is flickr doesn’t give a damn as long as their image is intact/money keeps coming. A government, on the other hand has more responsibility. It can’t afford to say “I told you so”
4 years ago replySach1tb, I am beginning to enjoy this. Flickr is not a government but a private company, if i don’t agree with their terms and conditions with the ‘I accept’ checkbox, I go to Yahoo photos, Bubble Share, and thousand other photo hosting sites. With the government, there is no such choice.
Have you also noticed that the government will never fall short of reasons to fee paranoid? Strangely they choose to bully the least resistant group i.e. the bloggers. Surprisingly, that didn’t work out as they expected. Compliance to someone in a secret office writing ‘code of ethics’ for bloggers when in fact, they don’t know the difference between a blog and a website is downright stupid if not funny.
Blogs are a medium just like newspapers, magazines, and bathroom reading. Content is what causes outrage and usually new ideas usually create havoc and evoke censorship fears. Remember Galileo and the Church? Read this to understand why I don’t trust the government and their so-called need to impose ‘code of ethics’ and censorship demands.
4 years ago replyWith the government, your suffrage is your choice!
As for the comparison, you mean if one private company doesn’t allow you to do shit, you’ll try and find other places to do so. My point exactly. If you are willing to hunt for places to do wrong, the government may as well be on the lookout :)
As for the least resistant group, and the part where you said “no history of violence”, as I said I see those as speculations. So are your impressions of the person writing these code of ethics. I am no representer of government, and neither are you speaking for all the bloggers. So I won’t say government is right. I am just saying the intentions are good.
And no, blogs do much more than reporting I am sure. Many a times they have an opinion with no editorial control and an outreach that is fast going up. I’ve seen some pretty vitriolic posts out there. Again, I am not saying abusive posts are wrong. What kind of abuse should not be spread, that is what the “code of ethics” should decide.
4 years ago replymmmmm
sachitb,
First, being paranoid without any reaoson is stupid which means it is quite the natural thing for the government do so but that does not make it right.
Second, you assume that by shutting down a few alleged hate blogs, the government is finishing off hatred. Wrong! Not only because other means of communications exist which can never be controlled or rather should not be controlled, but because it does nothing to address the hatred of those who start such blogs/websites.
Third, I believe even hatred should be out in the open, when you drive things underground you make it harder for people to counteract it. So if someone issues a call to kill all Muslims, people can go to such sites and prove why that should not be done. Dirve them underground and you just breed more hatred.
Fourth, if government can, government will mess up things. The same reasoning why free markets are the best. So, before we invite government, we must be very very careful.
Fifth, even if we accept the need for censorship, it can only be done under non-governmental control, under strict transparent guidelines. it cannot be done by a babu who decides on something on a whim and then tells people to literally fug off.
Finally, as Patrix explained Flicker is a private gorup. They have every right to control access to their site just like you and me have the right not to admit someone in our house. But that does not mean that the local cop can decide who will visit my house. That is censorship.
4 years ago replyDude, wrong! The government will exist whether i chose to elect it or not. What Patrix meant was that the government has a monopoly unlike say flicker… there is no alternative. Also, government laws are binding, even in a monopoly situation the company cannot force me to do anything say take a cell phone connection but the government can force my hand. That is why the governmental control has to exercised with much caution.
4 years ago replySach1tb, I assume you didn’t read through the link I provided. We have there in recent history an example of government censorship powers among other restricting and controlling powers running amok…right here in India. So my fear of the government is not totally unfounded.
You believe the intentions of those people writing the code of ethics are good. How can you be so sure of that? I suggest that let the blogging community write those code and of course, adhering to those codes would be voluntary. As Confused mentioned, monitoring those blogs that espouse hate is better than driving them underground or making them sign a code of ethics. I am not sure you have given a thought as how you are planning to implement this code of ethics. Am I supposed to adhere to it? I don’t live in India but make posts on Indian issues. Can the Indian government force me to sign such a code. I am sure they cannot.
I can see that we are ready to blindly follow China’s example here…a path tread upon prior to the Emergency of 1975-77.
4 years ago replywhew!! why is this whole thing veering off to censorship again.. I am against censorship.. but let’s say I am not so skeptical about a “code of ethics”. I would like to see what’s in there before going to lengthy arguments.
That said, confused, I am calling this a cautious measure. In light of recent blasts, when your enemy wears a black mask in the dark, you have to do everything to be safe.
And no I am not making any assumptions. There is no “finishing off” hatred here. The solution to terrorism isn’t going to be a single shot, but a series of steps taken in the right direction. I think education, awareness, and sense of belonging come first, or parallel maybe with some small steps like these.
I kind of agree with your third point. Although, I am not sure what would happen if that particular blogger *censors* those who come to talk sense into his/her mind.
I agree we must be careful, or *very* careful. I just didn’t see this post here as an analysis based on an actual code of ethics, but what could happen if there was one. Well, that’s good too, but after the whole censorship debate, I just thought we aren’t making good use of our time like this.
Non-governmental control under strict transparent guidelines. Let’s say, I am also ok with governmental control under strict transparent guidelines.
Flickr/Cop.. again, you are saying this under the pretext that a local cop will come, or can come to an innocent person’s house. Your argument is based on this event actually happening later. In my case, I think that person may be the culprit.
4 years ago replypatrix — I did go through the link you provided. I just didn’t see any reason to straight away compare what happened then, to what they can do now.
4 years ago replyAs for implementation, my first comment was simply based on one honouring the code. No problem for good guys, a deterrence for bad ones… as for implementation, as I said, as long as guidelines are transparent, and agreed upon, I am ok. Comparing with China before they open their lips is what I thought was too hurried…
Sach1tb (pick a easier-to-remember name, please), it will boil down to the issue of censorship because this code of ethics thing originates from that point.
See, let us go through the events. The government bans all of blogspot when they wanted to ban 17 sites; sites which supposedly spread hate. We have no evidence that they incite violence. And now we hear of a “code of ethics” by the government. My concern is, why should the government who seems to have no inkling what blogs are write the code of ethics for bloggers? Whatever the code is, I am sure it will only kill the joy of blogging. In that sense, would you also approve a code of ethics for newspaper journalists? So no more bribery or scandal scoops?
Well, I agree too but on the flip side, I am not sure what would happen if the government *censors* a blogger who comes to talk sense into its mind.
Controlling expression is very vague and ambiguous unlike environmental regulation where you can impose quantifiable limits. Imposind a code on any form of creative expression, blogging included is detrimental to the medium.
4 years ago replyWell, Patrix call me sachit like confused rightly did..
anyway, my whole point was to simply not treat this whole thing as a stupid and inane move. Hell, I don’t even know who will government consult before coming out with the code of ethics. And the recent blocking ( I was dead against it too…) did show their ineptness. But I am *trying* not to judge every other action of theirs based on that..
I respect your concern, but I am not making any assumptions right now. Joy of blogging, well… what can I say … you really don’t want to find out that someone is actually financing terrorists because he found a rant against a community convincing enough.. wowo.. don’t get me there.. I haven’t found any yet, but that’s my assumption :)
May I go to sleep…
4 years ago replySachit, oops! dinn realize you were up all night; thought you were in India. Anyway I hope you got a good night’s sleep. At least I did. Your fears of a blog wielding powers enough to influence financing terrorists might not be completely unfounded. But trying to impose a code on all bloggers is doing a Hanuman (bringing the whole mountain when all you need is a herb).
Now imagine with the code, the government in addition to restricting language that would incite hate against the nation can *also* be used (power corrupts…always) to rein in blogs for say, speaking against Sonia Gandhi lest people who read might vote for BJP.
Anyway, a good civil debate and argument, like this has been, is always welcome here.
4 years ago reply