Ethical blogging
This NY Times article by Bob Tedeschi details the controversy surrounding the suicide death of advertising executive Paul Tilley. Some believe that vicious anonymous posts about Tilley to industry blogs such as Agency Spy may have contributed to his state of mind when he decided to take his own life.
This situation should give us pause. We are the professionals in training in the emerging field of interactivity. Yet as we move further into that era, I know I have lots of questions regarding our moral obligations, particularly as bloggers. For example, I am torn when it comes to anonymous blogs.
At its best, anonymity in posting allows for an interesting give and take. It encourages deep critical thought that is best brought about when educated minds collaborate (sound familiar?). Unfortunately, what happens all too often is that such discussion quickly descends into the type of vitriol that Tedeschi so aptly describes. And when that discussion is personal and pointed, it can hurt. (I have never been a believer in the “sticks and stones…” stuff…words DO hurt!)
So, in the name of freedom of speech and the interest of keeping the Internet open, what are we to do? Do we keep the current model of allowing anonymous posting in the hopes that community standards will form around an educated discourse? Or do we disallow posts by those who refuse to sign their names (or at least SOME name) on the premise that one must be confident in his/her careful consideration of the issues?
What kind of obligation do we have as we blog to the people and institutions about whom we blog? Do we have a similar obligation to our readers? Should we depend upon our personal moral codes? Or is there an emerging “community standard” can guide us? Should there even be a community standard?Is there room for ethicists in the interactive age?
I hope so.
March 10th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Seems to me that the easiest way to keep with some method of “community standard” is to use a community modding system. Basically, the people that have registered with the site (and thus you have a decent way to follow up that they exist and care etc…) can give a thumbs up or down to a post while all the people that want to post anonymously don’t get a say. For an example of it in action, take a look at Slashdot. Buncha nerds going hammer and tongs at each other and you still don’t get a site that’s full of unreadable garbage. The topic flows and stays on topic, which is something that can’t be said for many sites that otherwise remain unmodded. It also flows nicely into the crowdsourcing you were talking about in an earlier post.