I know, I’m probably biting off more than I can chew here, but what the hell.
1. Don’t say anything you wouldn’t say to someone’s face.
This goes double if you’re going to post as “Anonymous.”
The only possible exception to this: you are whistle-blowing on some egregious, illegal practice that you can’t possibly own up to in real life. In that case: run for the hills, because tracing where a posting originated is as simple as asking Google, “Hey, where did this originate?” (You know Google saves every search made from every IP ever, right?)
2. If you link to it, you own it.
If you offer up a link to something on your blog, on your Twitter feed, or as a Facebook status, you are advertising that you agree with the opinions found therein, unless you very specifically call out that you are disagreeing with it. (NB: if you are a professional comedian — i.e., someone would recognize that you are funny consistently and over a long period of time, not necessarily that you’re getting paid — you can get away with “sarcastic agreement” as your disagreement mode. Only professional comedians.)
Way back in the early days of the Web (when this blog had already been around for several years, nyuk, nyuk) there was a political blogger named Instapundit. I haven’t heard about him so much any more; don’t know what he’s doing, don’t care. But his shtick was to link to something foul, infantile, or race-baiting and then say
Interesting.
When called on how he was clearly promoting these things, he would say, “Oh no no, I just thought it was an interesting point of view.”
In a word: bullshit.
He wanted to link to inflammatory crap without putting his name on it.
If you link to it without commentary, you own it.
The only possible exception to this: you link to a major media site, such as the New York Times. In which case, we probably know why you’re linking. Be a good Internet citizen and add a little commentary so we know where you are with this, okay?
3. Don’t read comments.
Seriously. There’s nothing to be gained from this. There are people who have nothing better to do than sit around all day and argue nonsense from behind a fake name. There are people who are paid to sit around and post garbage. Don’t participate.
There are two exceptions to this:
- Horace Dediu’s blog Asymco. That blog has one of the most respectful and curious set of commenters I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t hurt that Horace is bringing his A-game with every post. You can disagree with him…but the usual Internet set up of “My ignorance is as good as your knowledge!” just looks like the lameness it is on Asymco.
- My blog.
In (2) you’ve said two different things:
– If you link to it, you own it.
– If you link to it without commentary, you own it.
These are not the same thing. In particular, if you link to something with commentary, then the contents of the link must be understood within the context of the commentary, or else it’s a reading problem, not a writing problem.
There may also be a writing problem, but if a reader simply disregards the context in reading the link, then that’s a reading problem. In particular, I will consider that person as either a troll or an idiot when encountering them in the future.
No, they’re not the same thing, but the general rule is: a simple link (with no other text by the poster of that link) means that the person posting that link agrees with it 100%.
If someone posts a link with “OMG Republicans are complete neo-fascist woman-hating trolls and here is a link to prove it!!!” (purely an example) then I would consider that the poster of that link does NOT agree with it, even though they are posting it.
Otherwise: you post it, you agree with it.
Is there sarcasm I’m missing here? At home I read three blogs regularly, one of them is Roger Ebert’s Journal. The comments are wonderful; the readers are typically courteous and thoughtful, and can write as profoundly as the award-winning blogger himself.
At work I have to solve new technical problems very fast. Perhaps half the time it’s someone’s comment from a Google result that has the solution, or leads me on the right path.
Do you believe that the comments section of Ebert’s Journal is typical of the internet? Even typical of comments section of personal journals that get a fair number of postings? (Let’s say a fair number is, More than 5 on a given entry, every day.) The vast majority of sites out there that that gets comments are filled with hate, vitriol, racism, sexism, and filth that you used to have to go to dive bars to hear. Now it’s in our own home and it’s everywhere.
Of course, that stuff sells. That stuff leads to more clicking, and most sites on the web are all about page views. Site moderators don’t delete the extreme opinions because extreme opinions lead to arguments, which lead to pile-ons, which lead to higher ad rates.
Pure and simple.
John Scalzi has posted many times about the horrible stuff he’s had posted (or attempted to be posted) on his blog. Because he has a no-tolerance policy, it doesn’t continue. But it keeps on coming.
I would be very surprised if there were not the slightest moderation on Ebert’s blog. I can’t believe the Sun Times would host it if there were not.
Any comments section is either highly patrolled (so that everyone stays respectful and on topic) or it’s a free-for-all that’s filled with waste. I’m not the only person to point this out.
I didn’t communicate very well. You’re correct, Ebert’s blog is exceptional. And, most comments on most sites are a waste of time.
What I disagree with is that all discussion online is a waste of time. It’s simply a matter of finding good circles (often off most people’s radar). It isn’t much different than real life. I guess that’s why I almost never go to a bar.