I wrote the following to the publicist whose name was attached to that column. I thought it was horse shit to be honest, and the only informed sanity was the end of the guide that outlined the legalities of certain topics. Either way, here go my comments:
---
Subject: Comments on "Blog without getting burned"
Date: April 7, 2005 11:16:33 PM MDT
To: annalee@eff.org
Good evening,
Since you were the listed press contact for the release, I thought I was wondering if I could ask you who wrote the aforementioned article? If possible, would you be willing to forward this letter to the writer(s)? I'd like their reply, as the article does not typically reflect the proactive approach that the EFF typically takes with issues of "freer" speech.
---
In fact, I think the 'guide' is precisely what I would expect from the large corporate entities that have prompted a response to bloggers: how can we effectively silence those who could do public harm to our company? Now, the writer might say "But if you blog anonymously, you're not silent!" Is that really the case? Let's review the 'lessons' that the EFF eschews in this approach:
1. To what extent should a writer dilute their commentary on life in order to protect their income? Why write a blog in the first place? If weblog writing has something to do with interpersonal meaning, universality, humour, lifeworlds, etc -- what is the point of authorship if its detached from the very life it intends to capture? What responsibility does the author have to his or her work when the writing is invented, and their name is unattached? That is silence in the worst way, like speaking one's own language. The approach you offer is not web-Logging anymore, it is Fantasy writing and an act of 'bad faith'.
2. This just makes plain sense.
3. Passwording a blog is fine for those who do use it to write only to a select few -- but is that really what the EFF wants to promote? In the battle between bloggers and the corporate media over readership and viewership, you're making your choice quite obvious. Have a little vision in your statements -- every decision has its consequences, and most are long-term in nature. These consequences are emergent, and not prescribed in the decision itself.
4. Again -- if your blog is an active source of news for many people, the solution is not to deny its existence. You're promoting a society worse than Orwell's '1984' -- people are not centrally controlled by 'Big Brother' anymore -- they now censor themselves in fear of him! (see Fouceault's Panopticon for another metaphor).
This entire article fear mongers a panic that promotes economic servitude in the face of quality of life, right to free speech, and a thousand other rights and dignities that make life worth living. Nobody has to pay attention to your article, but when it comes from the EFF -- people are bound to listen, and you have an ethical duty to provide bloggers with facts; not conservatist-informed conjecture on what people should or should not do. Of course, the obvious reply is "But we just want to offer people another way to do things." Perhaps you should offer a better way for people to do things, because this one isn't worth a lot. The only part of this article worth anything are the possible legal ramifications of blogging.
Forgive the passion of the letter, however I have an ethical duty to offer alternatives to what I think amounts to bad journalism -- something the EFF is not known for, and certainly something not looked-for from their supporters. Ask yourself this -- would you trust your own press releases if they were signed "anonymous"?
With Regards,
Chris B. Lepine
University of Alberta
Department of Psychology
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely. Red Mars, especially, shows the complete ignorance of the scientific community when it comes to interpersonal psychology.
And, the antenna will also make an excellent lightning rod!
I wrote the following to the publicist whose name was attached to that column. I thought it was horse shit to be honest, and the only informed sanity was the end of the guide that outlined the legalities of certain topics. Either way, here go my comments: --- Subject: Comments on "Blog without getting burned" Date: April 7, 2005 11:16:33 PM MDT To: annalee@eff.org Good evening, Since you were the listed press contact for the release, I thought I was wondering if I could ask you who wrote the aforementioned article? If possible, would you be willing to forward this letter to the writer(s)? I'd like their reply, as the article does not typically reflect the proactive approach that the EFF typically takes with issues of "freer" speech. --- In fact, I think the 'guide' is precisely what I would expect from the large corporate entities that have prompted a response to bloggers: how can we effectively silence those who could do public harm to our company? Now, the writer might say "But if you blog anonymously, you're not silent!" Is that really the case? Let's review the 'lessons' that the EFF eschews in this approach: 1. To what extent should a writer dilute their commentary on life in order to protect their income? Why write a blog in the first place? If weblog writing has something to do with interpersonal meaning, universality, humour, lifeworlds, etc -- what is the point of authorship if its detached from the very life it intends to capture? What responsibility does the author have to his or her work when the writing is invented, and their name is unattached? That is silence in the worst way, like speaking one's own language. The approach you offer is not web-Logging anymore, it is Fantasy writing and an act of 'bad faith'. 2. This just makes plain sense. 3. Passwording a blog is fine for those who do use it to write only to a select few -- but is that really what the EFF wants to promote? In the battle between bloggers and the corporate media over readership and viewership, you're making your choice quite obvious. Have a little vision in your statements -- every decision has its consequences, and most are long-term in nature. These consequences are emergent, and not prescribed in the decision itself. 4. Again -- if your blog is an active source of news for many people, the solution is not to deny its existence. You're promoting a society worse than Orwell's '1984' -- people are not centrally controlled by 'Big Brother' anymore -- they now censor themselves in fear of him! (see Fouceault's Panopticon for another metaphor). This entire article fear mongers a panic that promotes economic servitude in the face of quality of life, right to free speech, and a thousand other rights and dignities that make life worth living. Nobody has to pay attention to your article, but when it comes from the EFF -- people are bound to listen, and you have an ethical duty to provide bloggers with facts; not conservatist-informed conjecture on what people should or should not do. Of course, the obvious reply is "But we just want to offer people another way to do things." Perhaps you should offer a better way for people to do things, because this one isn't worth a lot. The only part of this article worth anything are the possible legal ramifications of blogging. Forgive the passion of the letter, however I have an ethical duty to offer alternatives to what I think amounts to bad journalism -- something the EFF is not known for, and certainly something not looked-for from their supporters. Ask yourself this -- would you trust your own press releases if they were signed "anonymous"? With Regards, Chris B. Lepine University of Alberta Department of Psychology