Bloggers are often friendly people that like to get together and talk amongst themselves, but every once in awhile they also like to argue. These battles can be quite heated on various fields of battles (i.e. blogs). For example, don’t think for once that these problems are only limited to English-language blogs. Lately it has also been a topic that has generated disagreement among some Peruvian bloggers, and it hasn’t always been clean, rather some have resorted to dirty tactics. Let’s take a broad look at what happened.
In the blog El Útero de Marita [ES] a post was published “Blogger Absolved for Leaving Anonymous Comment,” which was a result of a case in the Spanish justice system, and another in the United States that determined that bloggers are not responsible for comments left on their blogs. In addition, there is the proposal law in the Peruvian Congress that would require an I.D. to be able to access internet in public terminals, as well as the adherence of the blog Puente Aereo [ES] to the Code of Conduct of Tim O’Reilly and Jimmy Wales. There is another code of conduct from the Spanish blog Mangas Verdes [ES] that says:
1 – Haz de tu bog lo que quieras.
2 – No dejes que nadie arruine tu blog.
Don’t let anyone ruin your blog
This position, however, was not shared by the blog Gran Combo Club [ES], who wrote in the post Pensamiento Sifuentes (Sifuentes’ Thoughts, which is the last name of the blogger of del Utero) that argues from the ethical point of view against this code of conduct.
“Haz lo que quieras” no es una regla de ningún tipo. Las reglas suponen restricciones porque allí está su sentido. Son necesarias para la convivencia, para sumar y restar, para ir de compras. Sin reglas, el mundo ético desaparece, también el mundo de la ciencia y el lenguaje. Las reglas son necesarias básicamente porque existen los otros. Y esto último tiene al menos dos sentidos: por un lado, las reglas permiten construir la intersubjetividad; por otro lado, las reglas dan sentido a lo que hacemos y a lo que pensamos. … La ética no consiste en definir lo que puedo hacer sino lo que debo hacer. Y quien no quiera entender la diferencia, vive en la pura irresponsabilidad moral.
“Do what you want” is not a rule of any sorts. Rules place restrictions by their very nature. They are necessary for coexistence, in order to add and subtract, to go shopping. Without rules, the ethical world disappears, as well as the world of science and language. Rules are necessary basically because others exist. This last one has at least two meanings: for one, rules permit the construction of the intersubjectivity; on the other hand, the rules give meaning for what we do and what we think…Ethics do not consist of defining what one can do, but what one should do. Whoever doesn’t want to understand the difference, lives purely moral irresponsibility.
With this, comments from all different viewpoints started to arrive and even now, they continue to comment. It is clear, however, what they are discussing is more than a simple code of conduct, and there are two sides with two different and longstanding reasons, and whoever does not belong to one of the two is not welcome (see the answer that had one of my comments (what I think is a pseudonym). There have been posts against this issue in other blogs, which Bloggers, Ethics and Anonymous from the blog Desde el Tercer Piso [ES] and what appears to be more impartial and summarizes the situation:
Básicamente, frente a lo que nos encontramos es a dos formas distintas de entender la blogósfera. Por un lado, Salas (Gran Combo Club) considera que los blogs tienen un potencial de comunicación y debate ciudadano bastante elevado – y, de hecho lo tienen – por lo que cualquier ataque, disonancia lingüística o insulto degrada el nivel del debate y debe ser desterrado, no por una censura impuesta, sino por una suerte de autocontrol de las opiniones compartido por la mayoría de bloggers.
Por el otro, Sifuentes si tiene un código de ética en su blog, bajo el título de pórtate bien, en el que, por sobre todo, se privilegia que nadie arruine su espacio, es decir, se permiten los anónimos siempre y cuando no dejen denuncias sin pruebas. Por otro lado, casi nunca se tocan a quienes se quejan por los insultos supuestos. Por el contrario, recordemos que fue Gustavo Faverón quien dio comentarios anónimos desde Maine, cuestión que fue explicada hasta la saciedad, y allí ninguna de las personas que reclaman por una ética sobre los comentarios hizo reclamo alguno.
Comparto la preocupación de Daniel por elevar el nivel de la discusión – y ello me llevó a ya no permitir comentar a un personaje que, además de troll, llenaba de insultos gratuitos a varias personas en este espacio – pero creo que, por lo general, es la libertad de expresión la que debe prevalecer y asi permito que gente que no comparte mis mismas ideas comente en este espacio. Creo además, que, así como se reclama al supuesto bando contrario coherencia, lo mismo debería hacerse para las disonancias idiomáticas – por decir lo menos – de sus amigos.
Basically what we find is two distinct forms of understanding the blogosphere. On one hand, Salas (Gran Combo Club) considers that blogs have a high communication potential and high-level citizen debate and in fact, they do, because whatever attack, linguistic dissonance or degrading insult, that the level of debate and should be banished, not by censor, but by the luck of auto-control of the opinions shared by the majority of the bloggers.
On the other hand, Sifuentes does have a code of ethics on its blog, under the title “Behave” in which most of all, it is asked that no one ruins his space. Anonymity is allowed only if no denouncements are left without proof. On the other hand, they never touch who complain about the supposed insults. On the contrary, we remember Gustavo Faveron, who commented anonymously from Maine, which was explained to satiety and there, none of the persons who called for ethics in the comments did not complain.
I share Daniel’s worry of trying to elevate the level of discussion, which does not permit me to comment on a character that in addition to trolling, fills the page with insults to various people in this space. I think, in general, that free expression is what should prevail and this allows people that do not share the same ideas and do so in this space. I also think that just as they call for the contrary, the same should be done to make the idiomatic dissonance – of their friends.
There does not seem to be a view that all of the discussion should be taken to some point or emerges as something positive. Both positions can be found and no one wants to review theirs to be able to reach agreement. It is a shame because all of the bloggers with the capacity for both should look for something better than fighting virtually. In the end, I doubt that this will be the last chapter of this Clone Wars in this very particular Cholosphere.
So as to not finish with this rare ambient, I post something that has no relation but only to add another image of what is done here. In the blog of Toñito Avalos in the post Videoprimer: First Animated Comic of the Peruvian Blogosphere (Soon!) shows the trailer of something forthcoming: a comic fanzine animated in flash. In reality, all of the blogs dedicated to comics are always very active. Now until next time.
The photograph that illustrates this post probably does not have much to do with this, but I felt tempted to title this “The Defenders of the Blogosphere.” This post was originally titled “Blogger Wars: The Battle of the Code of Conduct” in the blog Globalizado [ES].
Translated from Spanish by Eduardo Ávila