flag

What do you guys think of this, now appearing on the title bars of all Blogger-based blogs?

At first I thought it seems reasonable, as Blogger is not pulling blogs with "questionable content," and not taking any action based on one person's or even a handful of people's responses. However, why do we need that at all? Why does Blogger need to monitor and screen content?

Please opine.

Comments

  1. laura k20 August 2005 at 17:06

    Oh yes, I'm sure those children's eyes are smarting from being "subjected" to a rainbow flag. Though not as badly as from being subjected to their parents' intolerance and close-mindedness.

    So this is interesting, but I don't catch the relevance.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BarbaraFromCalifornia20 August 2005 at 17:27

    About a weak ago, I would have found it questionable. After this last week, being subjected to numerous posts by two bloggers, I think it is like a yellow light system. It just says to keep the eyes on what is going on.

    The blog belongs to the blogger. I included a big post on what is considered protected and unprotected speech by our government.

    There are some people out there, who can be annoying and disturbing to our blogs. I do not like to delete anyone's comments, but to alert the blogger.com is a good alternative, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. B. W. Ventril20 August 2005 at 20:45

    I think we need to reframe this in terms of the perennial Canadian/American debate over free speech. i.e. Lefties in Canada tend to be in favour of anti-hate speech legislation. Lefties in the US tend towards the constitutional protection of all speech, knowing that they'd be the first to be on the receiving end of legislation limiting political opinions. Can I apply this to the Blogger flag? Frankly, no, because it's too late right now and my brain isn't working properly. But somewhere in there are the seeds of an analogy vaguely relevant to your impending move...

    I guess my actual objection re: Blogger is less about the flag itself than about what it signals Blogger is becoming. In doing this, Blogger is, I assume, hoping for a Wikipedia-like golden mean, where misguided complaints are balanced out by the majority (hence their 'Wisdom of Crowds' reference). My objection, though, is that it's an assault on the autonomy of one's blog. Plenty of people switch to Blogger from, say, Livejournal (which I have a soft spot for), because they want a blog that's free, free of ads, and as autonomous as a self-hosted blog. This is a step back from that by Blogger, towards a sort of "Blogger(tm) community." There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it's not what some people want out of Blogger. It makes me glad I'm ponying up the $4 a month to host my own site.

    Wordpress, anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  4. laura k21 August 2005 at 04:15

    My objection, though, is that it's an assault on the autonomy of one's blog.

    That's what it comes down to for me. If you find a blog "questionable," don't go there.

    I'm going to send Blogger some feedback about it. They should hear from us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. allan21 August 2005 at 06:25

    This is seriously fucked up. Don't read the book, don't watch the TV show, don't pay to see the movie, don't vote for the politician. Don't read the blog -- and move on with your life.

    We're using the feedback from Blog*Spot readers to help assess what the community has noted as potentially objectionable.

    Boy, this slope is slippery. Once again, who is deciding what is "objectionable"? Blogger can say that "the majority" is voting on that, but how could Blogger user like myself monitor that? What is the threshold number of "flags" that can get a blog deemed "objectionable"?

    "Delisting" the blog doesn't seem like much of a punishment, but the mere idea of this is distasteful.

    Blogger also seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. It says:

    The content is not blocked or removed in anyway when the blog is delisted.

    and

    In no way are we automatically removing such content.

    But then a little earlier in the post linked to in L's comment, there is this:

    we're not automatically removing content based on the flags

    So removing content *does* seem to be an option.

    Boo, Blogger. ... Why do you hate freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  6. laura k21 August 2005 at 07:08

    we're not automatically removing content based on the flags

    So removing content *does* seem to be an option.

    I don't think so. I think you're misreading that - they're not removing content, with the exception of hate speech.

    Nevertheless, it's still unnecessary. What prompted this, I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  7. laura k21 August 2005 at 07:17

    People wishing to comment on the content flag can email Blogger at bloggerbuzz@gmail.com.

    ReplyDelete
  8. mister anchovy21 August 2005 at 09:24

    This scares the hell out of me (can I use hell, or is that objectionable?). The only question is whether or not it is enough to prompt me from moving mister anchovy away from blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  9. laura k21 August 2005 at 09:29

    Sir Anchovy, don't forget to email your displeasure to the above address.

    ReplyDelete
  10. B. W. Ventril21 August 2005 at 10:35

    There's also a lot of disturbing majoritarian stuff going on here. Since when did the majority have the right to label minority opinions as "objectionable"? Yes, I know this happens a lot every day, but it's not a direction that Blogger should go in.

    Anyway, totalchoicehosting.com has been cheap and wonderful, for those wanting to make the leap...

    ReplyDelete
  11. David Cho21 August 2005 at 11:18

    This is kinda weird becaue I don't see that flag option on my blog. Tried different computers and still don't see it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. laura k21 August 2005 at 11:20

    BWV: You make an excellent point.

    Ah-ha! David Cho doesn't have a flag button! Does this tell us about objectionable standards??? The conservative Christian among us...??? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous21 August 2005 at 12:58

    What I find interesting in regards to this is the proliferation of pornography on blog sites. Blogger is, like the rest of the Net, becoming home to an ever-growing number of porn sites. You had to figure it was just a matter of time, what with the ability to post pictures and the fact that the service is free. I wonder how much THAT had to do with the initial idea of the flag, which would then naturally extend to anything anyone might find offensive ... ? Just a thought, but I think it holds water.

    In essence, the flag as it stands is a non-issue. It's not blocking the sites at all - and I didn't even notice it until it was mentioned here. It's still going to be hard for Blogger to stop anyone from writing what they do, if they want to hold to their notion of being an online journal service.

    And to be fair to this dilemman, I question how many people actually use Blogger's listing service anyway (where is it?), and the Recently Updated shows, what, a list of 10 blogs? Ever see yours on there when you update? I've never seen mine, because there are hundreds perhaps thousands updated every few seconds. De-listing? Whip-dee-fucking-do. Most of our readers come from other blogs' links, or from outside bloglisting/directory services such as those listed on your sidebar anyway. That and good old Google (BTW, Blogshares still comes up #1 for me - and they've been rising - I get the feeling that has little to do with the Blogger listing service).

    So who cares? If the Blog flagged, but is still up as they say it will be, and Blogger isn't holding the listing, I don't think anyone's readership will really suffer as a result. For all I know, the Jesus Updates probably had me de-listed ages ago. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. laura k21 August 2005 at 13:15

    But porn has been all over the net, and all over Blogger, since its inception.

    I see wmtc on the "most recent update" list all the time - and I've found lots of good blogs that way, and through "next blog". That's how I found Crabletta, and Are We Still A Democracy, Not The Country Club, and many others that didn't become regulars, but I'm glad I saw.

    But really, I think what people are objecting to here is the idea of a majority passing judgement on what's acceptable to view.

    I feel as an adult I don't need to be protected. If something offends me, I'll stop looking. I'd rather not have someone else decide for me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. greatwhitebear21 August 2005 at 17:34

    David doesn't hve a flag because he hasn't posted since wednesday.

    I agree tha I still find this objectionable... for chrisake, I am capable of leaving a site i find objectionable. I don't need Brother Google monitering the net for me!

    ReplyDelete
  16. laura k21 August 2005 at 17:39

    Thank you for answering the David Cho question, GWB. (Ack! Did you choose those initials on purpose?)

    When I first saw the Flag thing, I was on the fence. Now I'm squarely against it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. laura k21 August 2005 at 17:40

    GreatWhiteBear, I just quickly checked out your blog, and I see that you are not trying to imitate Fearless Leader's initials. Whew. Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous21 August 2005 at 20:46

    *solution to the flag issue within*

    Hmmm ... maybe I'm not yet flagged after all.

    I've just noticed that because of the makepovertyhistory.org banner, the flag icon on LB actually cannot be clicked at all. I've had that banner up since long before the flag icon was put in ... try to flag me now, my good friend 'anonymous'!!!

    So, if you really want to avoid being flagged, simply avert the issue by grabbing that particular banner from MPH. Don't you just love technological foibles?

    ReplyDelete
  19. laura k22 August 2005 at 04:33

    If I am flagged, hell, I'm proud of that. Shows I made an impact.

    No, actually, it does not. You may make an impact, but some loser flagging you doesn't prove that.

    I think the nasty comments wmtc draws says much more about them than it does about me.

    We post to Blogger's server. Which means that yes, they can quite legitimately flag whatever they want

    Absolutely. Freedom of the press belongs to those who own it, and this press is owned by Blogger.

    But individual bloggers may (and do) object to the terms of service. Since Blogger only exists because of bloggers - and can't exist without us - we have a right or even obligation to make our feelings known, and to either take our (free) business elsewhere or try to pressure the service into changing its terms.

    I'm not suggesting you're saying otherwise. I'm only clarifying. I realize Blogger has a right to do this, I would never dispute that. But I don't like them exercising that right, and I'd like them to know that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous22 August 2005 at 08:20

    That's cool. Voice away - didn't mean to imply anyone shouldn't - was just verbalizing where I stood on it. Glad you got that - I was a bit worried I may have been misunderstood after I posted it. :-)

    I do stick by that first point though. Clarification: I believe being flagged does show an impact was made ... the way I see it, if something I write pisses someone off enough to want to do that - I must have hit the head of a nail somewhere in those words. Someone who was bothered enough to flag will likely be bothered enough to talk about what I wrote ... and up go the hits, Blogger listing service or none. And the higher the hits, the more people reading, the more people reacting, yes, but also the more people thinking. For some posts, that really doesn't matter to me (I could care less if people think about a humour piece - those I write for the express purpose of making readers smile); for some of the more serious bits, it does (those I write for the express purpose of generating thought and discussion - sharing my take in the hopes that others will share theirs). As for pissing someone off? That only helps increase attention towards the discussion. Great.

    All that said, though, we do differ on this, and I respect your point of view, even if I don't fully understand all of the disagreement. Well, actually I do understand it; I just don't understand why it seems such a serious concern at this stage, that's all.

    As mentioned, I am currently near-invincible (not fully, but as near as can be) from flagging as it is thanks to MPH's graphic overlaying that part of the header (though any transparent gif will do the trick if inserted with the right alignment code). Don't want to get flagged? Get the banner from MPH. Problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  21. laura k22 August 2005 at 12:34

    Thanks, G. I see your point, for sure - especially about making an impact. Because I do love to piss people off! :D

    Don't want to get flagged? Get the banner from MPH. Problem solved.

    Yeah, but this is a principle thing, too. I just don't think they should have this option. Plus on a much more superficial note, I didn't want the corner banner. I wanted a button or a rectangular "blogad", but MPH didn't have one!

    ReplyDelete
  22. laura k23 August 2005 at 01:40

    Thanks, G! Something to do while I'm up at 4:30 a.m....

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

not so fast

Not everyone thinks the Conservative government is a lock. Canada's opposition Conservative Party, which is set to bring down the minority Liberal government later this week, was hit by a new opinion poll on Monday that showed it was trailing in the country's most vote-rich region. The Leger Marketing poll for the Sun chain of newspapers put support for the Liberals in the powerful central province of Ontario at 43 percent compared with 31 percent for the Conservatives. Ontario, a Liberal stronghold at the federal level for the past 12 years, accounts for 106 of the 308 seats in House of Commons, and no party can hope to form a government without doing well there. . . . Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals have been badly hurt by a corruption scandal and Conservative leader Stephen Harper says the government must be defeated as soon as possible. The Leger figures, however, suggest there is no guarantee Harper can end 12 years of Liberal rule. Thanks, ALPF! I must say, I...
Read more

dipstick

So there won't be an election yet. Talk about a squeaker . Feel free to tell us how you feel about this, unless it's all been said already, then feel free not to. ALPF mustered his courage and sent more links, so I have some good commentary to post. I found this Macleans story on the Conservative party's reaction to Stronach's decision - and public reaction to that reaction - very interesting. Canadians seem almost universally turned off by the name-calling and sexist slurs. On the other hand, when a certain governor made his "girly men" pronouncement, his constituency howled with glee. (Which is not to say the rest of us weren't appalled.) The Macleans article also notes that not all the sexism came from politicians: Some of the most sexist characterizations of Stronach didn't come from her political adversaries, but from media. Montreal's La Presse newspaper ran a cartoon of Martin leaning out his car window to solicit a street-walking Stronach...
Read more