Tomorrow.sg’s linking policy misses the point

92terrible-mistake.gif

Like a good blogger, I read both sides of a story before reflecting on my own views. I’ve read Tomorrow.sg’s new linking policy, read CowboyCaleb’s interesting post entitled “Put a sock in it“, Mr Wang’s heartfelt “Ethics for Tomorrow“, as well as links to other blogs sharing their thoughts on the issue. (Interestingly, I found that most commentaries on each post supported the respective blog owner’s stand… it kinda makes sense, however I should investigate the leanings of comments with respect to each reader’s favorite blogs)

Then, I happened to find a timely post entitled “Singapore metablog Tomorrow.sg and a discussion on Linking Policies” on Global Voices via Technorati, written by none other than MrBrown, an editor for Tomorrow.sg. In his article, he addressed the world on their views on linking policy, especially with regards to non-consentual linking (or as he calls it: not asking for permission before linking people’s blog posts). Since I felt that it was a case of an uneducated blogger making her first big mistake, I had to say something for the sake of fairness (even though I HAD to sleep 3hrs ago!).

Here is my open comment (still under moderation at time of post) to MrBrown on Global Voices

Dear MrBrown, on the grounds that if a site were publicly available on the web, we should have the “right to link”, which includes the privilege of not needing anyone’s permission to link to them. However, this recent event wasn’t a simple case of unwanted attention due to links.

I must point out that much of the Tomorrow.sg editors’ stand missed the idea of “context”. The point was that they were eventually responsible for the surge of unwanted attention to the pregnant unwed teenager. In effect, this reaction would not have reached such proportions if the catalyst were not introduced.

This event required a higher sense of ethics, not so of logic. Did none of the thirteen editors realize that it might have been detrimental to the girl’s well-being when a few decided to publish her blog?

Understandably, the better situation would have been one where she were taught the social implications of blogging, before realizing it’s full impact only after this painful mistake. Bloggers fresh off the boat would not yet have the chance to realize the various social functions of blogs, let alone understand the various web technologies at their disposal to limit their exposure to the private few. Therefore, I feel that the right thing to do would be for us, responsible & experienced bloggers, to help out new users where possible.

The blogosphere is still an evolving formless thing, so much of these rules evolve over events such as these. As such, I wish for an equally-adaptable Tomorrow.sg

Do let me know what you think!

  • Han
    You made one crucial mistake there Kevin. You did not check your source before commenting.

    There was no unwed teen mother. There was only one woman in her mid-twenties, with a masters in aeronautics engineering, talking about her relationship problems and getting pregnant.

    Suddenly, the context changes, does it not? This is no wet behind the ears kid. Furthermore, if you read the contents of her blog, you begin to wonder about her motives behind writing what she wrote.

    Get your facts right first.
  • ivn
    I've linked (I hope it's not a taboo word with you now) to this entry because I thought it was interesting.

    Added a twist to it tho...

    http://recentrunes.typepad.com/firstplace/2005/...
  • Han: I thought I had missed something crucial... So let me get this straight, the Tomorrow.sg editors see it as:

    Unwed mother teenager... not sure to publish
    Unwed mother in mid-twenty... OK to publish

    Does the context really change? I think you're still missing the point...
    Even if it happens that we're dealing with a sixty year old grandma who's inexperience with blogging accidentally renders her private life published online, the point I'm stressing is that as veteran bloggers, we should practice discreation when it comes to linking (or creating controversy) over certain blogs/web sites. Instead of a simple policy of non-consentual linking, some form of moralistic judgement should be employed by editors... after all, that's what makes human editors more valuable than rule-based moderating bot/scripts.

    From this I will also add that blogs tend to be volatile as an information source because of the ability for the writer to edit or even remove parts of the content after it is published. Thus what we see on her blog, might have changed many times over since the attention brought about by Tomorrow.sg.

    Based on what you said, if indeed her blogging motive were that questionable from the outset, why did the Tomorrow.sg editors contribute to the tasteless controversy? Why did they make the crucial mistake of not checking their source?
  • Han
    You know what the interesting thing about the content on that blog now? It has become a focal point for other women with similar experiences to share their story.

    Keep in mind that this change occured AFTER being Tomorrowed. This means that the consequent changes are all consensual and voluntary.

    I actually see this as a positive development. These women now have a voice.

    On top of this, I'd like to add, that you really cannot tell if the girl was the victim. Many quarters suggested that the blog was meant to be used in a vendetta against the man, meaning that she actually WANTED exposure. Others think she was the victim, and that she was right in telling her story.

    What's the actual story? I don't know. Will I ever know? No. Will the other editors experience any different from me? No.

    So what does this mean? This means that we are in no position to make moral judgments. We tell what we perceive, that's it.
  • Han, thank you for taking the time to explain. I agree that her blog has now turned into a positive development. The arguments I presented were only valid from the point where/if the original blogger suffered under the unwanted attention from non-consensual linking, then Tomorrow.sg editors would have been moralistically wrong for taking advantage of the situation to create sensational news. Since the blogger in question has changed her stand on the issue, and furthermore even seems to thrive on attention, then this case no longer holds well for my argument.

    If Tomororw.sg demonstrates some moral judgement at the time of publishing (at time of perception), and the blogger's content changed after the link, then I would also wholeheartedly agree that editors are not to blame for the ever changing content.

    Disregarding the tricky motivational issue of her blog, what's left is my bottomline, which I propose that Tomorrow.sg's linking policy include editors demonstrating some level of perceived moral judgement, effective only at the time of publishing (since you're not responsible for changed content).
  • Ivan: Thanks for gracing my blog with your fair and honest commentary.

    It's without a doubt that the web was built groundup for linking... but the real issue is about defining public and private spaces on the web. When someone fails to recognize the distinction and suddenly realizes the entire blogosphere making a bullrush to critic on his/her private disclosure, it can be a frightening, or even damaging experience.

    This case however is a more muddied one than it appears, namely because the blogger in question seemed to eventually thrive on the attention later on after the linkup.

    Be it so, the moral of the story I'm giving is that bloggers need to be more discerning with what they read and not to take everything at face-value.
  • Han
  • ivn
    Kevin: I summed up my views on shianux' blog but will yank it here to provide closure since I started from your blog:

    "I see both Kevin’s and shianux’s point. I do believe this is more a cultural issue than a ethical or legal issue. As Asians, being very hospitable hosts, we tend to cringe in horror at uninvited guests, I mean, wah, not time to clean up, prepare meals and so on.

    Being linked by an external agent is tantamount to having a stranger publicising an open invitation to everyone without your consent. It strikes at the very core of our cultural upbringing.

    As I said, linking is the foundation of the Internet, having a public blog means it will be subject to linking.

    I am surprised at why Tomorrow.sg is getting all the flak because I am not sure if the dissenters realize that Google, Technorati and other bots have already linked to them. In fact, my blog relies on Google alot for funny news.

    Kevin’s point on protecting (read: educating) the uninitiated is well taken, however, it would ultimately lead to policing and censorship much like what we have here in Singapore.

    I say link on and Caveat Emptor."

    Hopefully coupdegrace won't miss the point and embarass himself again here.
  • I'm just avoiding tomorrow now. what a disappointment! especially when I was enthusiastic about tomorrow.sg's launch at the beginning. but after reading the linked blogs of others, I find that most of them are not of my league and I don't have much interest in them =/
  • Nadine: I respect the idea of having Tomorrow.sg, but I just find that some of the editors there need to be more open-minded to ideas, instead of being overtly-agressive when defending their claims. Still, they have the right to their style, just as we also have the freedom to choose our what we read.
  • Hmm.. I'm not sure if I'm adding any thing new to this conversation. Reading your open comment to Tomorrow.sg, I initially agreed on your point that the editors would be bringing unwanted attention to the blog in question. But here's the thing -- if you don't want to draw attention, why blog in the first place? I tend to agree that permission is not needed to link to another blog. But should a request be made to remove the post, it should be honoured. Hence, I think there should be a kind of Blogsphere etiquette, where linking is by default but there's a "opt-out" mechanism. Policies won't solve anything. Flexibility, discretion and understanding is more crucial.
blog comments powered by Disqus