That Boing Boing thing

In the time since I wrote this post, it’s become the most visited entry on my blog, thanks to Violet Blue herself linking to it. Boing Boing’s response to the issue yesterday has led me to revisit it.

Boing Boing has been so vocal on digital rights and instrumental in plotting the intersection of technology and civil liberties. If I search my personal RSS archives for “DMCA,” “Creative Commons,” or “DRM,” dozens of posts turn up for each term just since the beginning of this year. More than anything else, that reputation is at the core of this discussion.

In the seemingly reluctant response to this issue, titled “That Violet Blue thing,” moderator Teresa Nielsen Hayden speaks on behalf of the editors, describing the course of events as “an editorial decision” to “unpublish our own work.” She cites the Wayback Machine as the place to find any past content formerly on the site. The other editors respond in the comments, and there’s a lot to address here. Since, to them, this response undoubtedly marks the matter closed, this list serves only as a letter to the future on similar issues.

First, the most basic issue of respect. It’s wrong to dismiss the discussion as a “blog fight” or a “troll war,” as Xeni Jardin’s comment describes it. Even the title of the post is dismissive–”That Violet Blue thing.” Ze Frank talked about phrases like “the guy” and “that woman” as distancing language. Meant to dismiss and misdirect, the issue is recast using their terminology, minimized as a “troll war.” I didn’t follow the discussion that much and only did basic research when I wrote last week’s post, so maybe in certain circles this matter did devolve into a “blog fight,” but dismissing the entire matter as such is disingenuous. This sort of thing matters, regardless if the principal players think otherwise.

Second, the response describes the editorial decision to “unpublish.” The term “unpublish” is used in contrast to censorship. My post didn’t even bring up censorship, because it’s not censorship. Even if it was brought up in the discussion at some point, it’s a straw man. Xeni’s language casts the notion of unpublishing even more stridently, stating that, “If we no longer think something is wonderful, we have every right to remove it from this directory.”

The issue, however, is not Boing Boing’s rights as an entity–they’re clearly on the defensive here. The issue is whether it’s ethical to do so. Blogging makes it possible to modify and delete earlier posts, and Boing Boing’s done this openly by making corrections in posts or adding updates. The difference in those modifications and the complete erasure of a set of posts is the transparency. When there’s an error in a post on Boing Boing, it’s crossed out and replaced with red text usually to highlight the correction. The removal of posts referencing Violet Blue was done silently and without any outward explanation. Of course it’s within Boing Boing’s right to do so as a private entity, but it’s also the thoroughly wrong thing to do.

This was not lost on Xeni when she posted her comment:

This is not Wikipedia or the New York Times. Boing Boing began as a personal blog, and still is in some ways, even though Boing Boing is a bigger thing now. When new information becomes clear, or someone’s behavior changes, sometimes a creator of work reconsiders what aspects of their personal creative work they’re proud of, and removes them from public view.

This is a move I really despise from those in the media I respect. Jon Stewart is guilty of this at times. When Jon was asked on his infamous Crossfire appearance in 2004 about not taking John Kerry to task when Stewart had him on the show, Jon said (roughly), “The show that airs before us involves puppets making crank calls.” It’s easy to disavow any responsability or accountability to the public when you’re on the fringe of mainstream media. The Daily Show is a comedy show that’s amazingly researched and happens to be about the most relevant current events. That it’s a comedy show doesn’t recuse Jon Stewart of his responsibility to the public to be ethical in what the show produces each weeknight, though that maneuver is an easy out for Jon.

Whether you’re in a position of power in government, the media, or the corporate world or whether you’re a blogger, a parent, or an extraordinarily intelligent and witty gentleman who makes funny voices late at night on Comedy Central, you have a responsibility to carry yourself ethically. When people listen to you, you’re accountable for what you say and do, and that needs to be the guiding principle as new media changes our culture. This is endemic to internet expression, and Wikipedia has suffered similar growing pains regarding accountability and transparency.

What’s so disheartening about the case of Boing Boing in particular is that they know better. Xeni can cast the site as a personal blog and David Pescovitz can dismiss it as drama, but it doesn’t excuse what’s happened. When it came to openness and transparency in the digital age, Boing Boing was leading the charge when it came to acting ethically in the digital age.

Instead of realizing what this “editorial decision” meant when it came to that reputation, Boing Boing went on the defensive yesterday, affirming their right to “unpublish” what they see fit, at their whim. They told their audience that instead of depending on the site as a reliable source, the Wayback Machine would be better suited to finding old posts.

Boing Boing did a big thing badly, taking a step backward and leaving the fight for transparency in the digital age to others.

If that seems dramatic, it is, because this matters. «»