'... Were these attacks made in the comments or were they first-class posts? ...'
Good point. Would a solution be only having comments if you supply an openId? [0] The idea being you have to ID yourself to comment. Would validation of identity be one way to help solve this?
'... Bloggers aren't responsible for things said in their comments. ...'
I wonder how the legals would view that? How much due care do you have to take? The thing with comments is, if you allow anyone to comment without limits, it's your reputation that will be smeared. If you have control or ownership of a system you are responsible. So it pays to control, restrict who and what comments are made. This is one of the key points allegedly made ... why do reputable sites allow such posts to persist?
Post Restriction:
I've seen a variety of techniques from timed or posts delayed until authorised to the extreme of no comments. They work to some degree but do not scale well. My personal idea is to have a blog that has no comments that points to a system requiring login (overhead, time and effort & identity) to comment.
'... Bloggers aren't responsible for things said in their comments. ...'
I wonder how the legals would view that? Was enough due care taken? The thing with comments is if you allow anyone to comment without limits it's your reputation that will be smeared. So it pays to control, restrict who and what comments are made.
I've seen a variety of techniques from timed or posts delayed until authorised to the extreme of no comments.
Reference
[0] No because OpenID is not a trust system. Maybe I should have read more about it before I posted ~ http://openid.net/about.bml
I want to separate what a website owner should do from what he is socially held accountable for. Consider the goatse trolls on slashdot. Slashdot introduced moderation to improve the experience of its users; people don't go around accusing slashdot's creators of writing offensive comments. There is a difference.[1]
That is just what reasonable people think, IMO. I can't comment on legal implications. I am not aware of a legal precedent online, whereas in the old media there was stringent enough control of the medium to be able to hold the proprietors responsible for what goes on it.
Presuming guilt by association is irrational and often unfair, but that doesn't stop it from happening.
[1] If anything, accusing a website owner of writing anonymous comments in his own website would be a little bizarre (I'm not saying anybody made such an accusation).
'... Were these attacks made in the comments or were they first-class posts? ...'
Good point. Would a solution be only having comments if you supply an openId? [0] The idea being you have to ID yourself to comment. Would validation of identity be one way to help solve this?
'... Bloggers aren't responsible for things said in their comments. ...'
I wonder how the legals would view that? How much due care do you have to take? The thing with comments is, if you allow anyone to comment without limits, it's your reputation that will be smeared. If you have control or ownership of a system you are responsible. So it pays to control, restrict who and what comments are made. This is one of the key points allegedly made ... why do reputable sites allow such posts to persist?
Post Restriction:
I've seen a variety of techniques from timed or posts delayed until authorised to the extreme of no comments. They work to some degree but do not scale well. My personal idea is to have a blog that has no comments that points to a system requiring login (overhead, time and effort & identity) to comment.
'... Bloggers aren't responsible for things said in their comments. ...'
I wonder how the legals would view that? Was enough due care taken? The thing with comments is if you allow anyone to comment without limits it's your reputation that will be smeared. So it pays to control, restrict who and what comments are made.
I've seen a variety of techniques from timed or posts delayed until authorised to the extreme of no comments.
Reference
[0] No because OpenID is not a trust system. Maybe I should have read more about it before I posted ~ http://openid.net/about.bml