A blogger's disclaimer

[tinyjo]

I stumbled across this this morning (via plasticbag.org). It's a blogger's disclaimer, designed to be reusable and general. And some of it I agree with - particularly the first paragraph -

Do not assume that you know everything there is to know about a writer simply because you read their weblog on a regular basis. Any judgements you make will be based on the information they have provided you about themselves, which is probably vague, incomplete or embellished....

but some of it is just plain wishful thinking, particularly the section on people who already know the writer reading the blog. Basically the position taken seems to be that if the writer asks you to stop reading it then you are more or less obliged to.

View weblogs as online journals, no less sacred than a diary hidden between the mattresses.
...
If they do not want you reading it, or suddenly stop posting entries, ask them why and if necessary, stop going to the site. It is important that as a friend, relative, co-worker or whatever you may be to the writer, that your presence at their weblog not impede their ability to express themselves. Remember this is their outlet. They may not want you to read certain things they might write about you or others you care about, in order to spare your feelings, avoid drama or maintain their privacy. You should respect this and immediately stop going to the site, and never relay any information you gather at their site to others who might use it against them.
...
Ex-friends, lovers and estranged family members who have been cut out of the writer's life should refrain from reading their journal. If the relationship has ended, there is no reason you should get daily updates on the person's life.

I find myself amazed that it's even possible to take this view of a blog. The writer has chosen to publish these things about their lives into an open forum. They are implicitly accepting the right of anyone to read the material. They should be aware at the time of publication that anyone they know could stumble across it. Basically, if they've got something to say that they don't want everyone to see then a blog is not the place to publish it. If you're not using a tool like LJ which allows you to set security settings for your posts then be resigned to the fact that other people can read it. That's the whole point of online publishing. If you want to keep a private diary then keep it under the mattress.

Comments

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

Perhaps then the way to encourage/argue for this would be to make positive statements about what you're writing rather than the quite forceful (and unenforcable) negative ones about who is allowed read it in this disclaimer. I could fully support a disclaimer saying "This journal is intended to be . Please take it in that context and treat it with respect." Even then though, we should remember that we're still at risk of people not doing so. Meg at not so soft (http://www.notsosoft.com/blog/) had this sort of problem recently where one commenter persisted in reacting as if Meg was setting herself up as queen of the internet and arbiter of all moral standards when she was simply trying to start a discussion. In the end she found a way to prevent comments from this person (through some v. techy way involving IP addresses I think) but the risk is always there.

I think it's an issue which is easier for LJers to deal with because they can move to friends only whereas people using blogger et al can only be public or be silent. (I suppose they *could* use .htaccess to control readership but that would be very fiddly indeed and still not give the same kind of control).

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

oops - forgot to escape the angle brackets. This -

his journal is intended to be . Please take it in that context and treat it with respect.

should read

his journal is intended to be <whatever>. Please take it in that context and treat it with respect.

[jinty]

Perhaps then the way to encourage/argue for this would be to make positive statements about what you're writing...
Yes. The original author was a bit naive I think but there is still an argument worth making that comes out of that.