Dilbert - Blogging About Your Employer
Today’s Dilbert cartoon is about blogging - and getting fired for it. I don’t have to worry about that since my boss (me) doesn’t care. But there are others who are affected by our posts as well - what are your ‘personal guidelines’ for your blog? Do you post about your job? your spouse? your kids? your family? your friends?
What is acceptable and what would you consider unacceptable invasions of others privacy?
My main guideline is to generally avoid posting about people I know, especially when it’s something negative. When I do, I make sure to make it a “friends only” post, and typically avoid using any actual names. Even when it’s something positive, I often shy away from it if I’m not sure they’d appreciate people talking about them on the internet.
Something I’ve run into as well is simply talking about issues that matter to you. It seems like no matter what your view is on something, if you right a very opinionated entry, it’s going to offend someone. It’s made me be a lot more careful about simply writing whatever I feel like saying at the moment.
:-)
Comment by Pat — October 2, 2005 @ 8:05 am
My general guidelines are as follows. An item is bloggable if, in addition to meeting the basic standards of Christian living, it:
Those are the only two big rules I try to follow. Naturally, they can have various interpretations–for instance, I have no problem blogging about other people, even by name if relevant, and even if the conversation was not broadcast publicly, so long as they didn’t have any particular expectation of privacy concerning the information I am presenting. (A casual conversation that somehow involves a weird and interesting incident or story is completely fair game. A casual conversation about someone’s troubles at home is completely off-limits, covered by #1 above.)
It’s very much a golden rule sort of thing. For instance, supposing that Gary believed something I was grossly at odds with, I would have no problem writing a whole post, referring to him and his belief by name, and refuting it/generally making fun of it, within Christian boundaries. If I didn’t know he read my blog, I’d probably send him a note saying that his consummate folly had been announced to the whole world. I would expect him to do no less with anything ridiculous I might believe. Personally, I like getting people fired up. If an opinionated entry makes them actually think about what they believe, that’s great. Even moreso if they get fired up enough to write a response or rebuttal.
There are naturally people with lower thresholds of comfort–they might not want their name online, or what-have-you. That’s fine; if they ask nicely I’ll remove it, but my default is to what I am comfortable with, and I couldn’t care less how much my name is online.
One area I do try to stay away from is blogging any specific info about my children, but only because whatever I write is going to be archived forever and all time, and I’d rather they have their own chance to make a name for themselves on their own rather than being forever identified by stories of runny noses.
To a lesser extent, I try to follow the guidelines at Waxy.org.
Comment by Matt Winckler — October 3, 2005 @ 12:13 pm
You’ve got to be very careful about that sort of thing, though.
For instance, I know a girl who was a fairly new christian, and was still learning a lot about the faith. She wrote something on a message board that was not quite right theologically, and instead of someone gently explaining to her what was wrong with it, someone did exactly what you describe. Posted this diatribe against her, as if she was some arch-heretic who had to be defeated from her evil ways. It was completely unnescessary, and probably did more harm than good.
To be honest, I’m not sure I see the golden rule in that kind of behavior. You may like to get people fired up, but that doesn’t mean they like to be fired up. Some people are corrected or pursuaded in much better ways than simply ticking them off. There’s certainly times for writing strong entries against bad beliefs, but I think I’d shy away from naming people unless they are either a public figure, or have in someway made very public their opposition to your own views.
And of course the peace and the unity of the church is something that always has to be taken into account when you do these things as well. It’d look pretty embarassing for our church if someone stumbled across a message board or blog where church members were constantly debating each other (or making fun of each other). It might seem harmless or even funny to you and your friends, but it could give a very wrong impression to people outside.
Comment by Pat — October 5, 2005 @ 7:25 am
As per usual, my mental context did not entirely make it onto the keyboard. In my mind, I was thinking of an example where the steps you mentioned had already taken place–that’s part of Christian behavior. There is a vast difference between lambasting someone out of the blue (as my example above, lacking proper context, suggested) versus attacking a morally wrong position of someone deeply entrenched in that opinion, who will not hear remonstrance. It’s all a part of selecting the proper tools for the job. As Christians, we need to have more than a miniature screwdriver in the toolbox. Likewise, we need to know which jobs are not for the sledgehammer. Both tools have valid uses.
Also applicable here is a reminder from a friend the other day regarding the 9th commandment. We are not entitled to make up straw men about what our opponents believe and then destroy the straw man, not only because it is a logical fallacy, but because it is a violation of the command not to bear false witness against our neighbor. By misrepresenting him, we are lying about what he actually believes. I thought of this because of your mention of the level of publicity of a given argument–it’s easy to debate someone if they’re not around to defend themselves. In this case, it’s okay to leave their name out of the issue if they want, so long as you do faithfully represent their side of the issue. But to me, something about that has always felt half-honest and under-the-table. “I know someone who believes X, Y, and Z, and those beliefs are wrong because…” In the event that Someone stops by and sees this, it’s almost as if you’re talking behind his back. Whereas if you go ahead and name him, while not maligning him in any way that would contradict the faith, everything is forthright and out in the open. Suppose you and I had a conversation, during which I told you that I believe it’s morally wrong to take out a mortgage. (This is hypothetical, but I wanted to pick something I am sure I’ve never written about before.) After explaining to you why I believed it, and having discussion, I would be completely fine with it (and perhaps even flattered) if you decided to make a post, naming me, and refuting my beliefs. To a certain extent, I might be more offended if you posted about the issue and didn’t name me, because it would feel more like a backstab (”did he hope I somehow wouldn’t notice that he was talking about me? Or did he not want this to come up in Google if I ever searched for my name?”), even if that was not the original intent.
However, as you pointed out, not all people are like me (more’s the pity), so at the end of the day, it always comes down to context and the issue at hand. Wisdom is needed in discerning whether to use sledgehammers or screwdrivers, but I don’t shy away from the sledgehammer if I deem it the right tool for the job.
Of course, it’s entirely possible that I am completely wrong and off-base with all of this, and simply be wasting precious bytes on Gary’s blog and precious minutes of my day. If that can be demonstrated biblically, I’m prepared to eat all my words here, with a side of crow.
Your point about church members debating each other was interesting. I’m not sure I agree with you, but this comment is too long already. Maybe I’ll make a post about it and name you in it. ;-D
Comment by Matt Winckler — October 5, 2005 @ 1:25 pm
Interesting. I never realized anyone would feel like it was backstabbing not to mention their name. I guess it just goes to show how much personality differences effects these things. I do agree with you about the multiple tools thing, though.
Comment by Pat — October 5, 2005 @ 7:04 pm
Later on yesterday I thought of the word I wanted. It’s not “backstabbing” per se, it’s “plagiarism”. To take someone’s ideas or arguments and put them online but then take their name off of them would be plagiarism, which is one of the main reasons it makes me uncomfortable to do so.
Comment by Matt Winckler — October 6, 2005 @ 12:26 pm