There's a ton of talk around today about Tim O'Reilly's Draft of a Blogger's Code of Conduct including this NY Times Piece on the subject. Most of the reactions that I've seen are pretty much in line with my own thoughts on this - it's a BAD idea. Of course this isn't the first time this has been proposed, but it's just as bad as the earlier incarnations that have been floated around. The main reason for this is that in trying to protect blogging it takes away much of the value of blogs and the things that set blogs apart from other forms of media. Here's the draft of the code, and here are a few of my major issues with it:

1. We take responsibility for our own words and for the comments we allow on our blog.

This is just crazy. Do you take responsibility for the words of everyone you have a conversation with? I certainly don't, and that's what the comment threads on blogs are - conversations. I take full responsibility for my own words but there's no way I'm going to take responsibility for anyone else's in the same way I wouldn't want anyone else taking responsibility for mine. We all have our own thoughts and opinions and the fact that blogs, as a medium, allow us to share those with each other is what makes them so great. Trying to compress that into something so vanilla that everyone can agree on would destroy that whole effect.

we will not post unacceptable content, and we'll delete comments that contain it... We define and determine what is "unacceptable content" on a case-by-case basis

First off there is nothing good about deleting parts of discussions you don't agree with, even worse when you get to make up the guidelines for what is deleted and what isn't on the fly.

3. We connect privately before we respond publicly.

This makes a huge assumption that everyone is in that inner circle, the A, B or C list that can actually connect privately. Some guy who sets up a blog this week can not be expected to just phone up Tim or Kathy or Xeni or Scoble next week if he has an issue with something they wrote. The blog is his voice for that. It also kills the whole "public conversation" aspect that draws people to blogs in the first place.

5. We do not allow anonymous comments.

Tim of all people should know this will make no difference. I've seen amazingly valid and helpful comments come from anonymous commentors and vile disgusting crap put forth by people who use their real name. Making people tell you who they are will only cut out who will comment, it won't effect what is said at all.

Most importantly, my problem with these kinds of things is this - Right now blogging is wide open. Anyone who wants to can have a blog and they can have their say on any topic they want. What they say and how they say it will determine how much value or respect people give them. Right now it's their actions that make the difference. This makes sense across the board, as you are responsible for what you do and everyone starts out with the same level of respect - zero.

Putting some code of conduct in place changes that completely - suddenly someone who doesn't have the badge on their blog will be looked down on by folks for not conforming to the code, when in all possibility they might not even know about it. People will be penalized for not knowing about something. Additionally, some complete jerk off could put the badge on his site and break every rule and yet new visitors will think he's passed some kind of vetting process and that they can trust what they are reading.

Your actions should determine your worth, not some button your put on your site.

(a few other folks talking about this - Aaron Hockley | Jason DeFillippo | Valleywag | Kottke )