BlogHer Live Blog: Does the blogosphere need an intolerance intervention?

These are the final notes for the Intolerance session. Please note any feedback or miscredits into the comments. Thanks!

Does the Blogosphere Need an Intolerance Intervention?
What are the benefits and drawbacks of speaking across divides, and trying to be a "bridge"? What do we gain and lose when we assume we're blogging to people a lot like ourselves? Let's talk about insularity, authenticity, intolerance, and diplomacy. At times, bloggers can be like indie bands, risking having their original fans stop liking them the minute they start being appreciated by a more diverse audience, outside the original "club”. There's bloggers who cross all sorts of potential barriers...and bloggers who like it in their own neck of the woods just fine, thank you very much, go away if you disagree. Do Birds of a Feather groups encourage intolerance? Or are diplomats "sellouts"? Decide where you stand.Liz Henry moderates this discussion around a topic a lot of us observe, but few of us say anything about. Bloggers like Laina Dawes, Tish Grier and Kathryn Thompson have a few stories to tell!

Liz Henry (LH) Laina Dawes (LD) Tish Grier (T) Kathryn Thompson (K)

(LH) - moderator, writes for BlogHer, world - latin america, as well as many other blogs, and for SocialText.

(LD) CE for race ethnicity and culture section. Also has own blog Writing is Fighting since 2003. Her interest in this, as she was telling liz last night, when invited to speak on panel - you have a rather uncompromising view on race and racism! What she does for blogher - reads a ton of blogs every week, figure out what people are talking about. Current news bites like don imus, michael richards, she will talk about it. Recently about current case in Louisiana. Takes stories she is interested in, or other identity bloggers (people of colour, or people who identify themselves via race, culture, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc.) When we talk about writing about race online, talking about race even in everyday interactions is v. difficult - in her experience people don't want to talk about it. Getting a dialogue that sparks discussion and debate is v. difficult - lots of tension, intolerance. When on blog of someone talking about race - usually some rules about how that blog transpires as opposed to mommy bloggers, eg - certain parameters and dynamics that are totally different when talking about race. Deal with a lot of trolls, a lot of different opinions - lines are somewhat blurred when it comes to tolerance and intolerance. V. different than "I agree or I disagree" - eg. has seen post on ten ways on how to suppress talking about race online - talking about common things that people use. (eg. you're too sensitive used as an offensive defence).

(K) non-identity blogger on the panel - write about daily life - entertainment, parenting. Did write post on don imus but did not post it - does not fit with blog space. Has written many posts that do not fit her "official" blog niche. Writes for a general audience. When she started blogging a lot of Christian bloggers drawn to site - she says her site is tame but she tries to be funny. Nominated for an award from Christian bloggers for humour - won the award. Several hundred people voted. After the win - the next day, huge boost of traffic - one specific person had read the blog, visited, then wrote a post about how K had infiltrated their Christian community and wanted to convert everyone to Mormonism - she was the "pea under the mattress". She had many comments from people about how her blog and her win was tainted due to her being a Mormon. She is not a blogger who sought any controversy, but the controversy and backlash found her due to the simple fact of her religion. (the blogger had found "evidence" of her conspiracy!!!)

(T) Writes a blog that is now called Constant Observer - was Snorkelholic. One of reasons for blog - what she does - goes in places there are not a lot of women eg. a-list male bloggers - and shares her opinions, sometimes vehemently. Started as an identity blogger - relationships, lovelife, etc. - and the local newspaper would not add her blog to their blogroll (despite having another blog of a similar genre). She was told to start doing something "different" to be listed. Took on a blogger at BlogHer - called someone out on their own contradiction. Spoke with the person she'd butted heads with directly afterwards - said that she was trying to call attention to various issues, and that was the point. The message is - you can constructively confront people (including A-listers).. it's all in how you handle it. A lot of the A list blogs can get very rough, they even will talk themselves about how it's an echo chamber... but there are no women's voices. In these important conversations about shaping technologies, etc... these are all male. Women need to say what we need to say, otherwise our voices will get lost.

(LH) Given that we're talking about conflicts and arguments whether civil or noncivil, when do you know if that argument has been constructive? how does a constructive argument look?

(LD) A constructive argument includes someone disagreeing with you, and outlining the reasons as to "why" they disagree. There is always a desire to be 'right', especially on your own blog. But you need to recognize the validity of comments on your own blog, and recognize that when a dialogue starts, everyone can learn from it... they may join in the dialogue or simply be visitors. It may bring people to the site and people into the situation. Would like commentors to interact and talk about their own stances. In talking about race and racism, you will get slayed if you have a "black and white" opinion. The best situation is to say, this is my opinion, have the commentors bring in their own opinions and experiences, and it brings a whole different shape rather than expecting readers to always agree with you.

(K) a good discussion for her is not necessarily when everyone agrees, but that everyone feels they are understood. In the few times her blog got controversial was during blog for choice week, and she is pro life. Rather than have the links pulled off her blog that she disagreed with, she wrote a very serious post about why she is pro-life. This resulted in a long discussion, very respectful. She spends a great deal of time with her friends who have the same opinions as she does. She doesn't feel she has a v. broad spectrum she reads from. But this conversation allowed her to say, I understand where you are coming from.. and this was the outcome on both sides (people felt they understood where she was coming from too).

(T) Her blog does not have many comments. She uses her blog as her credibility as she goes on other sites to leave comments. One of the concepts.. do the A listers keep the others out of the circle? Her stance is, nobody's holding you back, whatever you want to be you can be. Seth Godin says A listers are gatekeeping. She commented on Tony Holland's blog where a discussion was happening on this topic. The conversation deteriorated into a back and forth, with personal attacks and insinuations about the intelligence of each other, with people claiming to have "proof" but refusing to show it. Sometimes, you have to follow the dialogue and disconnect your passion for being "right".

(K) As the owner of a blog, if a heated discussion is taking place, she feels responsible for moderating the comments and keeping the conversation from deteriorating. In a very strong case, do you shut down the post? How do you cope with it?

(LH) Setting a policy to that extent may work. But then when does it become censoring vs. editing?

(T) as the person who is editing the blog, you have to feel you have the right to shut down a conversation if you feel it is not productive. Or if the comments are very foul, you have to be able to feel you can delete them.

(K) it's also about policy openness... she has been on blogs where comments have been deleted without notification or recourse.. comments that disagree with the author are deleted. This gave K the belief that she needs a comment policy, because the selective purging of comments left a bad taste in her mouth.

(LD) If something gets personal on a topic and insults start flying, she will call out a post as such "your post is offensive, if you do it again I will block you". She ensures everything is publicized, so that there is something of an "audit trail". K is noticing that more and more identity bloggers including angryblackwoman.blogspot.com are publicizing their policies for comment deletion and bannings.

(LH) there is the concept of deleting a troll so that they don't get attention. You can disavow offensive comments.

(A) Jenny Blackburn, Absolutely Bananas. Related question.. she wrote a post, it was not controversial - how to photoshop your head on to people's bodies, hee - it got posted on another site - comments started to get offensive - she chose to not go back to that site. She wonders if she should have pursued it and asked for that to be taken down.

(T) had that happen on washington post - had wicked, nasty, scathing stuff said on someone else's blog. She learned to ignore nasty stuff at an early age - and she does the same thing now. Nasty comments reflect more on the poster.

(A) is it your responsibility as the slandered person to ask for things to be removed? This touches on the Kathy Sierra debate as well...

(T) Sierra was slightly different, she was also getting other death threats. If it got to that level, yes, an intervention is required.

(A) where do you draw the line between insults or frightening, abusive, or slanderous?

(A) We keep our heads down, we do our work, let the work speak to themselves. Had a comment that her comment was very offensive. She was distraught about it and reconsidered blogging altogether. The message she got back from people - keep your head down, your work speaks for itself, we all know who you are - the majority do know who you are, it's the minority that are dangerous.

(LD) situation on BlogHer - accused of making white women hate themselves. Wasn't sure how to react? How will this affect her as a writer at BlogHer? Should she ask for it to be removed? Ultimately decided to do nothing - people will think what they think, and the comment could probably stand for itself to the majority of people. You know everyone will not agree with you, but sometimes it's good to show that people in the world are like that - it sort of proves the point of saying that racism exists. There are actually people out there who think that way.

(K) you don't have to delete absurd comments... leaving them up makes your case far better than taking them down would. Commenting on parenting.com is far more random than on her personal blog, people will make very strange comments (eg. Bettafish care leading to assumptions on parenting?) In this case the absurdity of the comment proves its own absurdity, and the community will stand up for her.

(T) Had discussed with another blogger about anonymous comments. Abusive anonymous comments don't bother her, however, abusive email does.

(A) Comments section... what is the responsibility of the blog owner? The comments can take on the life of their own, the community will again defend the blogger in many cases. But after it happens once.. when you write things that may be controversial, you think twice about it. You aren't looking for controversy, but it finds you.

(A) When she gets a hateful comment she is bothered by her own reaction, how a stranger on the internet can make you so upset. She was lambasted about her son burning himself with the magic eraser, but the comments were just so ridiculous that after time, they are simply laughable.

(LH) Depending on the nasty comments, she's perfectly willing to engage the commenter and tell them to GFY.

(A) Writer of Rocks In My Dryer - don't underestimate the power of killing with kindness. Has had horrid things written about her on her pretty innocent blog; she killed with kindness and had a 100% turnaround. Reading Katherine's blog issues seeing the reaction was incredibly difficult to watch, but she handled herself with such grace and even made people laugh, helping defuse the situation.

(K) She didn't think that laughing with people about "their jesus" would work either, but it did. Defusing with laughter can very much help.

Summary..

(LD) If you find that you are having intolerance issues or getting a lot of comments about something you personally believe in, make sure you cross link on your blog to someone who is doing something totally different than what you are doing. It can help get people exposed to various opinions, and gets you exposed to various opinions. She wants to talk more about culture and ethnicity this year, try and diversify not only what she is talking about but bringing more people into the mix and getting various opinions. Dana Boyd did a study on social networking tools, when it comes to commenting and moderating guidelines for websites. Social networking tools incorporated into tools aren't set up for diversity - expect that everyone is exactly the same. As a result, more problems can arise.

(K) Through her experiences, what she came to think about the group was that she has cut off contact with them; they have the absolute right to have their club and set it up any way they want, and she has the right to set up her own community any way she wants. Everyone has on opinion, and frankly anyone can be intolerant of anyone else's opinions.. to pretend otherwise is to be inauthentic. We call other people out on their intolerance when their intolerances don't match up with ours. Her policy is her blog is like her house.. her rules. Respect them. And she will even change the rules on a certain post if it's something she's particularly sensitive on.. she communicates the policy in the post.

(T) Don't be afraid to disagree with powerful people. A lot of people tend to stay in their own circles, but our voices need to expand. Realize that if you go in to these places they do play rough and you may need thicker skin... and if you go on their blogs they may go on yours. Had a disagreement with Jeff Jarvis on her own blog. The disagreement they had was blog related, not overall personality related. If you do have someone big disagree with you, you don't have to fall over.. you can disagree back and even cultivate a friendship.

(A) Had a troll linkbaiting on her blog... one day left a post about Elizabeth Edwards' cancer being "used" for political ends. That was the last straw and he was banned.

(LH) be careful of the danger of tolerating someone very extreme in your space.. you may end up driving away those you wish to keep around.

(A) Amazed at how people who would never say certain things face to face will say things when hidden behind a screen.

Exposes the dirty side of life and makes you wonder about people in general.. what are they hiding face to face?

Wrap up.. thank you to the panel and audience!