Ima Fish says:

The shocking thing about the article is that it’s so incredibly one-sided. There’s not even a pretense of objectiveness. And check out the link at the bottom:

http://www.forbes.com/business/free_forbes/2005/1114/128sidebar.html

It lays out how to launch a legal blitz to defeat blogs if you are under a so-called “allout attack.”

What I’m curious about is whether the writer is simply ignorant, so he lumps all blogs together, sort of like how rock and roll, rap, and video games are all evil to their respective foes. Or is it an outright attack on blogs to taint them? I’m certain that if someone outside the loop read the article they’d leave with the impression that blogs are synonymous with criminal activity.

If the latter is true, and I’m pretty certain it is, this shows how dangerous (in a good sense) blogs have become against the status quo. That status quo are definitely afraid.

Glen Seeber says:

Attack of the Printing Press! at the Electronic Frontier Foundation responds to the Forbes article by drawing a comparison with the American Revolution. Here’s a quick excerpt:

“Printing presses are the prized platform of a public lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective. Their potent allies in this pursuit include Ben Franklin and John Hancock.”

Freedom of speech is more than just a catchphrase.

Jim says:

I love it when a “main” stream writer takes on a new form of expression all the while ignoring the similarity of the tactic they oppose to those used by themselves and their brothern in the “main” stream media.

It seems its always the people they oppose who are the misguided while their own efforts are sacred.

Christopher Coulter says:

The main flaw, however, is how seriously it treats the blogger rumor mill. Any serious researcher looking to blogs for facts and answers will be rudely turned away. But I think it has important implications in terms of smoothing things out — newspapers and print publications, that venture into the realm of libel, pay a steep price. Blogs are a form of publication, subject to the same rules as anything else. For the blog groupthink to slice themselves off and cry freedom of speech is the core problem. And once proven libelous, it still remains out there stuck in some never-ending cache. Libel suits againt bloggers and online publications are going to skyrocket.

Oluseyi says:

How many people actually read a large number of blogs? This is the only one I read ( on a regular basis), amd I’m thinking of starting one, but only as a comment area for my web site, instead of a guestbook. What I’m attempting to suggest, in an ever so gentle manner, is who really cares?

People clearly care if a company’s share price can tumble as a consequence, or a reporter can be barred from publication because her employer would have its site hacked and its other employees harassed. The article doesn’t bother to make a pretense of objectivity, but its central argument is absolutely true: the absence of responsibility on the internet is a problem.

We’re all familiar with the Internet Echo Chamber; we see it all the time with places like Slashdot (and it’s so much better now; three to four years ago there was virtually no one with the courage to venture onto Slashdot regularly to objectively challenge the Linux fellatio and Microsoft bashing), we see it all the time with any enthusiastic response (usually negative) to any give person, subject or idea, and it distorts information far more often than it provides it.

I can’t blog. The pressure to publish imposed by the daily reverse chronological format leads to far too much crap. I’m trying to finish up a “personal magazine” instead, collating all the posts into one multi-page issue every month, which gives me time to check, re-check, verify, edit and collate anything I might have to say about anyone. I think that such a format, if broadly adopted, would cool the frenzy of vicious vitriol that fuels these rampages and – hopefully – allow cooler heads to prevail.

Or, at least, I can hope.