Big Sticks and Small Carrots

Despite how it may occasionally look, I’m not really interested in getting involved in “flame wars”. There is a point to this post.

That said, I do have say that I’ve been thoroughly educated and entertained by Dizzy’s comments over the last two days.

Dizzy, as we’re all already aware, is a “net-libertarian who does what the hell he wants on his website”. When attempts are made to scrutinise certain blogs or bloggers, Dizzy can often be found arguing that such criticisms are pointless and/or unjustifiable. There’s even a sort of slogan:

If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

Dizzy used those very words in one of the many comments he took the time to leave under my post over the last two days. Very early into what became really quite a long attempt to criticise my post, he explained that he was leaving these comments because, as he put it, he was “getting sick of seeing people leap to to conclusive causes…”

I probably don’t need to spell out what’s funny about that.

And, of course, whatever I write about Dizzy now, if he wants to argue the point, I can respond by saying that rather than wasting his time obsessing over what some obscure blogger has said about him or his friends, he should adopt his own principles, quit whining and go read something else. He certainly wouldn’t be in a position to consider that provocative or wrong in any way. It’s what he believes in.

I’ll try to resist the urge to make (any more) hay with that though. As I said, I’m not actually that interested in a “flame war”.

It’s the principle of the thing which intrigues me. While it might be a clever intellectual exercise in property rights, the “if you don’t like it, don’t read it” argument simply doesn’t stand up in the real world. What you do in the privacy of your own your home is your business true enough but if you painted “My Neighbour is a Fucking Idiot” on the outside of your house in ten foot high red letters, that’d be a different story.

(Or “Gordon Brown is a…” Or “David Cameron is a…” Or “Eddie the Eagle Edwards is a…” Whoever, it’s a hypothetical.)

If your next door neighbour had painted something like that on his house, you’d probably be a bit miffed and rightly so. And as long as the words are there, you’re probably going to struggle to sell up and move elsewhere. People other than the owner can see the outside of the house so that brings up the whole thorny issue of externalities.

Like blogging. Unless you’re an incurable exhibitionist, blogging is not like the inside of your house. Other people can see what you write. It’s kind of the point. And because blogging is a public activity with externalities, there are circumstances in which it simply isn’t enough to say “It’s my property. If you don’t like it, don’t read it”. How would that line of defence work out for the guy with a 10 foot high swearword on the front of his house?

It’s just silly.

And what is the famous slogan used to defend?

Well, I can’t help but notice that Dizzy yesterday posted about Ed Balls refusing to retract an accusation and Gordon Brown refusing to answer a simple question.

[Aside: I don’t recommend availing yourself of Dizzy’s comment facility. He is quite open about the fact that he’d have no qualms about deleting any valid arguments you might make. As such, I can’t see the point. It’s up to you though.]

While I’ve not had the time to look into either post in much detail (but also, you’ll note, didn’t take the time to submit numerous comments trying to cast doubt on what he’s written or indeed critique his claims here), these posts do raise an interesting point.

I’m pretty sure that most ordinary non-partisan people (people with no party political affiliations) and indeed many party people are tired of the behaviour of many in the political classes. Obfuscation, half truths, misrepresentations, smears, spin and all the rest are used by all the main parties to one extent or another and people are fed up of it. Dizzy himself appears to be fed up of it. In certain circumstances.

There’s not a great deal us little people can do about that sort of thing when it happens in parliament or on TV but when it happens on the interwebs, things could be different. Out here, if politicians and their supporters play fair, the little people have a real voice.

When Nadine Dorries MP posted her ridiculous accusation on her website, it appeared that ordinary people (some of the readers of Ben Goldacre’s blog, for example) could point out that it was totally unjustified and demonstrably untrue.

And ordinary people could see what her reaction was. (although not her own readers, of course). The comments were not published, no retraction was made and the little people were no longer allowed to submit comments because Nadine was “too busy”.

When Conservative political activist Ellee Seymour later attempted to sell a new improved “I’m under attack” version of Nadine’s explanation for closing down comments, it appeared that ordinary people could point out that Nadine had not published comments which were pointed but polite regarding an untrue accusation she had made. It appeared that it would be possible to raise legitimate questions about the behaviour of the MP without coming under personal attack yourself and then having your own replies to these attacks disappeared into the interweb ether*. But as we know, that didn’t quite work out either.

What people certainly didn’t get was honest engagement.

I believe that most ordinary bloggers don’t want this medium to become just another place where the disingenuous games of the political classes play out. At the moment, thanks to the activities of certain self-proclaimed top political bloggers and their supporters, that’s the way it’s going. As a little person myself, I have to say that I think that would be a great shame.

Dizzy may or may not attempt to deploy the straw man about “demands” and “property rights” again but you need to strip away the sophistry to see what the argument he makes actually defends. It defends the right of politicians and their activists to obfuscate, use half truths, and misrepresentations, smears, spin and all the rest on the internet. It says that we should not expect politicians and their activists to conduct themselves in an honest and forthright manner on the internet and should have no cause for complaint if they do not do so.

That doesn’t sound like the kind of democracy I want to live in.

* I’ve still not received any reply as to whether I can submit further comments. Jherad has tried but hasn’t succeeded and one of mine was not published so I’m operating on the assumption that any I submit now wouldn’t see the light of day. — FOLD—

PS. If Dizzy asks whether I can prove that all of the comments left under his name in that thread were really left by him, I’ll be claiming my £5.