The BBC reports that there is a push to create an online code of ethics for bloggers. Why? So that there is an attempt to create a sense of accountability and redress for individuals with complaints. Its not really all the worthwhile to discuss whether or not this is a feasible thing — because I don’t see many (any?) bloggers necessarily signing up; without any signing up, there would be no clout to enforce any such code of ethics.

I think what is worthwhile discussing, however, is this notion that the blogosphere is self-regulating; many “a-list’ bloggers contend that the issue of such a code of ethics is moot not only from a feasibility point of view, but also from the notion that anyone can put up a blog to offer a counter opinion.

However, I think this is false, because its based on a two false presumtions: that the attention is equitably shared amongst blogs and that bloggers are reasonable.

#1) Attention isn’t equitable.
The whole notion of the “A-list” blogs irks many (mostly, I think A-list bloggers), but its an indusputable fact — there is a hierarchy to bloggers in every corner of the blogosphere, often governed by the fact that many of them have been the first, or older than other bloggers, but also because many of them offer valuable content that people cannot find elsewhere. They offer genuine a combination of news, entertainment or opinion that is unique — and more often, newsworthy.

The hierarchy exists because attention is divided inequitably. And that’s where presumption A is false. That is, they are precisely “A-list”, because they are commanding more “attention” of more people and readers. And they do this not only because they already have a large readership, but in many cases, because of their own popularity, have been rewarded with many inbound links, and therefore, rank highly in search engine results.

While its easy for anyone to create a blog to voice their own opinion, the fact that there is a huge divide in where attention goes makes it difficult, if not impossible, to create an environment where opinions have equal footing. If no one listens to what you’re saying, or no one can find where your opinion is because your blog doesn’t rank, or ranks poorly, then the fact that anyone can create a blog to compete in dissenting opinion is specious.

Furthermore, what happens if no one believes your blog?

That is to say, presumption B — reasonability.

#2) Bloggers aren’t always reasonable.
Even if readers found a dissenting blog, one presumes that they would give it an equal weight, and that they are open to new, different, or other opinions at all. Or, that other higher rank blogs are similarly open to different opinions. If they are, allowing equal access to creating a voice through blogging would be sufficient because even if the opinions are hard to find, they would be evaluated on merit alone.

Unfortunately, one needn’t go further than the nearest flame / blog war, or Digg, quite frankly to see that while reasonable-ness is often a feature of the blogosphere, it isn’t always displayed, particularly, when passions run deep. If you have a valid argument but no one is willing to listen, then even then, equal access and an equal playing field still mean nothing.

Having a code of blogger ethics is a nice gesture, because it gives the sense of accountability where there really is none; the idea that the blogosphere is self-regulating is a similarly naive idea — although most bloggers will stand up for what’s right most of the time, they might not do so all the time, particularly if they have a beef against you.

If you have any thoughts to the contrary, try starting up a blog de novo on blogger.com or wordpress.com, and you’ll see how futile your attempts at blogging your opinions gets you, which is really nowhere fast.

So, if a blogging code of ethics isn’t the answer, what is?

Well, if you look to a Wired article a few weeks ago on Second Life, you’ll have read about how the Second life citizens might police themselves in the event of rampant IP theft via the notorious copybot program (which, as I understand it, is really not al that widespread after all). The issue isn’t so much with IP theft as it is with the idea of self policing, and the necessity for new bloggers to become part of a community so that they can rally around its members if any one of them is threatened.

It means, unfortunately, that it is impossible for new bloggers to gain that kind of traction immediately … unless there are pre-existing relationships to leverage with other bloggers. Bloggers need to get involved with other bloggers so that they can be part of a blogger community for the protection of that opinion and their reputation. If you don’t have a blog, and if online opinion means anything to you, it means you need to get involved with the system, rather than trying to gamely shout into the void of the blogosphere, or trying to sue the system out of existence.

And I think this is true in terms of any online community. Whether it be in social networks, or in online voting systems, if you want to make sure your opinion or reputation is protected, hte best bet is to work within the system and play within its strengths. If there are people with opinions voting you down (literally or metaphorically), you’ll need to find a group of friends to vote you up and support you.

Herd immunity, I suppose.

But what happens when you don’t have any friends, can’t make any friends, or don’t have time to make any friends? Well, if that’s your problem, you might just have a hard time with getting into social media — in any of its forms.

(But if you might feel tempted to, the answer isn’t in puppet friends … that way lies disaster).