A Clean, Well-lighted MSN Spaces

Mike Torres , the MSN Spaces program manager, and I have traded a few exchanges regarding my complaints of not just censorship, but some apparently inane rules regarding profanity and obscenity which he blamed on a “obscenity filter bug” which has since been fixed. I liked Mike and besides Robert says he’s sincere guy and pushing MSN innovation which is most certainly needed. So, I took another, longer look and found a few things I really like. It’s easier to use and has some nice design options

This is all well-and-good, but de-bugging obscenity filters doesn’t remove my central objection. My contention is with this statement in MSN subscriber code: "Microsoft reserves the right to remove user-created services and content that advocate or encourage expressions of violence, bigotry, racism, hatred, obscenity, or profanity."

And just what standard will Microsoft use to judge such things. The Supreme Court says that my language needs to conform with community standards? Which Blogosphere community will they adhere to: Redmond? Tehran? Tijuana? I repeat my earlier suggestion, that if you find what I write to be objectionable, don’t visit my sites.

But perhaps resistance in this case, is silly, if not futile. Robert and I need to be on a single site so that followers of the exciting saga of The Red Couch (TRC) can see the dialog in one spot. So I’ll be there for a short while at least.

Comments

[Bruce]

I have no problem subscribing to both Robert's blog and yours (and I have done so) - so if you prefer to do the work in both places it is no problem to me. If you object to MSN Spaces, don't use it. (Although I do appreciate your giving feedback to Mike about your issues.)

I'd also consider 'the red couch' as another working title - you still have the option to change it once the book is closer to publication.

[Adam]

I don't know how many people actually go to a blog... I think 75% of the people that are going to be reading about TRC will probably be reading it through an aggregator... and therefore could care less whether all the information was on a single blog... because it only takes 10 seconds to add another feed to your aggregator.

[Shannon Clark]

Well at least one reader, myself, doesn't currently use an aggregator. I find them not very compelling - though perhaps I'll revisit them in the future.

[Sven Semmler]

I see no problem in using two blog sites. This is the internet. You can link each other, both provide RSS: no need to use a single site. In fact, isn't that one of the cool sites of blogs? Otherwise we could still use the Usenet or a plain discussion board. Blogs are clearly a person-based approach and the Usenet/Discussion boards are topic-based, are they?

/Sven