More Recent Comments

Monday, May 05, 2008

Terms & Conditions on Nature Network

 
Eva Amsen has an interesting question about how you would fund research if you were in complete control of all the money in the world [see, Would you rather?].

I was all set to post a comment when I realized that I had to sign in to Nature Network in order to do so. That reminded me about the terms and conditions. That's way more hassle than I'm prepared to put up with. I prefer the rough and tumble of unrestricted blogs.

My question is, does anyone else feel this way? What's the future of science blogging? Is it the strictly controlled environment of Nature Networks where the fora are part of a for-profit venture? Or is it the free-for-all environment of some of the other science blogs? Or is it something in between like the relatively unrestricted environment of the blogs run by SEED magazine?


6 comments :

Anastasia said...

What a great question.

Anonymous commenters frustrate me. The way I see it, if you are going to hide behind a pseudonym, then don't bother to say anything at all.

OpenID is a good compromise, so people can identify themselves without needing to make an account at every site they visit.

At times, I'm tempted to require some sort of log in on my blog, but then I remember that I don't take the time to comment on something that requires a special log in.

rikard said...

The terms will have you promise

...not to submit or create any link to, any defamatory, obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic, violent, abusive, offensive, insulting, threatening, menacing, unlawful or blasphemous material

So no blaspheming. Wonder who decides about what is blasphemous.

Anonymous said...

From Life of Brian:

[Matthias is about to be stoned to death]
Matthias: Look, I don't think it ought to be blasphemy, just saying "Jehovah".
[Everyone gasps]
Jewish Official: You're only making it worse for yourself!
Matthias: Making it worse?! How can it be worse?! Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!
Jewish Official: I'm warning you. If you say 'Jehovah' once more--
[Mrs. A. throws a rock at the Jewish Official]
Jewish Official: Right! Who threw that stone? Come on. Who threw that?
Crowd: She did! It was her! [suddenly speaking as men] He! He. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him. Him.
Jewish Official: Was it you?
Mrs. A.: Yes.
Jewish Official: Right...
Mrs. A.: Well, you did say 'Jehovah.'
Crowd: Ah! Ooh!...
[Crowd throws rocks at Mrs. A.]
Jewish Official (stamping up and down): Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'!
Crowd: Ooh...!
[Jewish Official gets stoned to death]

Heathen Mike said...

Off topic, but I wanted to see if you heard your post about flunking creationist students who pass biology mentioned on the most recent episode of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. Steven Novella disagrees with you, but I think he misses your point.

Anonymous said...

Argh, I know, the requirement for a Nature Network account is annoying.
They are going to change the blogging software at some point (it's even MORE annoying behind the scenes) and maybe they'll have a different commenting system then, although I guess blog comments will still be part of the site so must be subject to some kind of terms of service. But maybe a simplified comment TOS would be enough, saying that NN and blog owners reserve the right to remove comments.

RPM said...

Anonymous commenters frustrate me. The way I see it, if you are going to hide behind a pseudonym, then don't bother to say anything at all.

Anonymous != pseudonymous. There's a difference. Using a consistent pseudonym isn't much different from using your real name.