Trackback from mindless ramblings of an ineffectual preacher:

I'm a little slow to respond to the whole “Tomorrow I'm not free lah!” badge thing, but since Tomorrow.sg decided to make their own linking policy very clear, I'd address the issue as well......

Trackback from Singapore metablog Tomorrow.sg and a discussion on Linking Policies:

Lately there has been a flurry of debates online about Singapore metablog, Tomorrow.sg’s linking policy, and its policy of not asking for permission before linking people’s blog posts....

Trackback from Wannabe Lawyer:

I don’t normally blog about what I do at Tomorrow. Conflict of interest, that sort of thing. A whole semester of drilling in legal and professional ethics internalises all that paranoia. The thing is, there’s this little kerfuffle going o......

Trackback from serialdeviant.org(y):

Late to the party (again), and I really cannot understand what it is about the people who get their knickers in a twist about having their posts linked to on Tomorrow. I won’t re-hash the arguments that if you put in on a public website it’......

You know that when Tomorrow editors reassemble this carcass of a debate and start handing out whips, it must be a bad sign.

Hey, why don't you guys just post something worth reading instead of generating traffic in such a protrusively shameless manner.

Trackback from Ensight - Jeremy Wright's Personal Blog:

Part of blogging is knowing you’ll be read, knowing you are going to offend people and knowing there will be consequences. But part of blogging is also knowing that you are exposing yourself to a vast network...

Why Do Blogs Perform Better than Regular Websites in Google Rankings?

Is this what the web is about? The word "web" conjures up an image of interconnection. Blogs are not afraid to connect to each other which is what makes them so interesting. Google values this interconnection and ranks sites with high link popularity higher than others.

I am driving on the road. Suddenly this man cross the road when the traffic light indicate red man. I have the right of way. Does that mean that I can drive through and knock him down?

If I knock down someone when it is red man. Should I be giving the excuse that he should have known better not to cross the traffic light when it is red man? Should I tell people that it is his fault. He shouldn't be crossing the road when it is red man. I have the right of way and therefore I have the right to bang him down.

If you really hit someone on the road when it is red man, what would you do? If I was in that position I would do my utmost to help that person.

I know this is not a good analogy but I just want to point out that what is rigth doesn't mean that it will not hurt others.

Everyone knows nothing is private in the internet. It is stupid for people to post things that they want to keep it a secret on the internet just like it is stupid to cross the road when it is red man.( but don't we always do that when we see no cars on the road) But when someone is hurt by the spot light created by tomorrow, the right thing to do is to acknowledge that a mistake may have been made on hindsight. When I bang someone down by accident when it is red man, I might cuss and rant that the victim is an idiot to cross the road when it is red man but I don't think I would walk away without looking into the needs of the person I've injured.

The argument about even if tomorrow don't do it some one else might link it, is correct. However I don't think tomorrow wants to be the one causing hurt. I do not believe that the editors wants to cause intentional hurt and they might not have forseen the consequences. I believe the editors of tomorrow are mature adult able to discern what is right and what is wrong.

Not exactly an example that demonstrates the difficulty of the issue - in some countries it's illegal to walk away from the scene of an accident regardless of fault. In others, this may amount to an admission of liability regardless of fault.

and how we would know we would hurt someone or not before we publish it?

or do you have a crystal ball we can borrow?

So are you acknowledge you might have hurt someone after publishing it? And if tomorrow did in fact hurt someone what do you think the editorial should do. I am not asking you to peer into the crystal ball. We all make mistakes. We learn from the mistakes we make. Instead of trying to defend your position and your right why don't you spare a thought to those who have been 'hurt'. Improve the editorial process to reduce this kind of incidence from happening. I don't think the editorial publish those articles with an intent to hurt. I believe they want to share what they think is happening around the blogsphere. This experience would have taught the editors that there are some blog that wants to remain private. They don't want too much traffic. Just a few friends and those who blog surf and bum into their site. Of course tomorrow can still feature them but are you giving the bloggers the respect they deserve?

What I am seeing is editors defending their rights to link. I agree they have the right to link what they want and that the WWW is a public domain. They somehow miss the point that someone is hurt because of the publicity. Instead of helping those hurt they are faulted for posting their blogs in the internet without password protect. I definitely think the editorial can improve in their response and sensitvity to bloggers who want to be kept private.

It is not that we don’t want to link with caution - but it is not a viable policy to set because ‘caution’, ’sensitive’, ‘private & public’ is totally subjective. Different people have different opinions what each is. To set that policy and let people think Tomorrow will ‘use our common sense’ is misleading because what we consider ‘okay’ may not be ‘okay’ to some or in fact, many *after* it is publish.

But this is different from saying we don’t respect private places. We do and thats why we will honour links policy or Tomorrow-I-am-not-free badge.

my purpose of this post is not to accuse the editorial of not being sensitive or cautions. You do it the best as you can and sometimes what is ok for someone might not be ok for others.

What I am asking is if you link some blogger and through your linking the blogger somehow feels hurt what is your course of action.

If a blogger did not put up a tomorrow I am not free badge, but felt offended when he/she was linked to tomorrow, what do the editors do. The scenario I presented to you is a possible one and I not sure if everyone in the blogsphere knows about the badge especially those who wants to be private.

I know I am being a pain in the ass throwing problems to you without provide solution and hence this will be my last comment on this post.

if the blogger contact us, we will take down the entry.

But note: blogger the first party himself. Not any third-party, however well intended.

do think from the other side... just becoz of tmr's existence people are publicly mocked.

so you mean they wasn't mocked before?

you are confusing the message and the messager.

First, he was probably referring to that girl who has a nice house and put it up on the blog. And second, remember that if it wasn't for the messenger there would be no message.

* Blogging has reached masses *

When they started out, the pre-Google, geek-authored blogs were a great way to discover the net. "Free to link" was the default, no debate. In fact it was all about finding content.

But blogging has reached the masses. While many welcome traffic and the opportunity to be heard and its pottential for finding like-minded individuals, some blogs are obviously written for a small circle of friends and have enjoyed the anonymity of the ever-growing internet.

* 100 hits a day, gasp!' *

Several bloggers I talked to last week didn't know Tomorow exists. They have never heard of trackbacks, counters or livejournal. They do know, however, that they have found a useful tool to publish information easily, in order to communicate with a small circle of friends. And they are happy in their relative anonymity.

When asked if they can be linked to by a mere 100-daily hits site, they eyes get wide and shudder and say 'please let me remain obscure'. I didn't dare mention Tomorrow's count for fear they faint.

* Published and be dammed *

The blog-savvy bunch will shrug their shoulders and say "state your link policy." But these innocents may not realise what its like to be linked by a behemoth like Tomorrow.sg. When a personal site with 20 daily hits gets pointed to by a 50,000-daily hit site, surely its food for thought? Readers follow links to juicy contents like an army of invaders. It can be pretty scary for a low traffic site!

Password-locking is no fun as it shuts out incidental traffic that stumbles onto your site from relevant searches and friends hesitant to register. One blogger featured by mrbrown (pre-Tomorrow) immediately received cautionary (not celebratory) SMS' and emails from friends who knew she didn't want that much exposure. She considered locking her LJ blog much to her friends (and her own) dismay. But mrbrown relented and delinked her site much to everyone's relief.

* Neighbourhood Bully or Benign Influence? *

Do we just say "bloggers be savvy"? Or is there space to allow the unsuspecting and relatively ignorant blogger the privacy afforded by their currrent state of relative anonymity?

Our savvy editors could discern the nature of a blog and seek permission to link to personal content or even newsy content in an otherwise personal blog. Personal posts are usually not time-dependent (unlike news) and the relatively lenghty permission-seeking process will not devalue the eventual post. Also, inform all linked blogs that they have been Tomorrow-ed, via email or comments, as I have seen some editors do. It'll help advertise the site as a benign entity.

With the majority of blogs personal, and the majority of bloggers clueless, be kind and rethink the 'fair game' rules of yesteryear.

p.s. I am very happy Tomorrow was initiated and have enjoyed the occasional gem like A Thoughtful Act. When "Singapore from Space - 40 years" was featured here, it allowed that work to reach a wider audience and was picked up by The Straits Times (they mentioned Tomorrow) who also featured the author, Ly Yng, in Digital Life.

Yes "editors should" is a painful read after all this work. I'm not ungrateful, sorry, should have been perhaps "I hope one day..." Just a wish. And things can evolve through discussion, no?

Of course - which is why all these logical debates are useful (minus the emotional rants). It not only helps to raise awareness to the issues but also helps to clarify where we want to be.

James,

I think few here (even the detracters) acknowledge the value (and mission) of tomorrow.sg.

It's bewildering that so many clearly intelligent commenters fail to see that the issue of linking permission is NOT the heart of the matter. At the very least, tomorrow.sg simply needs to acknowledge that some facets of its editorial decision-making process ought to be revised, to take into account the value of human decency and an individual's right to exist in cyberspace without undue harassment.

Telling people to go set up their own blog aggregators is no answer (this reply reminds me of the MM's favourite 'go set up your own party' retort). Tomorrow.sg seems unable to recognise that your refusal to discern between blogs that address issues (e.g. A*Star scholars) and broader audiences, and those few which serve as a virtual outlet for intensely personal emotions (nobody is saying ALL personal blogs are offlimits) is doing more harm than good to both the individuals featured as well as the larger blogosphere. To claim that other aggregators and individual bloggers will do the same seems to me an attempt to say that 'it's fine just because everybody else does it'. It's not only a bad argument that relies on majoritarian backing, but also one that fails to see that by taking on the role of a 'cyberpressroom' for Singapore-related blogs, tomorrow.sg heaps upon itself a far greater responsibility for discretion and editorial circumspection than mere individual blogs. Often, the press doesn't just report the news; it creates, becomes in itself a driving force in the news as well. Would Steve Chia's nude forays be national gossip fodder if editors thought it irrelevant to the man's ability to be a credible opposition politician?

Of course tomorrow's current stance is 'not wrong' in any strict legalistic sense, but you shouldn't then blame people who decry the element of cybervoyeurism facilitated by tomorrow.sg. One might say that tomorrow.sg, despite all its good intentions, is contributing to a 'climate of fear' amongst those bloggers who are becoming aware that honest thoughts and outpourings online are much more likely to be subjected to a flood of (often malicious) attention thanks to the indifference of an aggregator with immense circulation. Writing off this callousness as the lack of any agenda only passes the buck to tomorrow.sg's contributors, leaving the editors no better than hacks who decide on the basis of 'what's interesting and eye-catching' rather than 'what's really worthy as well as what might be the consequence of giving a particular blog wide exposure'. No 'personal' blog is immune to the risk of having abusive spammers, but tomorrow.sg's refusal to see its role in facilitating this destructive force, much less find a way to tweak its workings to mitigate such risks, earns it a rightful scorn.

If they are fearful, just put up a notice requesting people not link to them. Problem solved!

Just a thought that one difference between telling people to "set up your own website/blog aggregator" or to "set up their own political party" is that it's relatively easy to set up and run one's own website/blog aggregator, than to do likewise for one's own political party.

Re: cybervoyeurism, the alleged "climate of fear" and malicious attention. See my comments below about the thick skin that I opine is required for surviving and thriving on the internet.

Sorry, the first line should read: "few here (even the detracters) would NOT acknowledge the value....

mrs budak,
I find you to be a quarrelsome busybody who uses big words to illustrate your point(or the lack of) which I must inform seems to be weak.

If you don't like Tomorrow.sg don't read it. We will. Who is we? People like me. And my friends. And my friend's friends.

From what I observe, the editors are comprised of the biggest bloggers in SG. They don't need to be a tabloid to drive traffic and make themselves more popular. There is no law against linking to a blog. The very concept of asking for permission is not only silly, it goes to show that deep down inside you don't really understand how the internet works.

Also from your previous comments, it's clear that you have a serious grudge against the editors. By that, you lose all credibility as you are emotionally attached to argument and cannot therefore event comment on it without being influenced by your emotions.

Dear Anonymous Coward

I can understand your frustrations when reading Budak's comments. One only needs to read your reply.

I agree. The fault is Budak's for assuming that most Singaporeans old enough to read blogs hold a PSLE pass in English, are able to use a dictionary and would perhaps like to expand their vocabulary a little.

Budak, in future, for the sake of "Who is We and friends and all his friend's friend " please limit your vocabulary to words found on Phua Chu Kang and be sure to use Hokkien phrases where applicable.

Hallo, budak is budak, mrs budak is mrs budak. Please don't mix the two up, okay?

Also dunno what you talking about serious grudge against editors. Chapter and verse please?

The issue has clearly gone beyond privacy and the like, which is essentially what you have addressed. I don't think, and given the "canon" that has been purveyed in this particular thread, that anyone can question Tomorrow.sg's RIGHT to publish what it wishes.

Instead, I believe questions have arose as to how Tomorrow.sg's editors make their editorial decisions, and the ramifications it has on Singapore's blogsphere in general. Words like discretion, decency and cavalier attitudes surface in Mr Wang's thread here.

And how are we to second guess whether a person would want his blog linked? Search engines like Google also have no discretion and decency, then.

Agree that it's an issue of how they make their editorial decisions. So I guess this is the part where the different readers say their piece --- and continue doing so, if they feel that their views aren't being heard --- and the editors decide if/how they want to respond. Kinda like how I'm always ranting against The Straits Times and looking for a response (so far, haven't seen one that appeased my criticisms).

Personally, meantime I don't read ST or allow it to dictate the agenda of what I think is important in society. Yeah, it's just me, there are hundreds of thousands of other Singaporeans who read it, but change starts in a small place. Tomorrow doesn't have that size of a readership yet, and in the blogosphere, it's much easier for anyone to become an opinion leader. Just look how quickly Rockson Tan's blog became so popular. So why does Tomorrow have to be the be-all and end-all of all things in the Singapore blogosphere?

Dear Mrs Budak (I got it right this time), I see on your blog that you put the 'Tomorrow not free" button, so my question is, if you don't care about Tomorrow, why you wanna kaypoh? Hey it rhymes!!

Oi coward,

You confused already, if I put button, it means please don't link me. But it doesn't mean I cannot or don't want to visit this site. They're not the same. Get your facts right first can or not?

Forums and lists could be (can be) harsh but aren't those a little different from blogs since they pushed information to an audience?

Isn't it possible to set a different, kinder, standard? And encourage more to write. And find more to highlight as a larger writing community rresulted in more good work emerging?

Sorry, don't get the difference you're highlighting? Don't forums, lists and blogs all push information out to an audience?

Being a writer and sticking with it takes a thick skin. This was true even before the advent of the internet. Any writer who puts his/her thoughts out there for others to read is inevitably creating the opportunity for critique (and criticism), regardless of whether the work is circulated to family, friends, strangers or the wider public. Writers of all stripes face this everyday, from the journalist to the civil servant refining a policy proposal to the executive putting together a corporate report to the unpublished writer allowing friends to read his/her latest poem to the internet user making a forum post.

Blogging is an outlet for writing. (That's why it makes perfect sense that bloggers have been incorporated into the Singapore Writers' Festival.) Bloggers need to have a thick skin. No one's writing will please every reader. When criticism comes --- be it criticism of the writing or of the alleged attitude behind the writing --- bloggers decide how they want to handle the criticism. Some examine themselves, some examine the critics; some accept that they have their flaws, others fight the allegations fiercely; some take the criticism to heart, others laugh it off and yet others don't even read it because they're just not interested in criticism. Whatever it is, it's a tough world out there, online and off.

It's great that more people are blogging around the world. It's even greater if they learn to deal with the different possible responses to that blogging in a mature, reasoned manner. (Of course, it would also be brilliant if more readers learned to not post rude or kneejerk reactions, but to provide criticism in a similarly mature, reasoned manner.) We all gotta hope, lah. See whether this internet thing takes us...

Just had to point out a serious flaw in your analogy. When you get a newbie internet user who spams in CAPS or asks for cybersex, be it in a usenet group or IRC chatroom, people often came down hard on them because they were offending and annoying other people. How that can be compared to your regular joe writing a personal blog is beyond me. He is offending no one, and dare I say, he expects no one to offend him. Whatever Joe Blogger is writing, he is writing on his "own" webspace, which is somwhat different from an AOL chatroom.

They are not insisting that the medium (in this case, Blogger) play by their rules. They are insisting that other people play by their rules, if they decide to type in the URL for their site. Of course, again, not everybody is so savvy as to know of linking policies and what not, but it seems somewhat ridiculous to expect every user of the internet to "educate" him or herself about the "rules of the game", especially since there are so many variations of said rules on the internet, given the vast number of communities.

Yes of course if some wacko looks up your number and prank calls you, it's sheer bad luck. But that's only one wacko. It's very different from that wacko publishing your phone number on a website where many, many people read everyday.

I think my earlier point about norms of social behaviour on the internet wasn't clear. I agree with you that "whatever Joe Blogger is writing, he is writing on his "own" webspace, which is somwhat different from an AOL chatroom." So if a bunch of people go there and make comments that offend him, then he has the right on his blog to do whatever he wants with those comments, be it delete them, respond to them, ignore them, not even read them, etc. Of course, this assumes that the blog has the features that allow comments by anonymous or random blog visitors, beyond his usual readership of friends and family.

In making the link to how internet newbies are discouraged from typing in caps and such, I was actually trying to draw a parallel with how newbie bloggers are (it seems to me, anyway) being reminded by more experienced bloggers of the tacit social norm of linking-without-requesting-permission. I wasn't referring to the type of content being published.

As for the wacko/prank call analogy, I think Tomorrow plays the role of the phonebook publisher, rather than of the wacko making the prank call? Admittedly, no one scrutinises the phonebook everyday nor is it dynamically updated with new phone numbers all the time. But the issue of what constitutes public/private information is the same, isn't it? The internet intensifies this, yes, but perhaps it's inevitable that something that gives the individual the power to be heard beyond the boundaries of conventional publishing, also offers more complicated consequences in return...

I doubt Lessig was referring to folklore in a derogatory manner for at least 2 reasons. In an article he wrote refuting the famous "Law of the Horse" argumentadvanced by Easterbrook, he cites social norms as one key factor in the regulation of cyberspace. (I can give the citation to that article if anyone's geeky enough to read it.)

Given that he has at least formally acknowledged the power of social norms to regulate the Internet, it makes no sense to subsequently derogate it.

Secondly, there is at least one serious scholar on urban legends (the author of the "Vanishing Hitchhiker"). One can find fascinating social norms that drive oral history or oral tradition, so the study of urban legends, itself and divorced from any argument Lessig may make, should be taken seriously.

Point 2.5 - it's not related to Lessig's argument, but as a point of interest, I find this whole disjunct between custom/social norms perculiar only to common law jurisdictions. There's far less disjunct between social expectations and legal rights in civil law jurisdictions. I believe it's because there's an express principle of incorporating customary practices into legal interpretation of the civil code.

Hence, just a word of caution again - this assertion of legal rights is true in US and Singapore, but it may not be true everywhere in the world. I'm not civil law legal expert, but my hunch is that there may be -n0- legal rights to linking in civil law jurisdictions.

I say this with benign concern - I like Tomorrow a lot and I want to see it continue. However, please be careful, Tomorrow - assuming that legal rights are the same everywhere that Tomorrow exerts its influence can be dangerous.

Sorry if I was unclear - the basic point I was making was that the word "folklore" itself was not being used by Lessig, but by a commenter in his blog, unless we're referencing something different, and that the commenter (not Lessig) used it in a derogatory manner.

For those not in the know, Lawrence Lessig is widely considered the absolute authority on law of Cyberspace. I'd consider his opinion as being extremely authoritative.

Having said that, I believe there's a disjunct between the views of Tomorrow's editors and some of the complainants. The heart of the disjunct is this - that which gives you a right may nevertheless be socially unacceptable. There's no law against belching and farting in public that I know of - it's still considered socially unacceptable.

The question is whether there is indeed a social norm about asking for permission before linking. I'm not sure this is entirely clear cut - certainly Lessig's article alludes to a prevailing pattern of "folklore" that it is - evidence that there is a social norm perhaps?

Perhaps someone in Tomorrow would care to respond to this?

Trackback from Yuhui's World of Wonder:

Looks like I'm late to the party. ... So I'll post my $0.02 worth, and if I have time and am feeling more wordy, I'll post a few more cents (or dollars) worth....

Look. Private spheres, public spheres. Everytime tomorrow has this debate, people assume that that IRL people don't create their little private bubbles in a wider public space; that people don't hive off specks of their personal space into a more public environs.

Everytime tomorrow has this debate, its editors pretend that this isn't possible, that everyone is either online to be gawked by everyone and therefore becomes fair game for happy linking, or everyone who values their privacy should go offline or PAY for a password protected blog.

"Everytime tomorrow has this debate, its editors pretend that this isn't possible, that ... everyone who values their privacy should go offline or PAY for a password protected blog."

But there is no privacy online. Every email we send, every website we visit leaves a digital trail. Some trails are easier to pick up than others, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the trail is there. Only "secure transactions", perhaps, offer some measure of privacy, but even then, errr, I'm not an expert, but I hear they are not impenentrable either.

Why do you think companies put their private information on private servers on their company intranets, rather than the internet? And even then, they get hacked...

"everyone who values their privacy should go offline or PAY for a password protected blog."

We never asked anyone to pay, if you read the article we have listed Livejournal too. It is a free blogging platform that can be configured to be seen by a limited audience.

Trackback from Qiu - Private Blogger Prevent From Weblogs:

Note that A Public blog appears in your Blogger Profile. If you select "No" they will not show your blog anywhere on Blogger.com, but it will still be available on the Internet....

Tomorrow.sg so "special" issit? Cannot link means everyone cannot link, who is so free to paste a special "TOMORROW NOT FREE" logo on their blog to make it specially clear that Tomorrow especially cannot link?

Please note the second paragraph of the original post: "The default position on the web is that you do not need someone's permission to link to them, and in the absence of other signs, this is the position we take."

Tomorrow is not being "special". Tomorrow is following the social conventions on the web. If the majority of web users change their behaviour, then the social norm on the internet will change. (That’s what’s so great about the internet.) But for now, the social norm --- and that includes not only Singapore bloggers but bloggers worldwide --- is what's stated above.

Trackback from EFF: How to Blog Safely (About Work or Anything Else):

If you blog, there are no guarantees you'll attract a readership of thousands. But at least a few readers will find your blog, and they may be the people you'd least want or expect. These include potential or current employers...

Trackback from a life uncommon:

feel a little out of touch with the Singapore blogosphere, which is brewing with controversy. Again. So exciting. As usual, I’m too late on the scene, so refer here for a succinct summary of the news...

The problem is not about linking freely. The problem is there are people who doesn't want to be related to a sham, dictatorial, impolite and inconsiderate website like Tomorrow.sg

The least Tomorrow.sg could do is ASK NICELY. IT IS NOT DIFFICULT. It not only cut down on the irrelevent and silly blog posts but it improves the quality.

Tomorrow.sg acts like a gangleader in blogs. NO SIR. TOMORROW.SG SUCKS. Its Singapore-PAP like censorship and PAP like slamming of other. Its equal to a lawsuit in cyberspace.

You sir, are the one that's acting like a ganster with your big airy talk. You start off with an attack that is not substantiated by argument or facts but rants.

You accuse others of not behaving nicely when your own behavior is boorish.

You are the one that is advocating censorship. You are the one that is slamming others.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.