Tayler Mayer New and revised Guidelines
Video
The revised guideline and a new guideline are posted below.
#8 Name Calling and Discrimination
DeafRead is enjoyed by all kinds of people worldwide ranging from children to senior citizens. It is also safe to assume that people from all races enjoy DeafRead. We will not post anything that is an attack on a specific race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orienation, age or religion. This offense is serious and the offending blog will be promptly considered for removal from DeafRead’s subscription.
Naming a person is still fine, however if the named person is insulted, or targeted negatively, it will raise a flag for which we will survey the post more closely. Criticizing an idea or organization is fine. Any exceedingly negative posts, regardless of whether a name is used, will be omitted.
On recorded documentation (paper and electronic), names and other identifying markers must be redacted, erased, crossed out to the point of unreadability.
We reserve the right to judge accordingly based on its degree of negativity.
#9 Changing post content/title after being published
Blogs that change their posts after its been published at DeafRead AND as a result breaches guidelines will be considered for removal.
Read the Guidelines here.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Hi Tayler,
I just wonder if I changed my video but just same concept. Even if I change my wording or comment. Does that still affect?
I still have my right to change my vlog or blog at any time. I understand it has affected your accountability. How can I inform or alert you if I decide to change without affecting your accountability. Just wondering.
Deafchip
July 24th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Thank you, Tayler.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:28 am
deafchip, per guideline #9, you can change your post any time and as often as you wish. It’s when those changes BREAK guidelines.
DeafRead recently realized that we could find ourselves in situations when posts that do not break guidelines are published to DeafRead, THEN the blog author changes it and as a result breaks guidelines.
DeafRead has to protect itself from such abuse. We have been abused in the past (I know! How nice!) and will continue to be exploited. So we need this new guideline as a safeguard. Like I said, if our world was utopian, guidelines wouldn’t be needed. Unfortunately, that’s impossible. I hate guidelines and wish they didn’t need to exist.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Looks good. I’d like to add that it’s important to state at the outset that recorded messages also include recorded VP conversations and the like, not just English text. Right, Tayler? You mean that too, right?
Thanks again for listening and for clarifying what happened.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Yup, videos are covered under electronics. Permission from the original author or creator should be obtained. This is standard practice. We will not take action on this premise, unless we hear otherwise. This is called good faith. Whether or not the recorded message comes with permission, if it is targeted negatively toward a named person, by guidelines, we should not publish it.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Tayler Looks good except one important word disability that needs to be added after race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orienation, age or religion.
Deafhill
July 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Hi Tayler. I am pleased about the new guideline because there is always a form of abuse going on. As a new vlogger I was not aware of any outstanding issues involving email addresses & recorded meetings. I, for one was never contacted by DeafRead regarding any of my contents but evidently it prompted a new guideline. Regardless I am pleased to see the new rule because it’s essential for us to protect other people’s identities.
Best Wishes and keep up the good work you’re doing.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
thanks tayler
guideline #8 covers racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, and religions - it does not address audism? most specifically in the form of linguicism and ethnocentricism
Barry - if u understand the guidelines - why does the six way AIM chat still remain up on your site?
peace
Patti Durr
July 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Many thanks for your hard work. Way to go, Tayler!
Deb Ann
July 24th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Wow, Patti has a great point. I’d love to see audism, linguicism, and ethnocentrism in Guideline #8.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I disagree with audism, linguicism, and ethnocentrism being a part of the guidelines.
1.) Audism = When hearing people act superior or are condescending towards deaf people.
This can be confused easily in DR where anything offensive could be interpreted as audism…besides it is not even a word in the dictionary yet!
2.) Linguicism = Insulting people’s knowledge based on their writing.
This is a very slippery slope…because then the Human Editors will need to figure out whether a person is insulting someone else for saying something stupid or for writing it in a stupid way. I think name calling covers this anyway.
3.) Ethnocentrism = Viewing the world from the POV of one’s cutlure.
Everything in DR falls into this region…
=======
Let’s keep it simple for the Human Editors and leave it at name calling :-).
-J.J.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
What defines audism? There’s different interpretations. Some people think cochlear implants is audism. Others don’t. Like I wrote a while ago, people have a different interpretation of what defines “deaf”. Like this situation, I am referring you to use DeafRead Custom.
We don’t want to go in the direction of babysitting our readers, turning everyone into yes-sayers. We also refuse to overextend our pennies-earning human editors. We built DeafRead Custom so that you could, by personal choice, hide any number of blogs. If a blog does not fit your definition of audism, then click “Hide this blog”.
For one guideline that one wants, someone else hates it. It is totally impossible to please everyone.
Disclaimer:
1) DeafRead does NOT endorse or support audism
2) DeafRead believes in and supports freedom of speech
Attaining a balance is all too great a challenge, which is why we refer you to DeafRead Custom. Let us know if you have technical difficulties using it!
July 24th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Tayler,
You need to be clear so that people don’t get the wrong impression and think that it’s OK to violate the privacy rights of individuals and groups by publishing e-mails or AIM transcripts without permission. It is NOT ok.
Violating privacy rights is clearly a tort under common law. People who publish private information without permission can be sued.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
PS And it is STILL a violation of privacy rights, even if names and identities in emails or transcripts are obscured and made unreadable.
You can’t leave that stated the way you wrote it.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
audism is discrimination based on the belief that the ability to hear and speak is superior to being Deaf
linguicism is discrimination based on the belief that one’s language is superior to another person’s language
enthnocentricism is discrimination based on the belief that one’s ethnic group is superior to another
since guideline #8 reads:
We will not post anything that is an attack on a specific race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orienation, age or religion.
u could simply add
“attack on a specific language, disability, culture, race, gender….
peace
patti
July 24th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I don’t understand why Pdurr asked Dr hocokan with the question. I already felt that she was about to start new flame. I don’t appreciate it at all. We need alot of love and peace in DeafRead
Email Dr Hocokan in private and talk with him. Don’t be the JUDGE for us all. Let Tayler handle this issue. This is a very immature way to do that.
Thank you
Ecnarb
July 24th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Patti’s suggestion is perfect.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Tayler,
Thanks for doing for the sake of our Deaf community. At the same time, I need to be honest here, I am still hesitant what will happen in upcoming weeks/months. It was because too many people were HURT when this could have been avoided easily.
If the sun will come up tomorrow morning, there’s a hope.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Tayler
Why do you allow Barry Sewell’s AIM conversation with people’s names and SN on his page –DBCFACTS? DR needs to enforce guidelines. if DR does not enforce guidelines, it is hard for us to take what you said seriously. Thank you.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:28 am
deaf4deaf, there wasn’t nothing to enforce because, at the time, there weren’t guidelines. Note that the guidelines changes were added on July 24.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Tayler, now we have guidelines, don’t you think you should ask Barry to remove the AIM conversation within 24 hrs. The AIM conversation is STILL THERE!
July 25th, 2008 at 9:05 am
It’s moved to DeafRead Extra. Thanks.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Some readers either overlook or do not realise that there are different forms of linguicism. One of the examples of linguicism that you can discern the linguicism in a person’s question as follows: “Do you know how to write a letter? I can help.”
July 25th, 2008 at 10:07 am
“People who publish private information without permission can be sued.” That is very true.
This sort of issue is the reason we have complicated legal cases; it’s not really clear what the ethical and moral position would be.
However, published e-mails, AIM transcripts or any form of electrical digital format being transmitted via Internet is not always considered “private information.”
I think there are no laws protecting your digital data transmitted via Internet from theft or misuse. So you may have no recourse for any harm like privacy violations that occur or for discrimination against you by insurers, employers, banks, other corporations and private citizens that found or use your valuable data against you.
There could be some exception to the rules, if DBC has non-disclosure clause or agreement signed by all officers and employees dealing with disclosure of all forms of communication, DBC may have some legal grounds. This is moot since DBC has no bylaws and regulations to control its stakeholders, officers and members.
I am ‘hand waving’ to DR for instituting new revised rules.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Hi Tayler,
I am a bit confused here. Is this guideline applicable to all independent and private web sites or is it strictly applicable to contents of the posts / blogs found within DeafRead?
Regardless I will double check all of our blogs and check to make sure they honor DeafRead’s current or upcoming guideline.
Thanks
July 25th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Hi. It is applicable to anything published at DeafRead.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Tayler,
This is a follow-up comment. I checked and discovered one link in DBC Facts blog site and found one link that pointed to a private web site reflecting recorded DBC’s AIM meeting. We went ahead and had it removed to promote, encourage and honor DeafRead’s new guideline.
Let me know if there is anything else that would be inappropriate to you and DeafRead.
Keep up the good work you’re doing.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Thanks for removing it!
July 25th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
its still there:
http://dbcfacts.blogspot.com/2008/07/dbc-temporary-movement.html
then click the DBC’s Core meeting and it routes u to:
http://www.dbcfacts.com/aimA1
which is 2 page excerpt of the 6 way AIM transcript
peace
patti
July 25th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I wonder why it’s still there after “DR Hocokan” said it’s been removed. Let us know, “DR Hocokan”.
In any case, I’m glad I didn’t move the post back to DeafRead. It remains in DeafRead Extra.
July 25th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Tayler, I hope you will email DR Hoko and tell him to remove the conversation or ban him from DR. Moving to Deafread Extra is not ENOUGH. We are not satisified. Barry has been abusing/playing around too much.
Patti, thank you for keeping your eyes on Barry’s unethical behaviors and for providing links so the world can see who Barry is.
July 25th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
deaf4deaf, we are just an aggregator. We’ve done all we can in respects to our policies.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Hi Tayler,
I am glad checked back in because you have a message for me.
I checked all of the blogs within DBC Facts and do not see any direct links to recorded AIM meetings. Would you be kind to show me where you are seeing links.
Thanks.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“Bigbrother”
Please STOP spreading that harmful misinformation.
AIM conversations truly *ARE* private.
You will scare people if you keep spreading the wrong information and they will stop using the Internet. Please do the responsible thing and stop.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Hi DR Hocokan. Check pdurr’s comment. It shows the pages with links to the recorded AIM meetings. I just checked and the link is still there. But this is no business of DeafRead’s. The post has been moved to DeafRead Extra as per guidelines.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Tayler,
I guess then it bring us back to my original question to you. Is your new guideline applicable to private web sites, unaffiliated with DeafRead? If not, then you may want to correct Pdurr because she seem to think that you are able to enforce new guideline in such way.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Not only to DeafRead; rather, it is applicable to all independent and private web sites. To learn more about Do’s and Don’ts, you may, if you so desire, request a copy from the Library of Congress. Familiarise yourself with “don’ts” in regard to emails. Copyright Laws state that any content of an email cannot be published without an author’s permission — even if the author is your friend. Most undergraduate students students are informed from the English Department.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Tayler,
As of Friday, July 25, 2008, at 10:45 P.M. (Eastern),
Dr. Hocokan’s post with a copy of AIM chat is still
at http://www.dbcfacts.com/aimA1
as well as a FULL VIEW of AIM chat at
http://www.dbcfacts.com/aim1.shtml
Jean Boutcher
July 25th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I am sorry but Patti Durr’s comment did not answer my question. The relevant information she referred to is in a private web site, not in DeafRead. Therefore the question is, do you aim to regulate your guideline outside of DeafRead? If not, please correct Patti Durr for producing misleading information.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
“DR” Hocokan, on another blog, is distorting what Patti and Tayler have said (above) and is making false claims.
He still refuses to remove the link on dbcfacts.blogspot.com even though that post would be out of compliance had the new guidelines been in effect earlier.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Jean and Dr Hocokan, DeafRead does not aim to police the deaf blogosphere much less the internet. In fact, we shun the responsibility. We do not want to tell people what they can and can’t write. We believe bloggers are a responsible bunch (not naively), and posts are published in good faith because we cannot exert the time and energy needed to survey each post to the depth that it would require. There are of course exceptions outlined in the Guidelines.
DeafRead, as per guidelines and policies, has done all it can which is to move DR Hockan’s post to DeafRead Extra. This is how we have done it for the longest time. A link to the recorded messages is in the post content, which bears jurisdiction for this action to take place.
If you feel further action should be taken, contact the blogger, blog hosting service or an agency that you think is fitting.
July 26th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Thank you. We respect DeafRead’s new guideline and believe it is worthy of us. Having said this we double checked everything and removed the materials from the links shown above, based on good faith and to show our support the new guideline.
Furthermore, individuals’ email addressed were not exposed in its’ entireity. It only exposed user names. Additionally it was not a a private conversation. The meeting took place under DBC’s scheduled meeting and because DBC raised funds from the public, under the wing of California Association of the Deaf, the rule for open meeting and public’s “right to know” information became effective. The meeting were recorded and distributed by the note taker who emailed copies to each participants. It is not like we took records without anybody’s consent.
Regardless we respect the nature of the subject and the sensitivity of others. We cooperated when we were asked to remove the materials. We have not received any requests from DBC or its’ core members to remove the recorded materials. It was DeafRead’s readers who asked that it be removed and naturally we cooperated anyway.
July 27th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Hocokan is wrong in his post (above). He violated privacy law by releasing the AIM conversation.
Non-profit groups (groups that are not state or federal governmental agencies) have the right to hold confidential meetings. There is no dispute about this whatsoever.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:35 am
>bert_la Says:
>
>July 25th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
>“Bigbrother”
>Please STOP spreading that harmful misinformation.
>AIM conversations truly *ARE* private
AIM conversations *ARE NOT ALWAYS* private!
*****************
DBC is under California Association the Deaf (CAD) and CAD is a 503(C)(3) nonprofit organization incorporated under State Of California. California has open meetings law.
I don’t have California’s Open Meeting Code with me (I last heard it was called the Brown Act), in general, any meeting by public supported organization (e.g. 503c-3) must be available for public inspection; Not only must the meetings be available for inspection, organization must provide notice about a public meeting even if its meeting is being done thru email messages or IM meeting among themselves.
Traditionally, people think of a meeting as a group of people who sit around a table and simultaneously discuss an issue and reach a conclusion. Public, any people, can stand back and to watch the meeting in action.
Any private email meeting or discussion or IM meeting discussion among DBC officers and its stakeholders may violate California’s open meetings law. There are numerous legal opinions specifically saying a series of email messages among members of any governing board of the public supported organization may constitute a meeting. Not only must the messages be available for inspection, it may trigger the law’s requirement of providing notice about a public meeting by exchanging a series of emails among themselves or discussing through AIM, as the DBC did.
Releasing IM transcript meeting by DBC to the public does not necessary violated privacy law — firstly, DBC has no bylaws dealing with non-disclosure rules against its members, officers, and stakeholders; secondly, at last, this IM shows evident of DBC’s meeting and this information must be opened to the public and not subject to privacy right.
Thus, you don’t need to be scare and stop posting stuff through the Internet. Rest assure your privacy right as private citizen still there… your privacy right dealing with business meeting goes away whenever you are doing business with public supported organization such as DBC.
July 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
To “Bigbrother,”
Sorry, but you are WRONG. Please stop spreading misinformation. You are being reckless in spreading disinformation.
Read this PDF about the California open meeting law, which is called “The Brown Act.” It does not apply to the CAD at all and does not apply to non-profit groups.
—————-
quotation:
The Brown Act governs the meetings of all local “legislative bodies,” that is, all multimember
councils, boards, commissions, committees and the like of a local government
agency.
http://www.lattc.cc.ca.us/lattc/aca_sen/brown_act.pdf
July 30th, 2008 at 9:31 am
bert_la Says,
You are correct in saying “The Brown Act governs the meetings of all local ‘legislative bodies,’ that is, all multimember councils, boards, commissions, committees and the like of a local government agency.”
I do recall reading somewhere stating there are no States that require open meeting except for governmental affiliated organizations and there are some precedents dealing with ‘open meeting laws”….
It may be not be applicable to State of California but the point is ‘open meeting laws’ could be any business, organization or entity that received State Fund (money paid by the tax payers or public funds or benefits), those non-governmental bodies can fell under “governmental affiliated organizations” category. I am not sure if CAD gets any State Fund but I don’t care…
Open Meetings Laws vary from one State to another States. I don’t have much time to search for State Of California Court’s precedents or landmark decisions indicating otherwise. This is what I have: Bagley-Keene Act if: (1) it receives funds provided by a state body, and (2) it includes a member of a state body serving in his or her official capacity of that state body. Cal. Gov’t Code § 11121(d).
It looks like CAD does not meet this condition and not required to have ‘open meeting’ as I don’t see any board member who is also a voting member of the state, county or local legislative body.
I am not lawyer…In regards to the Brown Act, specifically, you are right and I apologize for making hasty assumptions without first doing fact finding information.
Thanks you
July 30th, 2008 at 9:38 am
I typed my previous post without proofreading it… I mean to say “Thank you.”
LOL, I am a pre-lingual Deaf and trying to defending myself for having some bad grammars!