Deserving of the Internet?
First of all, thanks to both Rachael and Chantelle for linking1 me, but I don’t think I have that many vices. OK sweets and e-drama (not necessarily in that order) are high on the proverbial list. Not to mention that Sarai has scared me into never even THINKING of doing any meme post… OK, now that the unrelated site pimping is out of the way, I can get to the subject of today’s post.
Inspired by some of the latest comments on the Internet Police’s most recent bout of e-drama, I’ve started pondering over the following issue:
Who deserves to have a website?
I complain about websites’ quality on a daily basis. I’ve even gone so far as stating that someone should be “completely banned from the Internet”. After thinking thing through, regardless of the nature of my personal feelings for a webmaster2 or his/her site, I never sincerely thought that someone should be shunned from the Internet.
Even though I’ve entered the world of website development almost 4 years ago, for more than half of all this period I’ve gone through the Internet cliques rather unnoticed. I blogged sometimes, and maybe got one or two comments (more out of pity than genuine interest, I suspect). On the whole, my site was rather bland an uninteresting, therefore I certainly can’t blame anyone for not having taken any notice of it.
Had I stopped blogging and wishing to develop my skills, I probably wouldn’t have my current job, nor be getting so excited about every little scrap of e-drama I can get my grubby e-paws on3. I also wouldn’t have the wonderful e-friends who help me through my annoying moments of ‘agony-aunt-ing’4.
By that logic, why should we deem some webmasters unworthy of “teh Intarwebz”? Just because they don’t conform to our unspoken set of rules and regulations? So what if they are boring? Or even keep whining in every single post of theirs? Why should they be stopped from showing themselves to others? After all, if you want to make and arse of yourself, that’s your personal prerogative.
Don’t be mistaken: I don’t approve of constant whining and pathetic pity parties (i.e. Everybody hates me :rolleye: ). After all, I have the option of not visiting such sites.
What do YOU think? Should certain sites/blogs/persons be banned?
P.S. I swear that all this insane link dropping is relevant… in a weird kind of way.
__________
1 otherwise known as tagging
2 meaning both male and female website owners
3 though I’m sure certain people (coughRachaelcough) would deem that a good thing
4 most notably Beth and Jem
Belinda
March 4th, 2008
Banned?! Absolutely not! It doesn’t matter how annoying, irritating, teeny-boppery, immature, ugly, unusable a website is, they have as much right to exist on cyberspace as you do.
I thought the existing level of elitism regarding usability and content was bad enough, but it’s appalling that it has reached the level of wanting to ban sites that don’t fit the list of requirements.
I really hope the question you posed is a merely hypothetical and not drawn from opinions actually made by someone.
People need to chill out about over site-making. It’s just a form of communication that everyone has a right to use, no matter how it might irritate others.
Vera: well two people actually addressed this issue on the IP post, though I’m not entirely sure how serious they were.
Kiera
March 4th, 2008
Of course not, that’s just ridiculous. :eek:
Id you hate a site enough to say it out to be banned then you shouldn’t bother going to the site at all, I mean, it’s that simple. I would hope whoever said that was trying to sensationalize the e-drama (reason #128 as to why I don’t evolve myself in any of that).
And yeah…..my two cents. Not worth much, but there ya go.
*fades back into the background*
Vera: oh wow 128, and NO! Don’t fade back. I love to debate… er… stuff
Kiera
March 4th, 2008
If* damnit, If.
Sorry, I can’t stand leaving typos on someone’s site. :fist:
Lene
March 4th, 2008
Nah, I don’t think people should be banned from the internet for that. Although I don’t like mediocre -by my standards- websites, I don’t think it’s a reason to ban people from the internet. People can’t improve at something if they are not given the chance to do it. I bet no one goes online already knowing every unwritten rule and strict standards. In the case of those who really don’t improve over the years, even if it’s more irritating, I can choose to not to visit sites that I don’t like, as you said.
The internet ends up being a perfect place to express feelings, even if those feelings are “I hate everyone, everyone hates me, I’m going to slit my wrists”.
So, I don’t think “banning” them is an option. How would it be if everyone I don’t like in real life was “banned” from life? There would be very few people left… and as great as it sounds for me (hehe), it’s also very unfair for others.
Vera: now that you mention it, I guess we do ban them in a way. Think of people with very very different interests, who do get “banned” from enjoying “all the good stuff”, because they’re too different. Truth be told I can think of a lot of websites which suffer this fate. Isn’t that a sort of passive banning (“We’ll ignore you till you get the message”)? :hmm:
Nellie
March 4th, 2008
As Lene has already said, banning people from the internet would be like banning someone from life. It’s up to the internet user to decide whether they want to use the internet or not… and in most cases, it’s up to them what they want to use the internet for.
That doesn’t stop outside people from questioning exactly why someone has a website though. As I said over there, sometimes blogging is pointless. If they want to get their ideas and feelings out but don’t want other people to interact with them, they should just be writing for themselves in a paper journal or whatnot.
People who aren’t capable of socialising like a normal human being aren’t really made for blogging, are they?
Vera: my social skills are very very lacking, and at work I constantly put my foot in my mouth (mostly when joking)… Then again, I suppose this all comes down to, how much should you entertain your visitors. If you want to specifically cater to grumpy bastards, lack of social skills might be the way to go.
Gabrielle
March 5th, 2008
Of course people shouldn’t be banned from making websites or putting themselves out there on the Internet. Seriously. I mainly stay on the side of the Internet with the people that lots of people on Snark and like-minded websites call “emo” or “loony” or “crazy”. The side with people who actually do harm themselves on a regular basis, write suicide notes or attempt suicide, write downright awful depressing poetry, etc. Sometimes I do find some of the people immensely irritating but wouldn’t say they should just be banned. That’s ridiculous. A lot of the elitism is just as irritating as the people themselves. So a person feels immense amounts of pity for themselves and collects diagnoses. I just don’t go to their website/journal and skip over their posts. I may say they are irritating elsewhere but I’m not going to say I or other people whose websites/posts I do enjoy have more right to the Internet than they. I’m not god.
Vera: without all this elitism, we wouldn’t be trying to improve our websites. One of the reasons I changed my blogging style was precisely due to this elitism. Of course, it ultimately depends on how much you want to sacrifice your personality in favor of “catering to your visitors”.
Shannon
March 5th, 2008
No, no site should really be banned unless they are seriously breaking the law. Whining about he-said-she-said? It’s there, but it’s not hurting anyone really. Nuclear bomb instructions? Take it down immediately.
The internet is the way to express. No matter how stupid some people are, they shouldn’t “just be banned” from entering their opinion. Hilariously enough, I was just watching an entertaining video on Net Neutrality.
Chantelle
March 5th, 2008
Some people (child porn ftw; look at this video of me with this hot toddler) should be banned from the Internet; most (2day wuz suxors omgz i went 2 da friends – she iz hoe, y’all) shouldn’t, even if they’re ridiculous. Freedom of expression, right?
I dislike elitism and snobbery. It’s one thing to have high standards, to try to live up to those standards, and to encourage others to do the same. It’s another to look down on others because they don’t live by your arbitrary standards.
Vera: Yes the first one is definitely sick. As for elitism, to me this “looking down” is a sort of level of comparison. As in, this is an example of bad practice, and this is why I try to do so and so on my website. I think that up to a certain point, even looking down on sites can be a beneficial thing.
Rilla
March 5th, 2008
I don’t think they should be banned. I can quite honestly say I was a total noob but a little mega bitch years ago. (Please don’t tell me I’m still like that now k.
) But I think I’ve grown heaps through the Internet and learnt a lot. So what if someone had kicked me off the Internet a few years back? Then there’d be aww no Rilla now. 
Vera: I found you totally cool when I first “met” you (i.e. first time I visited your site). I always thought your designs were so much cooler than those of Ivy from Aethereality, it’s just that Ivy was more snobbish. Oh and you’re still cool of course. XP
Annie
March 5th, 2008
Well it depends on what site it is. You can’t ban sites/blogs/people for menial things, such as, arguments, disgreements or whatnot. However if they contain explicitly sick (the actual definition not street jargon) and/or unlawful content then the offending site or blog should be considered for banning. Not that that’s going to happen though.
Vera: um… no, I’m not counting illegal content here, because that’s a given. I’m talking about people with a certain behavior, for which there are no explicit laws, but which you have a great distaste for.
Gabrielle
March 5th, 2008
without all this elitism, we wouldn’t be trying to improve our websites. One of the reasons I changed my blogging style was precisely due to this elitism. Of course, it ultimately depends on how much you want to sacrifice your personality in favor of “catering to your visitors”.
I wasn’t talking about the sort that makes one improve. I’m talking about the sort that involves: LULZ. YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF MAKING A WEBSITE. Or: YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF BEING ON THE INTERNET. I’ve seen that sort of talk in a few places and I do find it irritating. Elitism that leaves room for improvement is good, the kind that just says to just get the hell out of the arena and never come back isn’t.
On the rest, I don’t really blog and only my fandom/non-personal websites are meant to especially cater to visitors so I guess I can’t really comment on having a site that incorporates personality and caters to visitors at the same time. The non-personal website that is my pride and joy and has an active message board is good enough for me. I don’t have the personality to make a good blogger.
Vera: elitism is elitism. One of the most prominent examples, was my rejection letter from Captious Pedants. I applied to be a reviewer. There is a set number of open questions which you have to answer. They dissected each and every one of them, basically taunted my skills which at the time I thought were quite above average. Bottom line: in the long run it did help me a lot, even though the first few weeks I seethed and felt like strangling all three (Veve, Elysa and Rilla) of them.
Jem
March 5th, 2008
There are two problems with banning the people we see as “idiots” from the Internet:
1) We would have nothing to strive to be better than
2) I would have nobody to mock
At the end of the day one of the most important things about the Internet is that it’s a little free world all of its own, and it doesn’t matter how irritating a person is or how shit their site may be, they have a right to be on teh interwebz.
Of course, sensible/polite answer aside, I can think of a few people who I’d enjoy giving the boot to should I have that kind of power
Vera: yeah, good point. We’re not banning anyone.
I can think of a few people as well… 
Lil
March 5th, 2008
Sometimes I wonder what the internet would be like without idiots but in the end the matter doesn’t affect me. The only type of websites which should be banned are those with paedophilia or other forms of non-consensual abuse because in the grand scheme of things they are much more morally corrupt than websites who violate copyright with a bunch of Ashley Tisdale blends.
Vera: hm… yeah, I think I should’ve made it clearer, that I’m not referring to sites that clearly break the law.
Beth
March 5th, 2008
lmao. I couldn’t help, but think for a minute, what it would be like to be ‘banned from the internet’…
I pour myself a cup of coffee. Pull my hair back in a sloppy bun. Power up the pc…connect..wait, wha?? “Failure to connect to the internet. You have been banned. Please enjoy non-virtual reality.”
I have to agree with most comments though. Most everyone deserves to have their own little space, no matter how boring, they (i.e. ME. heh) may be. Though I could think of one, or, 6 split personalities
I’d ban, given the option..I more than likely wouldn’t.
anyways, I just mainly wanted to comment to give e-hugs
Vera: *hugs back* LOL at your mental image.
Arwen
March 6th, 2008
I don’t think it’s fair to judge someone by the quality of their website and the content therein, because honestly, we all had to start somewhere. None of us were expert 1337 coders and website builders from the get-go, nor were we all born undiscovered novelists. I gripe about people’s sites sometimes, but never to the point of thinking they should be “banned from the internet.” It’s kind of snobby and elitist to think in the sense that if someone isn’t “good enough” by your standards, they shouldn’t be “allowed” to have a website.
… did I make sense? :eek:
Vera: oh yes. Actually the case I was inspired by had nothing to do with coding style, but rather behavior. But yeah, I was deliberately generalizing things.