Blogging is a game of putting yourself out there, sharing your views with the world.

Then came Twitter. As much as I was a skeptic at first, Twitter really has become the next level in the evolution of online presence. It’s a slightly wild, 140 character extension of self, random thoughts, location and links.

And yet less that 2 months after the rise of Twitter, we see the Webcam technology of Web 1.0 meet the narcissism of Web 2.0, an always on stream of activity, and often lack thereof. If justin.tv bought the world of web cams to Web 2.0, ustream could become the poster child of a new movement of 20 somethings who are too old or too uncaring to remember the likes of Jenicam.

Is too much ever enough, or just too much?

Is the narcissystem the way of the future?

The poster kids of Web 2.0, Chris Pirillo and Robert Scoble have lead the way. Pirillo’s live streams are actually fairly interesting, Scoble’s streams of him in a car aren’t really my thing. Interestingly though in a historical sense is that the tech of the Truman Show is now available to the masses, at least those with generous bandwidth plans, particularly with their mobile (cell) providers.

Matthew Ingram has some good points, but I’m not sure he looks deeply enough at the overflow of information this all leads to. I’ve enjoyed watching some of Pirillo’s live stuff, but imagine if 20 other interesting people were doing the same thing? How then could I manage to watch them all? Imagine that in 3-6 months time ustream is the new YouTube, that thousands, tens of thousands are streaming parts, sometimes all of their day. What then?

I’ve always argued the text is the ultimate form of communication, because it allows dissemination to many easily and in a more manageable form. I love the idea of Podcasting, but I’ know that it’s far more limited than text because it takes far longer to consume. Always on video is harder again. Where as I can consume multiple podcasts, and thousands of blogs, it’s hard to consume more than a handful of always on streams, and certainly more so in terms of time, when Pirillo or Justin are at their best, I’m often asleep (12 hours ahead of US EST at the moment).

Question though is would I give it a try? Watch this space. The logistics are difficult, particularly mobile, given that always on data (via 3G) in Australia is expensive, but the narcissist in me is certainly tempted. Perhaps I can become another number in the too much is never enough equation.

Web 2.0 guru..and the once credible Tim O’Reilly has followed up on his threats to unleash weapons of mass stupidity on the world, posting live once and for all a draft copy of his “Bloggers Code of Conduct” that he’s hoping to impose voluntarily on over 200 million bloggers world wide, then probably by force in countries stupid enough to think this is all a good idea (and yes, Australia will probably be top of that list, it is the Nanny State after all).

Now some people suggested I was a little tough on O’Reilly in my March 29 post on the subject. To those people I say, once again, bollocks, because you haven’t read this stuff.

*901AM HEALTH WARNING: DO NOT READ ON A FULL STOMACH*

Just when you thought the concept of a bloggers code of conduct was a running joke, Tim O’Reilly delivers the actual punchline. Try some of this hippie shit on for size:

“We celebrate the blogosphere because it embraces frank and open conversation. But frankness does not have to mean lack of civility. We present this Blogger Code of Conduct in hopes that it helps create a culture that encourages both personal expression and constructive conversation.”

Oh yeah, censorship has such a wonderful track record in history for fostering personal expression. BTW who defines personal expression and constructive conversation?

We are committed to the “Civility Enforced” standard: we will not post unacceptable content, and we’ll delete comments that contain it.

Unacceptable to who? A pro George W Bush comment is as an unacceptable post at Kos as a 2 guys rimming is on Michelle Malkin. Is Tim O’Reilly judge, jury and executioner?

It goes on to say that we won’t tolerate unacceptable behavior, defined as

– is being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others
– is libelous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person,
– infringes upon a copyright or trademark
– violates an obligation of confidentiality
– violates the privacy of others

So that’s just about EVERY single blog post covered in the above points (well at least the last 2 points). Of course this post is probably covered in 1 + 2 :-)

But get this, the blogging code is conduct is all about civility, but apparently it’s civility defined by Tim O’Reilly because we can lynch others, as long as they were uncivil first:

When we believe someone is unfairly attacking another, we take action.

Yep, truth be told it’s really more like a set of club rules, you’re with Tim or you’re against him, and if you’re against him you can and will be subject to mob rule lest you be lynched by them for non compliance with The Borgs O’Reilly’s rules.

You can read the whole thing here, and if you’re really keen, you get to display badges on your site as well. Note to Krug, if these become compulsory, we’ll need the dynamite one for 901am ;-)

I’ll conclude in saying this: those who think that a blogging code of conduct is the antidote to death threats and misogyny have about as much hope of success as I’ve got of space walking on Jupiter next year, or Tim O’Reilly has of ever being taken seriously again by anyone except some rabid feminists and professional victims. Civility is subjective, and controlling what people say and do on blogs can only be a recipe for the decline of the medium and the introduction of totalitarianism online, outcomes none of us want nor desire.