What are the ethics of Daily Kos... or is it anything goes... whatever we can do, we do?
Is there a limit? What are the ethics we expect of kos? Do we expect any ethics or does the idea of a private site mean anything goes?
What are the limits we voluntarily accept? Where do you draw the line? What are the tactics the right uses that we will not use... or are there any? Must we fight fire with fire? What if all blogs were to be limited in some way, but Boxer could get an exception for dKos? Would we want it?
I'm asking this as an open question because dkos may just be a fighting machine, set to work it fights without limit. If it can get away with something the other side can't... then it would merely use that advantage to achieve its ends.
What are those ends, by the way?
There is no ulterior motive to this question but it's obviously brings with it certain undertones... e.g. most people would assume if the ethics of something are unclear then they are being criticized as not clear enough. I'm not doing that in that I'm willing to take dkos as it is or even leave it as it is if it came to that. I have lost track of what to even hope for in the case of dkos. I am slow to judge... I prefer to know the nature of something before I begin to "judge" it. So I'm seeking some clarity from the community on what the "ethical considerations" are for dkos, it's community, and kos himself.
I like dkos as a community and specifically as a large progressive community. But it's officially a partisan blog, which strikes down a pillar of that community by defining it's existence in service to a party, rather than in service to it's own goals. I'm not convinced it really is what it "officially" is... but still, this defines the community in terms of something external to the community. Of course... it's nature as a private enterprise does that anyway. Daily Kos exists as a business and is defined by it's business needs as any business is.
It's not a public community, but a private community. It is a gated community. Does it exist to make the inhabitants safe? For what purpose?
Is it a community at all? Or is it a private hall, a debate hall, a communications center, no different from a switchboard, a lecture hall, a square full of soapboxes. Is dkos just the pieces of equipment?
We used to talk about our community memory and our traditions and... are those living things that are parts of a living dkos, or are they merely incidental features... representing the private ideas of those using this private infrastructure?
I guess I'm wondering what the overlap of commercial interests and the public policy we discuss here is. Do our demands about proper community structure apply to dkos itself? Do they apply to our work product? Is dkos immune to demands based on a private property argument? Do we have to respect such arguments here, since kos is such a valuable ally, even if we reject them elsewhere?
Is dkos a better sort of corporation than other corporations? Do we hold it to any particular standards? Does the community intend to follow any trend... what if dkos went public and was owned by Wall Street, as they say? Is that fine... if not, what makes you think it can't happen. If it is fine, perhaps the market would react, that is, those that had a problem with it would just leave. But is that acceptable here, given that a general progressive position doesn't usually accept the idea that letting the market decide right and wrong that way really works.
I strongly feel that an organization will produce ideas designed to perpetuate itself. If dkos is a private corporation with no direct obligations to it's community, then I think it will produce ideas designed to perpetuate the sort of organization that it is. It will tend to produce ideas that will, for example, allow it to continue as it is. Such ideas can be progressive when possible, but if they conflict the nature of the organization, the organization must win, so a subtle selection effect is in effect.
None of this changes dkos in any way, it is what it is however many times I ask, "what is dkos", and this is not the first. It's already a useful thing. It's already a good read. It's already helpful, and it defends itself through those and other characteristics. If questions like mine remain unanswered, it will not change what dkos is. If light is not shone there, it will still be good for what it's good for, and so such questions are not really demands to "justify dkos"... it is justified in material terms.
But when I try to place dkos in the political flora and fauna, then these questions arise.