It pains me to say this, but I am leaving DeafRead. I orginially joined Deafread hoping that I could present an unique point of view and encourage aspiring d/Deaf law students. However, these hopes become moot when DeafRead espouses a discriminatory and Deaf-centric policy by banning a certain blog.
I have posted about our need to UNITE in order to succeed (professionally, at least) and I cannot participate in an aggregator that thwarts this sentiment.
So, if you like this blog, please do bookmark me and say hi sometimes. I welcome everyone of all stripes, deaf, Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and many more. Hopefully there is enough supporters out there to make writing this blog worthwhile
Anonymous Deaf Law Student 
No… That’s a double standard and a trick.
The owners of Deaf Read have the First Amendment right create the kind of metablog that they want. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand the First Amendment.
No one has a right to impose their will onto the owners of Deaf Read.
Dear Anon,
Reread my post, I never said DeafRead practiced censorship or violated anyone’s 1st amendment rights.
I have the right to leave an aggregator because I disagree with their philosophy, I am not violating anyone’s first amdement rights nor am I claiming that Deafread violated mine.
This is Tayler. I am sorry to see you go because of a misunderstanding.
Basically, the blog in question did not disclose her professional affiliation to a company all the while promoting their products.
Please do take the time to Read more here.
Clap..clap…clap. Bravo! I share your sentiments. What DeafRead is practicing is a one-way street policy. That kind of attitude simply cannot survive.
DM, we published the blog’s posts in good faith for 5 months. This good faith wasn’t reciprocated. From whose end is this one-way street?
Tyler,
I didn’t take this decision lightly because this is a major conduit for me to reach potential d/Deaf lawyers or wannabe lawyers.
However, after much thought and research, I just do not agree with your conclusion. Rachel has been open about her connection to Cochlear corp (by stating a few times that she is a CAN volunteer and has a Cochlear brand of CI). At best, it is a slippery slope and I am leaving in protest.
remember the famous quote, “they came for the jews, and I remained silent because I was not Jewish….and by the time they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up” (misquoted, but you get the point)
Did she reveal that CAN is owned by a cochlear company?
Rachel has disclosed that CAN = Cochlear Awareness Network, which a reasonable person would read as an indicator of affliation with Cochlear Inc.
Moreover, she is just a volunteer and the whole point of Cochlear awareness network is to raise AWARENESS of cochlear implants.
If you look at the website, it states its goals to be: “The Cochlear Awareness Network is a group of Volunteers each of whom have lived deaf but have had their hearing returned through either a Cochlear Implant or a Baha. They have chosen to be members of the Cochlear Awareness Network to tell their stories, raising awareness for these wonderful changes in their lives. All members are available to discuss their experiences.”
a huge commercial endeavor? I think not. I stand by my decision, and you have every right to claim that Rachel’s site is too commercial and I have the right to disagree with that and leave.
Awareness can be seen as marketing.
We are obliged to our exclusive sponsor, who pays the bills, to ensure that they are the only company promoting their product on DeafRead.
Awareness is defined as gaining knowledge about something. If that could be defined as ‘marketing,’ almost anything can be defined as marketing.
In order to achieve a fair internet moderation policy, you would have to disclose that you define ‘awareness’ as marketing. I’m uncomfortable with internet moderators fiddling around with the english language to achieve their purposes.
Right. She was spreading awareness about a product sold for profit on DeafRead – without disclosing that CAN was owned by Cochlear Americas.
WTG
I’ve left too for the same reasons.
CAN is owned by Cochlear America? isnt CAN a website that is based out of Australia? We’re talking about Cochlear Access Network right? do a whois check on http://www.c-a-network.com and show me where it says that Cochlear America owns it
err I meant Cochlear Awareness Network, not Access
Tayler, so you’re saying that your decision is based solely on your obligation to your sponsor? This, in essence, was not an ethical decision, but a commercially-driven decision? You’re beholden to your sponsor?
PS, sorry about that, Deaf Law Student. I’ve added your post to my RSS feed.
DeafLaw, welcome to NLAWD, the No Longer Affiliated with DeafRead group, of which I’m a proud, card carrying member. 😉
Tayler’s not making sense in this situation. Why is Jamie Berke’s About.com Deafness Blog still in the DR aggregation system? Isn’t she profiting from the advertising as the About.com guide for that site? What about Amy Cohen Efron and Joey Baer whose site was all about buying Sprint Blackberry’s as recently as last week? Rachel doesn’t profit from anything on her site. She is a volunteer for Cochlear and proceeds from her CafePress.com items she has designed and a book she has co-created are donated to non-profit organizations. So Sprint wants to be the only advertiser on DeafRead? It is. If DR expects all their participants to refrain from any advertising or profit from any source, they can say goodbye to quite a few.
now im confused Taylor, you say please look at “read more here” link that you provided, but that took me to a different website not related to deafread. but if you click on the “publishing guidelines” link that is on the front pafe of deafread, it mentions nothing about the particular rule that youre referring to.
But what the “publishing guidelines” link that is on the front page of deafread does say is,
6) Commerical Sites
We do not link to commerical sites for the purpose of generating profit, other than our own (we have expenses to cover!).
Now you have allowed numerous other blogs that contain advertising that is not Sprint and yet you allow them to continue. I think this is one of the big factors that these people are concerned about, and with valid reason too.
I would have to agree with deaflaw regarding the “fiddling around with the english language to achieve their purposes.” The language is sensitive ground in legal aspects.
There’s a term that should be taken into consideration, Tayler, it is, “protest.” This is not the first blogger to mention this term. A protest is a systematic defiance of an established rule or idea. Protestants protested the Catholic Church, Gallaudet protested the BOT twice, that is the purpose of a protest.
It appears that many bloggers understand your rules and are reacting, in protest, to your decision. Perhaps you feel you should hold your stance, which is perfectly okay; but, be aware that they are protesting your rules, your decision.
Whether you feel you have an obligation to them or not is wholly up to you.
I’m not the one to judge, really, and I won’t.
-Ben
My thoughts exactly deaflaw! I’m adding you to my Google Reader. 🙂
You really are implying that this is a legal issue when you make reference to that famous quote (“then they came for me…”).
You would not say the same thing to a newspaper editor who chose not to print a letter to the editor.
Tayler…permit me to chime in but there are quite a few blogs in Deafread that are owned by members of Hearing Journey, a website wholy sponsored by Advanced Bionics. Mine was one. I won’t name which ones and their posts have been more proactively AB than Rachel’s for CA. And clearly, you have removed my blog because I requested it and also because I called you a few expletives. That means you, or your staff, reads the posts. So, please don’t tell you me didn’t see or you overlooked the pro-AB ones. Bottom line…your actions at worse, are censorship and at best, a blatant exhibition of double standards.
Crying baby, aren’t you?
Deaflaw, that is new information to me. I’ve been following the drama for some time and never knew there was an association between CAN and Cochlear, Inc. Thanks for making it clear to me.
Pretty rich of you Tayler. I agree with deaflaw. You keep moving around constantly changing DR’s policy to fit your hidden agenda in the attempt to justify your actions in order to save face. It’s patently obvious. Why do you think deaflaw left? It’s what you and the editors have done that makes this whole thing an uncomfortable affair. It leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouths. You are reaching….badly. Check your ego at the door and do the right thing.
DM, you can suspect whatever you want. I’m being true to myself and my values. I would not exploit Guidelines for DeafRead’s advantage. That would be truly dumb. I know better than that.
Rachel agreed that the cochlear implant wording of the advertisement is necessarily offensive and it is changed. She is trying to hide her identity Deaf.
I am very scared.
when Rachel called for helping because she threw her the Deafread, she is accusing deafread of discriminating cochlear implant. She never proved to the world she is still deaf without cochlear implant.
Yeah, we *know* you are being true to yourself, Tayler and you made yourself quite transparent in the process, too.
You have exploited the weakness in DeafRead’s guidelines by fudging and adding new “requirements” to suit you and to save face. That’s the difference. Else, people wouldn’t be bailing out of DeafRead right now. That’s a huge red flag waving in your face.
When Rachel called for helping, she threw her the Deafread. (sorry that I was very lousy about grammar.)
DM, it’s quite the opposite. They refuse to see it from my perspective. They refuse to believe it. They refuse to see that I fought for CI blogs’ right to exist on DeafRead. They refuse to see that DeafRead defended Cochlear Implant Online on April 20, 2008.
Um, ever consider the possibility that you are refusing to see from their perspectives on why they don’t agree with your action/decision? This is not about you supporting CI blogs’ right to exist. Again, you exploited the weakness, which is obvious now, in DR’s guidelines without any clear definitions to suit your agenda and to save face based on erroneous reasonings.
Keep digging that hole, Tayler. You’re halfway to China by now.
DM, it has been our policy from the day we added a sponsor. The only mistake here is not being clear in the Guidelines. There is no malicious intent here.
Tayler,
Why in Heaven’s name didn’t you just talk to her first and try to sort it out between yourselves. She would have been happy to put a disclaimer on her site. I doubt she saw a conflict, which is why it wasn’t there to begin with.
I think I can speak on behalf of many people here when I say this. Tayler, what do you don’t get is this. We KNOW you defended CI Online in the past, thats a fact We know that so no need to keep repeating that.
What YOU DO NOT GET is the fact if you have added some new changes to the guidelines, then you need to apply that to ALL of the other blogs that violate the guidelines that you have set forth. not just one, CI Online, if you followed through with that and kicked out ALL of the other blogs that MANY of us see violating your “new” rules and you are doing nothing about that. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ALL PEEVED ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!! We know bullcrap when we see it so dont think you can simply slide this right by most of us.
If you followed through with your words and maintained you what is about to be “so-called” integrity, then you would kick out every single one of the other blogs that are violating your guidelines!!!!!!!!!!! If you had done this, then this whole scenario would not be happening.
BUT WHAT DID YOU DO, YOU KICKED OUT ONE SINGLE BLOG AND LEFT THE REST ALONE!!!!!!
That is the problem, I don’t always agree with the bloggers views, but they do have the right to be heard or in our case, seen.
If you removed them because other readers did not like it, if the blog did not violate the guidelines (in which Rachel’s blog did not violate it the way I see it) then YOU NEED TO TELL THOSE FRIGGIN’ COMPLAINERS TO USE THE CUSTOM FEATURE TO HIDE THE BLOG THAT THEY DONT WANT TO SEE AGAIN!!!!
Its quite simple, but no, you chose to take the more difficult path and that is what is pissing many people off.
So, Tayler, you confessed that.
You failed to treat any of the bloggers equality.
You need to apologize Melissa, Rachel and the Cochlear Online.
I am very disappointed in you, Tayler.
Deaflaw, you might not know this:
http://www.joeybaer.com/?p=141
and
http://www.deafread.com/blogger/57
That is very hurtful situation.
K.L., Rachel was head of her high school newspaper. She knows the code of ethics in journalism. We felt that she misled us for 5 months during which time we published her posts in good faith. It was few days ago that evidence surfaced of her Cochlear Americas affiliation. Adding a disclaimer would not erase this betrayal.
CAN owned?, as soon as we can, we will be addressing the blogs that may fall in the same category as CI Online. But don’t think I will be leading an inquisition. CAN members are welcome on DeafRead as long as they do not blog exclusively about the said product. Give us time. We have a lot of things on our hands at this moment. We are still learning about what it entails to be a CAN member.
B.S. Tayler. That’s a strawman argument you just committed. You are essentially putting all the blame on Rachel while giving yourself plenty of room on not assigning or acknowledge your own fatal errors and undoing in all this. Your guidelines never once stated that a disclaimer is required nor required that bloggers fully disclose their backgrounds, connections or affiliations. Please, do not use this “journalism ethics” crap.
These are bloggers, not journalists in the media trade. Rachel’s trade is to blog about her experiences and others as C.I. users. Nothing overly sinister or complex or deceptive in all this. Neither is her volunteer work. You are making a big deal out of nothing.
Again, Tayler, keep digging that hole.
DM, that is your value. Our view is that CI Online was dishonest. It’s fine if you do not agree.
Taylor,
Now you’re really grasping. Head of her high school newspaper?? Don’t count on a high school kid knowing the “code of ethics.” Anyway blogging doesnt fall under the same codes. She’s not publishing on a professional site. This is so out of hand.
Tayler,
If you are still learning what it means to be a CAN volunteer, why didn’t you just research that first, before kicking her off? And don’t you see a difference between blogging about implants in general and blogging about a specific brand? Because she has not been blogging specifically about Cochlear brand implants.
K.L., the evidence we gathered initially was sufficient. What we’re learning now is strengthening our case.
I understand your perspective. CAN members received training in what not to say and that is to not mention which cochlear brand.
Furthermore I suggest reading this comment. It directly addresses your concern.
it is interesting how K.L takes a stand and speaking up loudly in defense of cochlear implant. This is term cochlear implant without identity Deaf.
Anon,
I imply nothing of the sort. The quote, in my humble opinion, refers to the moral obligation of people to speak up when they see discrimination, oppression and unfair practices. Not all discrimination have legal remedies, even under the ADA (in fact, ESPECIALLY NOT under the ADA).
I’ve only completed a year at a law school, but there is no viable 1st amendment claim here UNLESS sprint was funded by TRS fund and Tyler acted under the directive of Sprint (and i find that unlikely). THEN that would be state action covered under the 1st amendment. Of course, I don’t know much about defamation and/or libel law.
Chris H,
can you clarify your point about Rachel asking for help? She never aked me to leave DeafRead, I did that on my own, a legitimate exercise of free will.
Ronald,
I’m not sure if you are referring to me or other commentors, but I merely wanted to explain my reasons for leaving DeafRead so people who WANT to read my blog know to bookmark or put me on the RSS feed.
Tyler,
I understand that you’re in a tough position, but you really should have given notice to Rachel and requested an explaination. You’re not legally required to, but it’s a matter of principle. Also, being an editor, you have an ethical responsibility far above a blogger (who just discloses her PERSONAL experiences and beliefs). You, not Rachel, must be more transparent and be very CLEAR on what consitutes ‘commercial affilation’ because many of us do not think your interpretation is reasonable.
Just to clarify, I am more than happy to return to DeafRead if Tyler apologizes to Rachel, Melissa and Cochlear Implant Online and revise DeafRead’s policies to ensure CLARITY and provide notice of termination. It is only just.
DeafLaw,
Tayler *must* announce that he needs to apologize Rachel, Melissa and Cochlear Implant Online in OPEN PUBLIC.
So that way the community can heal.
Tayler,
So if I understand this right, since the blog was ONLY about cochlear implant success, it was deemed a commercial site?
The only reason we need to heal is because Rachel acted divisively by accusing DeafRead of discrimination.
He won’t. A case in point in what he said:
“K.L., the evidence we gathered initially was sufficient. What we’re learning now is strengthening our case.”
Strengthening?
Boy. Talk about ego in the works.
K.L., it is early to say. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
1) If the majority of a blog’s posts is product promotion, we would not have subscribed it in the first place.
2) If a blog has a mixture of content, we would ask that in those posts promoting products that it be disclaimed-which will help our Human Editors do their job better and move it to DeafRead Extra.
I never stated that CI Online was commercial. I agree that it is not. Her professional affiliation with Cochlear Amercias fits under that guideline.
I made these statements in this post and in the comments as well.
D.M. what you might interpret as ego is our information gathering to ensure we’re making the right decision.
deaflaw ,can you clarify your point about Rachel asking for help?
“I recently received an email from Rachel Chaikof explaining that her website, Cochlear Implant Online, has been removed from the active list of blogs” From Aaron Cues site.
“I received an e-mail from DeafRead editors saying that Cochlear Implant Online can no longer be on DeafRead simply because I am a Cochlear Awareness Network volunteer member, and they think that my website is a COMMERCIAL website.” From Jodi Cutler Del Dottore site
Tayler
You won’t apologize…..
You are an editor. I won’t visit you blogs at all. I am not impressed with you for doing some bad/ugly things about Sorenson.
And now this.
Sorry Tayler,
I’m still confused. I’m truly trying to understand why Rachel was kicked out, when other CAN volunteers weren’t. Was it because you believe she was promoting implants without being upfront about it?
…and without due process, too.
Figures.
Professional affiliation?
Oy! Even guidelines #6 does not make it clear on that part. Exactly what deaflaw was trying to say here.
Keep digging, Tayler.
White Ghost, what I do with Sorenson is separate from my DeafRead role.
K.L.,
check my reply to “CAN owned?”
CI Online did not obviously disclose their Cochlear Awareness Network (CAN) membership, and more importantly, that CAN is owned by Cochlear Americas. Rachel’s manager is a paid employee of CAN.
DM, don’t be coy. Deaflaw and yourself understand the implications of that guidelines and what it represents in meaning. Deaflaw being a law student knows that no law is black and white. It is interpreted. I know because I survived as a law school spouse.
Tayler,
I don’t dispute that CAN is owned by Cochlear Corp. I just want to understand the difference between her blog and the blogs of other CAN volunteers, or AB volunteers who haven’t disclosed their affiliation.
Tayler
I don’t care what you said.
It’s about you for being a good role model as an editor in this v/blogosphere. Sadly, you are not.
Accuse, accuse, accuse and go on like that.
White Ghost, if you don’t care what I say, then what good is it to reply?
White Ghost
I don’t care what you said.
You need to show your good role model as a commentitor.
Nice try, guys.
Many commenters are complaining and upsetting, perhaps, protesting right now. I am not the only one.
Bloggers, too. They are growing.
I am not editor.
K.L., when she was accused of having hidden affiliations back in January, it was then denied. Moreover majority of her posts violated guidelines. I haven’t taken a look at other blogs, but I am giving them the benefit of doubt and think that most, if not all, have a good mixture of post content.
Even though with CI blogs’ reputation, I will try my best to screen each accordingly and fairly and defend them before the entire DeafRead community.
Tayler, your guidelines were never clear that bloggers must,
A) disclose their affiliations, even if it’s volunteering or however tenuous it may be.
Plus, #6 guidelines made no mention nor did it define “professional relationships,” “professional affiliations,” “commercialization aspects via volunteering, for example,” “employment status” and so on. And when one says “hidden affiliations” it implies on the order somebody makes a personal profit out it on both ends. Again, no definition on “hidden affiliations,” either.
All this is is a witch hunt right now to save face.
And lastly, again, YOU proceeded with out giving Rachel due process and never a fair warning. You simply jumped the gun as they say.
As for your so called “survival” as a “law school spouse” is supposed to mean something to us? I know more about the laws and have the experiences than you’d think but so what? It’s kind of like you trying to prove that you’re not racist by saying you used to have an Indian friend.
Deaflaw made a very salient point:
“..revise(s) DeafRead’s policies to ensure CLARITY..”
I made that admission here on this blog and over at CI Online on June 3, 2008 @ 1:07 pm at Comment 22.
Was this overlooked? If so, was it intentional?
I can understand trying to twist and nitpick at anything just to get a decision overturned to explain this behavior. I was upfront about clarifying the guidelines EARLY ON and what has resulted? It’s as if I never said it.
Tyler,
there is a consitutional doctrine called, “impermissibly vague” restrictions. I’m baffled that you, as a spouse of a law student, would not know this! (I’m being sarcastic 🙂 ). This doctrine prohibits any restrictions on free speech that is not specific enough that a person of reasonable intelligence would not know what to do. Of course, I know this is not an first amendment claim, but my point is that your policies ARE impermissibly vague and it is possible for a phrase to be so vague that it exceeds the possibility of a reasonably uniform interpretation. After all, people need to know what the rules are to follow them!
as per your admissions on this blog and on Rachel’s blog, you say that: “It’s when they promote those products in entries that we cannot allow. This is written in our agreement with our sponsor. That’s why we’ve allowed all those articles from i711, a direct Sprint Relay competitor, in which i711 authors did not specifically market their products. Cochlear Implant Online violated this for all those months because Rachel didn’t reveal her affiliation with the Cochlear Awareness Network, whose purpose is to promote Cochlear Americas products.”
Well there are TWO problems with this:
1. you did not disclose this BEFORE you kicked Cochlear Implant Online off DeafRead.
2. even if you are disclosing it NOW, future bloggers are still confronted with the vague term of “commercial website” or promoting a specific product…
ChrisH,
I actually recieved that email as well, but Rachel only said that she was fustrated, upset and wanted us to know so we would not rely on DeafRead to keep up with her blogging.
Also, her deaf identity (or lack thereof, according to you) has nothing to do with anything pertaining to this issue. It is NOT up to YOU or the EDITORS to decide who is “deaf” enough for DeafRead.
Tayler,
Thank you for clarifying. I still think you overreacted, and could have handled this whole thing by simply telling her of your concerns, and letting her know that you required her to disclose her volunteer work with CAN on her blog site’s main page. I truly don’t think she deceived you intentionally. I also don’t think she is trying to be a marketing agent for Cochlear Corp.
I understand that many ASL Deaf were against her blog, and I can understand why. But it has come across as DeafRead pandering to ASL Deaf by removing her blog, not DeafRead taking the high road over deceptive practices. I am very disappointed in your actions.
🙂
Whether it is “impermissibly vague” will need to be settled in court then.
K.L., what have I done to lead you to think we’re pandering to the “ASL Deaf”? I previously defended her blog, and all CI blogs’ right to exist on DeafRead much to the opposition of the “ASL Deaf”. I know I made several enemies because of this, but not to matter because I stood for what I believed. Same with this situation.
It is no secret that of all the CI type blogs, CI Online was the strongest advocate of AVT, without any ASL leanings. It is also no secret that this annoyed a lot of people. It isn’t what you did, but who you did it to that leaves a bad taste. Between the fact that her “deception” is not nearly as clear cut as you would like us to believe, and her unpopularity with a segment of DeafRead, it is easy to believe that she was removed to appease a certain portion of the readership.
deaflaw
“She never asked me to leave DeafRead”
” I actually received that email as well”
I can see that you are different story.
1. you did not disclose this BEFORE you kicked Rachel (not Cochlear Implant Online) off DeafRead.
Rachel blocks me to leave comment her blog. Does it violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech?
K.L “I understand that many ASL Deaf were against her blog. ”
I see many only English Deaf and CI were against bilingual user and Deaf culture.
In other words, Tayler thinks his guidelines and definitions are crystal clear that even the average person of reasonable intelligent would know exactly those guideline means and what’s required of bloggers to do?
*shakes head*
deaflaw,
everything would’ve been alright and still within Tayler’s right ban a link based on his guidelines but the real door knocker here is that he, according to what Rachel, et al, have been saying, has publicly defamed and libeled Rachel. And now people are thinking that see received compensations or payments from CAN for her blogging efforts on promoting them which Tayler say benefited Cochlear Americas immensely (CA runs CAN if I’m not mistakened). The pandora box literally opened the moment he made his voice known publicly on the internet.
Taylor, I know that DR is your “baby” and its a project that you should be extremely proud of and I totally respect you for what you have done with it….up until now.
Now this is going to get a little lengthy in order for me to state my points why I think you recent actions are wrong.
If you go to the front page and click on the “publishing guidelines” link, these rules are what comes up.
1) Deaf Related Posts
The entry must pertain to the deaf community and culture. The blogger being deaf or the vlog being in ASL is not enough to qualify. For example, let’s say a blogger decides to do a film review of “Forrest Gump”, it will not be posted because it is not deaf-related. However, if the blogger were to do a review of the availability of captions/subtitles in the “Extra Features” section of the ‘Forrest Gump’ DVD, that would be acceptable. Also, say a blogger initally writes about something deaf-related then goes off on a tangent and remarks about how the movie is rated. This would be fine. In short, it needs to pertain to the deaf community no matter who makes the blog/vlog entry.
2) Adult Material
There cannot be anything on your post that could be objectionable to parents of children under 18 years of age. This includes nudity, vulgarity, grotesque photos (i.e. a photo or video of Richard Pearle). Acceptable cuss words would be anything that is allowed to be on network TV at primetime.
3) Pastes or Re-posts
For example, if someone wants to paste an entire article from the New York Times on their blog site, it won’t be posted on DeafRead. However, it is accepted practice to paste a few relevant excerpts and, at the bottom, link to the article. We strongly recommend properly citing sources.
4) Bad or Non-working Links
If the website in question does not load properly or it requires registration it is skipped. E-mail us if the website was fixed to inform us and we will review it again.
5) Repeats
If there are ten articles about Marlee Matlin doing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl, we will post only one or two articles. In the Matlin example, there were more than 10 articles from various publications across the country.
6) Commerical Sites
We do not link to commerical sites for the purpose of generating profit, other than our own (we have expenses to cover!).
7) Photo Albums and Local Interests
We generally skip over photo albums and scores from sporting events (i.e. CSDR boys basketball plays Fremont and wins 99-98 and there are 20 photos of the event) because we feel that it has a local interest, meaning it is something for the local community to view. DeafRead is a worldwide website with viewers from all over the globe. Comparably, USA Today does not publish photos of a NBA game invloving your local team unless there was a melee that generates nationwide interest.
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.
The problem here is that in your official blog, you put in a link for rules which were the following.
1. Check your facts: technology makes it incredibly easy to produce and share content nowadays. The result is that information is spreading like fire through social networks, bookmarking sites and blogs. Unfortunately we are talking about both correct and incorrect information. Make sure to check your facts before publishing posts or articles, else you might not only look dumb, but also misinform and damage other people.
2. Respect Copyright Law: people wrongly associate online content with public domain content. Did you know that every published material is copyrighted even if it does not show a copyright notice? More importantly, even if you remove the copyrighted content after the author contacts you the copyright infringement will still exist. Learn the basics of the Copyright Law to avoid costly mistakes (you can read more about it on the article “12 Do’s and Dont’s of the Copyright Law”).
3. Consider the implications: as mentioned before information on the Internet spreads like fire. Consider the implications of what you write, and remember that once you hit “Publish” you will immediately lose control over those words. The Kathy Sierra case is a good example, maybe what was supposed to be a joke (even if a quite harsh one) ended up damaging her career and arousing a discussion on the whole blogosphere.
4. Control the comments: anything that is published on your blog is your responsibility; that means that you should control not only the information that you include on the posts and articles but also what your readers add through the comments. First of all you could create a comment policy and attach a link to the comment form. This will ensure that readers are aware of what they can and can not say in a comment. You can check an example of a comment policy on Problogger.net.
5. Give credit where credit is due: always reference your sources. If you do not want to mention an external website on your content just add a link at the end of the post saying “Via: Reference.com”. This practice is not only important under an ethical point of view, but it also ensures that readers can eventually dig to the root of the facts. Secondly even if you are using free templates or open source software like WordPress make sure to credit the authors.
6. Disclose professional relationships: if you work for a company or institution disclose it on the “About” page. Explicitly declare that the views expressed on the blog are yours and not the ones from your employer (unless you are blogging for that employer, obviously). A good example of such disclosure can be seen on TechCrunch. Check the bottom of the “About” page and you will see that Michael Arrington discloses all the companies that he participates or has invested in.
7. Disclose sponsored posts: sponsored reviews represent an efficient way for advertisers to build buzz and for bloggers to earn money. It is essential, however, that you make your position regarding those posts transparent in front of your readers. First of all you can insert a disclosure notice at the end of the sponsored post. Secondly you can create a dedicated page on your blog outlining how sponsored reviews will be treated and what the readers should expect from them.
8. Be transparent with affiliate links: many affiliate marketers use techniques like “link cloaking” so that readers are not able to identify affiliate links. While this method might increase your revenues on the short term it will probably be a bad idea over the long run. A deceived visitor is a lost visitor. Focus and on creating value for the reader and you will not even need to hide your affiliate links; if people believe in your work they will certainly accept your recommendations for products.
9. Respect Tax Law: bloggers and webmasters tend to equate online money with tax-free. Under the U.S. Law any income you make is taxable. If you win money playing online poker you will need to pay taxes. If you earn money through donations on your site you will need to pay taxes. The key factor is whether your blog is a hobby or a business. There is no definitive answer for this question, but a good starting point is whether your earnings are higher than your expenses. Do not forget to take into consideration the contributing writers as well. If you pay them more than $600 yearly you will need to file a 1099 form. You can read more about the Tax Law on the IRS website.
10. Avoid “blackhat” methods: there will always be people trying to game the system, trying to find the shortcuts. Guess what, there are no shortcuts. If you want to make your blog or website popular or profitable just work hard and the results will come. What is more important, the results from hard work are solid, they will not vanish over night. By “blackhat” methods we mean trying to cheat social bookmarking sites (i.e. buying Diggs), trying to cheat search engines (i.e. hiding text behind images) and the like. Those methods certainly will bring some benefits, but they are not sustainable. It is like building a sand castle, sooner or later the sea will catch up with you (if you are looking for some “whitehat” methods read the article “25 Tips to Optimize your Blog“).
What I dont get is that you say rule number 6 is what Rachel violated. Those rules from the second set of rules listed above is from a completely different website that has absolutely nothing to do with DeafRead itself.
This is the equivalency of ahhh lets say for example, you get caught for stealing a peice of gum from a store, I decide to ignore the laws of your area and I look up a law from the Middle East that allows for capital punishment and allows me to cut off you hand for seatling that peice a gum, an action that would never be allowed in the USA.
Whatever rules you impose, you have the right to do that and I totally respect that, but the problem here is that you did not list the rule of “disclose professional relationship” in the rules listed within your own publishing guidelines that has the link right on the the front page of DeafRead. If you had this rule in there all along, then you would not be having this problem.
Now that I am seeing that you are being a stickler for rules, I am looking at your own rules within the publishing guidelines, especially this rule.
6) Commerical Sites
We do not link to commerical sites for the purpose of generating profit, other than our own (we have expenses to cover!).
This is basically what you kicked Rachel out for. There are numerous other websites that have advertising links whose purpose is generating profit, such as amazon etc.
Now you say that you need more time to do that, that isnt hard to do, all you have to do is click on the blogs link where you go through all the blogs one at a time where you can quickly scroll down thru the page and if you see an advertising (that isnt Sprint, based on your rules) you should quickly delete it.
If you are emailing those bloggers with advertisements first to warn them to take it off or theyll get deleted from DeafRead which is why you need more time, then that is a due process that youre allowing for them, but you didnt seem to do that for Rachel.
So don’t try to tell me that we don’t see it from your perspective. I am not going to listen to others that try to say that this is an ASL vs CI thing, but that is not the case. If I had to label this as a “vs.” something, then “tayler vs. the world” would probably be the most appropriate one.
We can see that you are trying to “have your cake and eat it” and this is what is bothering most of us. If you can make up rules, we can respect that, but you also need to enforce the rules equally too and once you do that problem is solved and people will no longer feel resentful.
Taylor, in addition to my most recent comment, when you say…
“The only reason we need to heal is because Rachel acted divisively by accusing DeafRead of discrimination.”
The reality is that she was indeed discriminated!!!!!! You are not enforcing your rules equally. Take a moment to think about it and put yourself in her shoes, you would be crying out discrimination too.
K.L., I more closely identify with the “ASL Deaf” (that sounds like deaf militants which I am not) because I use ASL and cannot speak. Imagine what I had gone through when I defended CI blogs. I think this shows rare virtue.
DM, funny you should mention that. By e-mailing her friends to check her post accusing DeafRead of discrimination, she carried out acts of defamation and libel. She acted to damage DeafRead’s name before I spoke publicly about her blog. I had the full intention to keep it between her and I, and it was her choosing to make it public, starting with false accusations.
CAN owned?, it’s not tayler vs the world. I’ve received words of support in private. It was an unanimous decision by the DeafRead team.
Please read above about our plans to enforce this equally on all blogs. We do not have the resources you think we have. This goes for non-CI blogs as well. I mean well when I say all.
It will not be easy. As hard as it is to judge posts individually, it will a challenge to do this on a per blog basis.
Tayler,
I have not ever said you were against CIs. Just that your removal of her blog came across that way. Even if you fully believed her to have been deceptive, you should have talked to her BEFORE you removed her blog. What did you expect her to do when you blocked her site without even discussing it with her first? Even if you went through with the block, common courtesy alone says you tell her about it before you do that to her.
Tayler ok I will give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you will apply the rules to ALL, but you should make that top priority and do it ASAP so we can see that youre enforcing your rules equally and be sure to include the new rules into your publishing guidelines inside of deafread as well.
K.L., thank you. I will keep that in mind.
CAN owned?, I leave for Ohio for a weekend wedding tomorrow. There are other sites I run, and clients that I have (4 of them currently). Even I am not able to at least squirrel away enough for retirement. The human editors are unable to devote a full-time role because of varying reasons (full-time jobs etc). With that said, I hope this will be accepted in goodwill: we’ll do our best!
Discrimination and discriminatory practices are two different things but do cover many of the same veins. But I know where you’re getting at though to discriminate is to see the differences and a person acts upon it. Editors do this all the time making decisions based on guidelines.
Rachel may have very well spoken out but it was you who banned her blogsite without any prior warning before making a final decision and without contacting her. Using #6 guidelines was not sufficient or even grounds to ban her (in her eyes and many people) due to the lack of clarity. I wouldn’t be surprised if blogger gets a banishment notice based on something unclear and get into a rant mode on his or her blogsite.
And for the record, what false accusations would that be that Rachel accused you of? Remember, you have also produced accusations publicly about Rachel such as exclaiming that she was purposely deceiving people. She wears a CI. So what. We all know that. She likes to talk about her experiences. So what. She mentions or talks about cochlear implant companies. So what, she wears cochlear implants! She volunteers her own time w/o pay with CAN. So what. Cochlear Americas runs CAN, and again, so what. In what Rachel has done in terms of any affiliations (which was entirely a volunteering effort) and such never even so much raise an eyebrow of mine or to many others. Except for you, of course.
Your whole idea about unity is flawed. Whether Tayler has implemented a double standard is one thing, whether he should be allowed to have a metablog that serves culturally Deaf people is another.
There is nothing at all wrong about operating a metablog that serves culturally Deaf people. If you think that Tayler is morally obligated to unify all people who have hearing losses, then you are just flat wrong, and in fact YOU are the person that is being immoral. The purpose of the Internet is to allow like minded people to get together and share views. It’s none of your business if a certain group of like-minded people wants to get together without you or anyone else.
Period.
Taylor, enjoy the weekend and the wedding, and indeed your comments are accepted in goodwill.
Anon,
Just because YOU do not want unity doesn’t mean Tyler or DeafRead rejects the idea of a more inclusive Deaf community.
I’m quoting DeafRead’s goals
“Blogs are based on the concept that people can write openly and freely about their thoughts and opinions. A DeafRead visitor should be able to see the varying perspectives Deaf and Hard of Hearing people have on deaf-related issues, highlighting each individual’s uniqueness. ”
Therefore, DeafRead should at least try to live up to these goals.
ChrisH,
I’m sorry but I explicitly said that Rachel’s email did NOT ask for help, all she did was state the facts and her opinions about these facts. How is that changing my story.
The issue here is that DeafRead purports to allow all viewpoints to be represented, Rachel’s blog purports no such thing. Also, I wonder what you said to Rachel to make her block you because I’ve seen some of the comments that she lets through and these comments are pretty vindictive.
Tyler,
If you do enforce your policies and explicitly reword your policies to improve clarity, i only think it is fair to let Rachel come back on as long as she complies.
Even if we take your word for your “mystery evidence” that Rachel receives compensation and/or promotes Cochlear Inc.’s products – it was so subtle that MOST people missed it. There are other blogs/vlogs who endorse a particular products BLATANTLY, which leads me to believe that your personal feelings about CIs colored your judgment (after all, you are human).
deaflaw
Rachel sent emails to CI bloggers and you as if she needs to take pay attention to discrimination cochlear implant.
When I don’t agree with her all time, I have a right to leave comment her blog. I don’t often visit and make comment in her blog.
I don’t see Rachel responses to anonymous and for reason that she has a right to delete comment from anonymous attacker.
She never tells me that she suddenly blocked me her blog without warning. I am frustrated.
Are you CI or hearing aids user?
Chris H,
I sympathize with your frustration, but it is rachel’s blog and she can moderate her comments as she pleases because the blog is a reflection of HER views. I think you should just email her and see what was so offensive in your comments and try to remedy that without changing our message.
I am a CI user, but I am also an ASL user. However, these two things do not DEFINE me. I am perfectly comfortable with my Deaf identity. Just see my first post in this blog.
Deaflaw, you shouldn’t leave Deafread. I agree with you. Rachel should add moderate her blog.
I don’t need to talk with Rachel.
I have to respect your choice cochlear implant.
I am honesty with you that I don’t understand between Rachel and Tyler.
Im’ chiiming in – last but not least.
I am a CAN volunteer. I have not disclosed it on my about page. I have mentioned it several times in my blog. I am still on Deafread (although not for long).
Yes – CAN (cochlear corp) gives us training. But it’s not what to do or say. The training we are given is to make us more confident in giving our story – presentation training. How to talk to an audience. We are also given help on how to asnwer questions – in ay audience they will ask questions like how is a cochlear implant made, how long does it take, etc… so we are given this information to make sure we can inform people correctly.
We aren’t told what NOT to say. We tell our own story – so Taylor – you are dead wrong about that. Our own story is our life – what it was like for me, growing up deaf in NZ, and then what the implant did for me.
Raising awareness of cochlear implants and deafness, is simply educational, it is not ‘marketing’ a certain brand. In fact, I don’t think I even mention brands unless I’m asked, although in New Zealand, one can only get Cochlear Corp’s implants as the other two companies are not here.
However, Taylor, you’ve taken Rachel off DR in error. She’s a volunteer. she doesn’t profit from Cochlear, like I don’t profit from Cochlear. At all. Yes Cochlear did replace my failed implant, but even if they hadn’t, I would have still being reimplanted for free by our government. It was simply a nice gesture from Cochlear to do so.
I still don’t profit from that gift, because I can’t exactly sell it LOL
I would like to see you admit that you made an error, and apologise, OR boot all CAN, AB volunteers, and anyone with a professional affiliation on DR. Be consistent.
I fail to see how Sprint and Cochlear are competeitive thos – two completely different markets.
Cheers
Robyn
I forgot to say deaflaw – you have been on my google readerfor some time, so if you’re not on Deafread, I’ll still be watching your blog with interest.
Cheers
Robyn
Tayler,
I would like clarification on this statement.
What reputation?
Are CI blogs the only ones being screened?
“Even though with CI blogs’ reputation, I will try my best to screen each accordingly and fairly and defend them before the entire DeafRead community.”
Roby, it sounds like to me that cochlear implants sell to the Deaf community.
ChrisH,
Cochlear implants are sold to anyone who qualify for it, this includes deaf and Deaf people. There are more deaf people than there are Deaf people so companies do not market their cochlear implants only to the Deaf community but to anyone who may be interested in getting one.
Deaf Law,
You may want to go check out Paotie’s announcement:
http://www.paotie.tv/
So, does this mean that as a contracted employee of Hands On, that my blog will no longer be on DeafRead too?
K.L , this is perfect for you to move to the deaf aggregator blogger. This isn’t me.
• a definition of the Deaf community
• a definition of Deaf culture
• a Deaf community view on cochlear implants
• the National Association of the Deaf position paper on cochlear implants
http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/KidsWorldDeafNet/e-docs/CI/ModuleL.html
My favorite is above site.
ChrisH,
This does not mean we are moving. It is ok to be on both. As a blogsite that promotes both cochlear implants AND American Sign Language, we are truly trying to bring together the best of both worlds. Please do not for any second think that YOU have the right to define who gets to be in Deaf Culture. Please learn some tolerance.
K.L, I always promote both Deaf AND American Sign Language, but I don’t see hearing aids users will promotes both hearing aids and American Sign Language. You almost forget your daughter is always Deaf without cochlear implant.
You blame on ASL Deaf are against cochlear implants without Deaf human.
You almost never listen to ASL user community who don’t like their oral. They have the right to remove their speech. You have nothing to do with ASL users.
Good bye to you
Chris H,
please be more tolerant or i WILL block you from this website – constantly trying to shift the issue to Deaf identity politics is inappropiate. this post was NOT about Deaf identity – it was about how DeafRead is not promoting unity.
I will not speak for others here, but I suspect they will share my sentiments. We are trying to find a common ground where the term “Deaf” can evolve and maintain its cultural integrity even as technology restoring hearing improves.
You have nothing to do with me either because I support both CIs and ASL and believe that they can work together in some instances.
if you choose to comment now on, please respect others’ viewpoints or not speak at all.
Chris H,
For Pete’s sake, get off your high horse. It doesn’t make you look good.
Abbie,
DR editors will be checking other blogs, including ASL blogs, too.
Tayler says “Awareness can be seen as marketing.”
Does this mean that because I am a Cochlear recipient and blog about my experiences with a Cochlear branded implant, I’m creating awareness to what type of experience someone might have with a Cochlear brand CI? Is it required that I also blog about Advanced Bionics so not to show favoritism or direct “marketing” of a specific brand? Or maybe I’ll be required to have a ‘guest blogger’ who uses a different brand of CI, or various different brands of HA’s or even BAHA so not to show a direct preference for Cochlear, even though thats the only brand I have any *experience* with?
Does this mean when I write about my experiences using a Motorola brand cell phone, I must also include other types of cell phones, as well, so not to show favoritism?
or is it simply a case of not mentioning any BRANDS at all, lest anyone be accused of marketing or creating “awareness” of something?
Heck I was going to write about my experiences with MagicJack but now I guess I can’t because that would create awareness in those who haven’t heard of it before, and we can’t have that can we???
Slippery slope indeed!
Er, why is this entire thread about Deaf vs CI and even goes way off the point into legal stuff, when it need not (I even say this as a lawyer). This is a blogging issue.
Mainstream blogs always require disclosure, especially when there might be a conflict of interest or something happening in the background where there might be an influence over what someone writes or does not. If mainstream bloggers breach this, then they get pulled up on it.
For me, a simple disclosure statement would have sufficed.
Ultimately its about integrity of writing, and not to disclose when there’s significant factors influencing writing. The problem with deaf blogosphere it does not adapt many of the mainstream rules of blogging because it exists within a bubble.
And for the record, I’ve had my own problems with DeafRead, including how it influences blogging but I think the lack of disclosure stance is an issue in itself.
Sorry, you have a false concept of unity. In order to have any kind of unity among deaf and Deaf people, then there has to be a home for Deaf people to gather.
There’s different levels of unity. You want to push a fake kind of unity which has the effect of destroying Deaf unity.
Pingback: Deaf Village
Pingback: Cochlear Implant Online