Did you know that we are being spied on?!? My blog isn't listed (yet) but some of my comments on friends' blogs have been featured, and several of you my regular readers ARE listed.
I couldn't care less whether you include it or not, but I do question what your motivation is. Why do you feel the need to consolidate the blogs of people you don't know under the heading "church blogs" when they have nothing to do with the church other than that they are written by church members? Yes, they are publicly available websites, but is it really important for strangers to know that my kids played in the snow or that they have kidney problems?
Jen, My motivation was a love for my brothers and sisters in Christ and an interest in what they want to share publicly on their blogs about their lives and how God is guiding and providing for them. However, I can read all of these blogs without displaying them on my webpage, but I thought others may be interested as well, so, as I state on the webpage in question, I provided this as a service to others: "Some of you may find this useful for your blog reading activities. Others may find it informative to see what type of blogging activity is occurring." If you feel it important enough to share on your publicly available blog that your "kids played in the snow or that they had kidney problems," then there may be others who are interested enough to share in your joys or to pray for your family.
Anonymous 1,2, and 3, How was it exploitation or inappropriate or inconsiderate or unethical or unChristian (some extremely serious accusations) to share what others have made publicly available? Public blogs and webpages are availble for the public to read. Do you know everyone who reads your blog, or views it via the publicly available RSS feed? I would guess not, even if my webpage was not available.
Obviously, I have caused offense, and I apologize. Please forgive me.
I have to disagree slightly with Anonymous 1 & 2 just because the nature of blogs is that they are a public forum, but I totally and whole heartedly dissagree with anonymous 3. To say that it is "unChristian" to reproduce information is quite crazy and I don't understand what the anonymous person is saying. I mean, literally, please provide Bible verses that support your claim.
It is my understanding that the whole of the New Testament is all about God judging what is in our heart. Remember what Mathew says? (Mat 5:28) "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." This is the higher calling that Christ-followers are to strive for. It is not good enough to simply not fornicate, we must not even fantasize. Now, you might be wondering where I am going with this. :) What I am saying is that while you may not like the action Mike took, you should not judge him soley on his actions, because you do not know his heart. It appears to me that he did this in innocence, and that his heart was in the right place. He did not do this to hurt anyone or to cause discomfort.
In the same way, I'm sure that the anonymous people did not mean to hurt or degrade Mike, but in fact they did, and so far, Mike is the only one I've seen apologize for a percieved offense.
Now I must ask, what is more "unChristian," to do something in innocence and be wrong, or to judge someone you do not know and deem them unethical, unChristain, and to call them names? (see FBI comment)
Now, it could be said that my response is unChristian and to "reprimand" a person in public without first going to them in private is wrong. (you know the story, then if they don't change, approach them with 1 or 2 brothers to see if they change, and then if they still don't change, bring the issue before the church or public.) The only problem is that the person left an ANONYMOUS comment and I have no way of knowing who I am talking to. So, if this post causes offense to that 3rd person, I apologize, but I will dare to say that you brought this upon yourself.
Ok, now, I do agree with Jen, that if you do not KNOW your blog is being posted elseware, it can seem like somewhat of an invasion, so I would suggest that maybe Mike should send an email to each new blog he finds and tell them that he would like to put a feed on his website and to ask their permission. That doesn't seem too hard or time consuming so I don't think it would cause an undue burden. That being said, I would also like to say that blogspot.com has an option to turn off RSS feeds so that no one, no where can get a live feed when your website is updated. I know I turned my wife's off for that exact reason. And finally, we all know the risk we take in posting information on the internet. There is a chance that there is a stalker/kidnapper/murderer/rapist down the street who has our blogs on his favorites and is stalking us. In my opinoin, we should be worrying about that scenerio more and less about this one.
Thank you for reading my "soapbox" speech, I know it was long. -Michael A.
When I found your site, I had two issues that concerned me. First, these blogs were listed as "church blogs." I didn't take the time to read all of the blogs you have linked, but I would think that most of them do not have any information or commentary about the church, positive or negative, that would qualify them as "church blogs."
My second objection is that the actual posts and comments are viewable. Many people, myself included, have links to friends' sites, but don't recreate the posts. In my opinion, this gives a buffer to respect the privacy of my friends.
I know my blog is public and that there is likely an occasional stranger or friend of a friend surfing links who stumbles upon it. But I expect my primary audience to be people I know personally, and I think most others would agree.
Jen, Thanks for the more detailed explanation. The title "Church Blogs" was simply a short heading, trying to convey what all of the blogs had in common, which I tried to explain in more detail in the opening paragraph on the webpage. Once again, I apologize if this caused confusion or concern.
Regarding your second point, I understand and appreciate your desire for privacy and your respect of your friends' privacy. However, the Internet is a very public place (even if it is large and you feel like you maintain privacy by obscurity), and it would do us all good to recognize this, so I would encourage anyone with a similar concern to make their blogs private, and invite only their friends to view them.
I find it interesting that in the last day, I have had numerous people come to my site from your blog link. I think it was far more than my webpage ever directed to a blog in a similar timeframe. It appears that your blog, and most likely the blogs of your friends, gets far more traffic than my website, so I'm not sure I had that big of an impact on anyone's privacy.
Hello - I'm anonymous #1, signed as Mom (Jen's mom). Thanks to all for the various explanations. I, too, will express an opinion and try to explain my comment. To go to people's blog pages and read them is one thing, but I think to republish the blogs and blog comments without the writers' knowlege or permission seems inconsiderate, or as Michael A. said, somewhat invasive. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I wonder if Mike would appreciate having the above comments republished on his own website or someone's church website without his knowlege or consent for who-knows-who to see(?). I agree with Michael A.,(who btw, is just as anonymous as the other anonymouses - just being honest here)that an e-mail asking permission would be appropriate. I would also imagine that there are bloggers who have no idea what an RSS feed is. Though blogs are "public", realistically I think bloggers expect that it's their close friends who know them well and understand them that will be reading their blog regularly. Yes, it can be interesting and informative reading, especially knowing all these people are from our church, but I also think it has been a real embarrassment to a lot of people when they've found their blog/comments have been republished on a church website for other church people to see without their consent. I think they do feel their blog has been exploited. That includes one of my other daughters, who then switched to a private blog site. I hope this explains why I used the words exploitation, inappropriate and inconsiderate. And I apologize, too, for any hurt feelings my words caused. I do love you, Mike and Monica.
Cathy, Thanks for your comments. I feel they deserve a response, and I will try to do it point by point.
My comments are already available on this blog "for who-knows-who to see", so I would not have a problem if they were also displayed somewhere else. (This is not an invitation to manipulate my comments and take them out of context.) I don't believe I have said anything that I should be ashamed or embarrassed of, or should want to hide. (If I wanted to hide them, I would not have said them on a publicly available blog.)
Unless I am mistaken, Michael A is not anonymous to me.
If bloggers use a blogging service which provides RSS feeds, then they need to know what an RSS feed is, and how it can be used. That is part of being a good steward and a good witness.
Other church people can see public blogs and comments without viewing them on my webpage. If they have been an embarrassment on my webpage, why were they not an embarrassment when published on the source blog? As I said previously, I think many of these blogs get more visitors than my webpage, so I don't think my webpage opened them up for too much more embarrassment.
The general definition of exploitation typically includes the concept of financial gain. There is no gain involved in me provided the blog digest for others.
If your other daughter felt a need to maintain her privacy, then I commend her decision to switch to a private blog. That decision should have nothing to do with whether her blog content is displayed on my webpage. As I said already, there may well have been more people who viewed her content directly on her blog than on my webpage.
An example just occurred to me. I say this just as an example, not to condemn or justify, and not to provoke argument, but rather to provoke thought:
I have been reprimanded for using other people's content without permission, even though it is provided in a publicly available RSS feed. I would like to ask the bloggers who display YouTube videos in their blog posts: Did you ask permission from the person who posted it on YouTube?
Interesting what happens with open communication. :)
I apologize for my anonymity, but I am a somewhat private person and I do not like to put my full name out there for the whole world to read & google & then map a road to my house. That being said, I knew that Jen & Mike would most likely put two and two together and that they would know who I was. I have a history with Mike, a friendship with Jen, & a wife who loves to blog. :)
Also, Cathy, I apologize to you specifically if you thought my anonymous comment was directed at you in the earlier post. If any of us wanted to do the research, we could have called up Jen and simply asked her who "mom" was and been able to talk to you directly. I was not commenting on the way you signed your post, I was, rather, commenting on the two people who did not make themselves known in such a way that even the blog host (Jen) would have known who they were.
And so, my post comes to a close and I will again sign it with somewhat of an enigma. My wife thinks I'm paranoid, but I say that I am only being realistic. There will always be bad people that want to do good people harm...sad, but true.
14 comments:
If you would like your blog to be included, just let me know. Or if any of your friends would like their blogs removed, just have them let me know.
Mike
I couldn't care less whether you include it or not, but I do question what your motivation is. Why do you feel the need to consolidate the blogs of people you don't know under the heading "church blogs" when they have nothing to do with the church other than that they are written by church members? Yes, they are publicly available websites, but is it really important for strangers to know that my kids played in the snow or that they have kidney problems?
Jen,
I have to agree. I consider it a form of exploitation. And most people have no idea it's happening to them. Inappropriate. Inconsiderate.
Mom
I have to agree here as well...it seems inappropriate.
Jen,
My motivation was a love for my brothers and sisters in Christ and an interest in what they want to share publicly on their blogs about their lives and how God is guiding and providing for them. However, I can read all of these blogs without displaying them on my webpage, but I thought others may be interested as well, so, as I state on the webpage in question, I provided this as a service to others: "Some of you may find this useful for your blog reading activities. Others may find it informative to see what type of blogging activity is occurring." If you feel it important enough to share on your publicly available blog that your "kids played in the snow or that they had kidney problems," then there may be others who are interested enough to share in your joys or to pray for your family.
Anonymous 1,2, and 3,
How was it exploitation or inappropriate or inconsiderate or unethical or unChristian (some extremely serious accusations) to share what others have made publicly available? Public blogs and webpages are availble for the public to read. Do you know everyone who reads your blog, or views it via the publicly available RSS feed? I would guess not, even if my webpage was not available.
Obviously, I have caused offense, and I apologize. Please forgive me.
Thanks for the feedback,
Mike
I have to disagree slightly with Anonymous 1 & 2 just because the nature of blogs is that they are a public forum, but I totally and whole heartedly dissagree with anonymous 3. To say that it is "unChristian" to reproduce information is quite crazy and I don't understand what the anonymous person is saying. I mean, literally, please provide Bible verses that support your claim.
It is my understanding that the whole of the New Testament is all about God judging what is in our heart. Remember what Mathew says? (Mat 5:28) "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." This is the higher calling that Christ-followers are to strive for. It is not good enough to simply not fornicate, we must not even fantasize. Now, you might be wondering where I am going with this. :) What I am saying is that while you may not like the action Mike took, you should not judge him soley on his actions, because you do not know his heart. It appears to me that he did this in innocence, and that his heart was in the right place. He did not do this to hurt anyone or to cause discomfort.
In the same way, I'm sure that the anonymous people did not mean to hurt or degrade Mike, but in fact they did, and so far, Mike is the only one I've seen apologize for a percieved offense.
Now I must ask, what is more "unChristian," to do something in innocence and be wrong, or to judge someone you do not know and deem them unethical, unChristain, and to call them names? (see FBI comment)
Now, it could be said that my response is unChristian and to "reprimand" a person in public without first going to them in private is wrong. (you know the story, then if they don't change, approach them with 1 or 2 brothers to see if they change, and then if they still don't change, bring the issue before the church or public.) The only problem is that the person left an ANONYMOUS comment and I have no way of knowing who I am talking to. So, if this post causes offense to that 3rd person, I apologize, but I will dare to say that you brought this upon yourself.
Ok, now, I do agree with Jen, that if you do not KNOW your blog is being posted elseware, it can seem like somewhat of an invasion, so I would suggest that maybe Mike should send an email to each new blog he finds and tell them that he would like to put a feed on his website and to ask their permission. That doesn't seem too hard or time consuming so I don't think it would cause an undue burden. That being said, I would also like to say that blogspot.com has an option to turn off RSS feeds so that no one, no where can get a live feed when your website is updated. I know I turned my wife's off for that exact reason. And finally, we all know the risk we take in posting information on the internet. There is a chance that there is a stalker/kidnapper/murderer/rapist down the street who has our blogs on his favorites and is stalking us. In my opinoin, we should be worrying about that scenerio more and less about this one.
Thank you for reading my "soapbox" speech, I know it was long.
-Michael A.
Mike,
When I found your site, I had two issues that concerned me. First, these blogs were listed as "church blogs." I didn't take the time to read all of the blogs you have linked, but I would think that most of them do not have any information or commentary about the church, positive or negative, that would qualify them as "church blogs."
My second objection is that the actual posts and comments are viewable. Many people, myself included, have links to friends' sites, but don't recreate the posts. In my opinion, this gives a buffer to respect the privacy of my friends.
I know my blog is public and that there is likely an occasional stranger or friend of a friend surfing links who stumbles upon it. But I expect my primary audience to be people I know personally, and I think most others would agree.
The FBI comment was inappropriate (IMO of course, and it's my blog so I decide) and has been deleted.
Jen,
Thanks for the more detailed explanation. The title "Church Blogs" was simply a short heading, trying to convey what all of the blogs had in common, which I tried to explain in more detail in the opening paragraph on the webpage. Once again, I apologize if this caused confusion or concern.
Regarding your second point, I understand and appreciate your desire for privacy and your respect of your friends' privacy. However, the Internet is a very public place (even if it is large and you feel like you maintain privacy by obscurity), and it would do us all good to recognize this, so I would encourage anyone with a similar concern to make their blogs private, and invite only their friends to view them.
I find it interesting that in the last day, I have had numerous people come to my site from your blog link. I think it was far more than my webpage ever directed to a blog in a similar timeframe. It appears that your blog, and most likely the blogs of your friends, gets far more traffic than my website, so I'm not sure I had that big of an impact on anyone's privacy.
Mike
Hello -
I'm anonymous #1, signed as Mom (Jen's mom). Thanks to all for the various explanations. I, too, will express an opinion and try to explain my comment. To go to people's blog pages and read them is one thing, but I think to republish the blogs and blog comments without the writers' knowlege or permission seems inconsiderate, or as Michael A. said, somewhat invasive. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I wonder if Mike would appreciate having the above comments republished on his own website or someone's church website without his knowlege or consent for who-knows-who to see(?). I agree with Michael A.,(who btw, is just as anonymous as the other anonymouses - just being honest here)that an e-mail asking permission would be appropriate. I would also imagine that there are bloggers who have no idea what an RSS feed is. Though blogs are "public", realistically I think bloggers expect that it's their close friends who know them well and understand them that will be reading their blog regularly. Yes, it can be interesting and informative reading, especially knowing all these people are from our church, but I also think it has been a real embarrassment to a lot of people when they've found their blog/comments have been republished on a church website for other church people to see without their consent. I think they do feel their blog has been exploited. That includes one of my other daughters, who then switched to a private blog site. I hope this explains why I used the words exploitation, inappropriate and inconsiderate. And I apologize, too, for any hurt feelings my words caused. I do love you, Mike and Monica.
In Christ's love,
Cathy Hohulin
Cathy,
Thanks for your comments. I feel they deserve a response, and I will try to do it point by point.
My comments are already available on this blog "for who-knows-who to see", so I would not have a problem if they were also displayed somewhere else. (This is not an invitation to manipulate my comments and take them out of context.) I don't believe I have said anything that I should be ashamed or embarrassed of, or should want to hide. (If I wanted to hide them, I would not have said them on a publicly available blog.)
Unless I am mistaken, Michael A is not anonymous to me.
If bloggers use a blogging service which provides RSS feeds, then they need to know what an RSS feed is, and how it can be used. That is part of being a good steward and a good witness.
Other church people can see public blogs and comments without viewing them on my webpage. If they have been an embarrassment on my webpage, why were they not an embarrassment when published on the source blog? As I said previously, I think many of these blogs get more visitors than my webpage, so I don't think my webpage opened them up for too much more embarrassment.
The general definition of exploitation typically includes the concept of financial gain. There is no gain involved in me provided the blog digest for others.
If your other daughter felt a need to maintain her privacy, then I commend her decision to switch to a private blog. That decision should have nothing to do with whether her blog content is displayed on my webpage. As I said already, there may well have been more people who viewed her content directly on her blog than on my webpage.
In Christ,
Mike
An example just occurred to me. I say this just as an example, not to condemn or justify, and not to provoke argument, but rather to provoke thought:
I have been reprimanded for using other people's content without permission, even though it is provided in a publicly available RSS feed. I would like to ask the bloggers who display YouTube videos in their blog posts: Did you ask permission from the person who posted it on YouTube?
Submitted Humbly and In Love,
Mike
I hope everyone saw my next post.
Interesting what happens with open communication. :)
I apologize for my anonymity, but I am a somewhat private person and I do not like to put my full name out there for the whole world to read & google & then map a road to my house. That being said, I knew that Jen & Mike would most likely put two and two together and that they would know who I was. I have a history with Mike, a friendship with Jen, & a wife who loves to blog. :)
Also, Cathy, I apologize to you specifically if you thought my anonymous comment was directed at you in the earlier post. If any of us wanted to do the research, we could have called up Jen and simply asked her who "mom" was and been able to talk to you directly. I was not commenting on the way you signed your post, I was, rather, commenting on the two people who did not make themselves known in such a way that even the blog host (Jen) would have known who they were.
And so, my post comes to a close and I will again sign it with somewhat of an enigma. My wife thinks I'm paranoid, but I say that I am only being realistic. There will always be bad people that want to do good people harm...sad, but true.
-Michael A.
Post a Comment