Thinking of specifics, well known bloggers like Chgowiz recently decided to get out of blogging. Chgowiz didn’t delete his whole blog, just some of it. I’m not going to speculate on his reasons for doing so, but everyone and his brother chimed in with an opinion over whether or not a blogger ought to delete their blog if they decide to leave the scene. I respect -C’s opinion, but feel differently on this issue. I think if a blogger decides to nuke their blog, for whatever reason (ranging from, “I’m sick of being criticized by strangers for some remark on my blog,” to, “I just don’t want to be bothered anymore“), we ought to just admit to ourselves that it is the blogger’s decision. If they want to come back, they will. If they don’t, well, enjoy it while it lasts and don’t forget to save a copy if you want to reference it in the future.
The advice that “if you put something up, you ought to leave it up because deleting it is a dick move” feels somewhat in conflict to the other frequently given bit of advice about life on the internet, which is, “No one is really your friend on the internet.” When I’ve gotten pissed of because of being trolled or harassed or annoyed by the behavior of other netizens, people have always been quick to point out, “Well, it’s your own fault for getting bugged because no one is really your friend on the web so that’s what happens.” The unspoken rule zero of the internet seems to be, “If you can’t stand the heat, you are too much of a pussy for the world wide web.” That might be true, but I still don’t like it.
If no one is really my friend on the web, then it shouldn’t matter if I yank my contribution anytime I feel like it, dick move or not. If, on the other hand, I owe people continued access to content I might have once made available, then I am being required to be ‘friend-like’ to other cyber people who are not my friend anyway — which seems like setting myself up for exploitation and disappointment.
So, which is it?