Toulmin was apparently quoted out of context in the original story and the BBC has changed their story to show a more balanced opinion.

The Press Complaints Commission director Tim Toulmin thinks blogs should be covered by a voluntary code of practice like that for UK newspapers. The BBC reports that he made the remarks during a session on free speech at a London race conference today.

[On blogs and other internet sites] “there are no professional standards, there is no means of redress”, Mr Toulmin said.

He added: “If you want to see how the newspaper industry would look like if it was unchecked, then look at the internet.”

He said a voluntary code of practice would allow content to be checked without government involvement, stressing: “We’re not in favour of regulating the internet. The flow of information should not by regulated by any government.”

Former Downing Street spin doctor Alastair Campbell, who chaired the session organised by the Commission for Racial Equality, said blogs were “perceived as a positive development” but added that “some of the most offensive stuff” comes from them.

Bananas. I really don’t understand the point of a voluntary code of practice in this environment. Only people who think carefully about the ethics of what they’re doing are going to bother signing up. The way it’s been explained to me vis-a-vis newspapers is that it makes it less likely that there will be a compulsory code of practice. But that’s only if it works. When you’re dealing with a dozen or so large institutions, like UK newspapers, then it’s reasonably likely to. When you’re dealing with 57mn bloggers, many of whom are barking mad, then I’m not so sanguine, to say the least.

I also find it pretty depressing that such senior political figures are so benighted about the incredible thought, creativity and artistic endeavour I find every day.

Dead 2.0 is a funny tech blog. The author posts anonymously under the name ‘Skeptic’, and enjoys deflating the hype around Web 2.0 startups with posts like ‘Funding the Web 2.0 gravy train’ and ‘Secret to why you should invest in Dogster revealed’. One of his main targets has been Michael Arrington’s Techcrunch, the most prominent news source about these startups.

Now Nik Cubrilovic has discovered Skeptic’s identity, and so has Arrington. Apparently, he’s a VP at a prominent tech company that’s raised some serious funding.

Arrington’s understandably not happy about the Dead 2.0 ‘attack blog’, as he calls it. He writes, regarding the consequences of Skeptic’s possible unveiling:

Will his blog negatively affect people’s perception of his startup?

Yes.

Would he have written these things under his real name?

No.

Given that he’s an exec at a high profile startup, should he have thought twice before writing a blog that attacks and ridicules other startups, sometimes unfairly?

Yes.

Did he exercise good judgement and think about the best interests of his company when he did this?

No.

Should Will he be fired?

???

My guess is that this will blow over, and that we’ll see somewhat more measured and thoughtful posts on dead2.0 in the future. Freedom to say what you want is a good thing — but it’s also nice to see who it is that’s saying it.

To date, Skeptic has not yet been outed, but there’s what reads to me like a veiled threat in that last paragraph that he will be if he doesn’t tone down his comments.

In an earlier post, Skeptic’s mum asked him, “Are you worried people will find out you write your dead-twenty blog?”. After snorting coke out through his nose, he concluded:

…for those of you wondering why I don’t just ˜out myself” I really do have a reason that has nothing to do with who I am as an individual. In fact, there’s probably quite a bit of incentive to come forward at this point, as I haven’t really offended too many people and all. I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit.

At this point, I think I have a lot more cache writing anonymously. See, if I am just some guy, then whatever I write here gets colored by that. If I am some industry guy, then my writing becomes associated with what I work and what I do for a living. Fundamentally, I would become a lot more boring than I already am. If you disagree, comment below, I’m curious to hear other viewpoints on this one.

So for now, I think I’ll just be ‘the dead-twenty skeptic’ and take it day by day.

So the Skeptic persona is just that. He wants people to take his writings at face value, without preconceptions about his agenda based on his biography. Yes, it allows him to poke fun in a way that if he wouldn’t if he was known as the VP of Megacorp. But a little fun, and a little scepticism is undoubtedly a good thing. It keeps the system balanced. I think that the ‘Dead 2.0′ name and the Skeptic moniker make it pretty clear that this is supposed to be a satirical blog. And it’s not as though Skeptic threatens or seriously insults anyone — he backs up what he says or presents it as his own opinion. Skeptic has also maintained contact through comments and email. People who don’t like what he says can debate or email him. If what he did was simply shower insults on people, then nobody would read the blog in the first place and what he said wouldn’t matter.

To me, anonymous blogs — even attack blogs — fortify the conversation. They allow questions to be asked that otherwise would not be. They provide checks and balances.

Alfred Korzybski: “There are two ways to slide easily through life: to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking.”

Dead 2.0 readers don’t seem to think his identity is an issue:

Here’s what a company spokesperson told me:

“Yahoo! opposes the punishment of any person on the grounds of what may be called free speech. We firmly oppose that. However, we have to abide by the local laws of whatever country we operate in. If we did not, it could lead to the imprisonment of our own employees. These are legal demands. We don’t give out any information except to accredited legal authorities. Also, they don’t typically tell us what the information is for. They have a warrant and we have to comply.”

So why operate in China, then, if it might lead to morally precarious actions?

“We believe that Chinese people are better off with Yahoo! than they would be otherwise. The benefits of having better access to the internet and the spread of knowledge that implies outweigh these concerns. But we have to obey the laws of the countries that we operate in.”

So what legal obligations are you under in China?

“You’d have to ask Alibaba about that. They have operated Yahoo! China since 2005. We have policies about what we will do, but we don’t know the exact restrictions.”

Satisfied? Sure you are…