We’ve gotten a fair amount of spam commentary on this thing so far, that we’ve held back. I’d say the majority of what we get is spam in looking at the list of commentators. Most of it’s clearly garbage. False links to viagra websites, just like you get in email. Except they just come right out and say it in email. No trickery or skullduggery. In the comments they’re a little more sinister.

Except I just got a note on the post about having video capability from a guy with a legit website, simply saying I might enjoy his new book about YouTube. And you know what, I might. Is that spam? I’ve thrown up a lot of stuff on my own site that could be considered advertising. Should I censor him? I think maybe if he attempted to take part in some sort of exchange about old people racing wheelchairs I might have let it slide through. Instead it was just a link to his book and his blog. Am I looking for sincerity? Hard to read that sentiment online.

Eh, it’s a weird thing. Amy’s really of the mind that no one except people we know personally should be able to comment. Nay, even view the site. I tend to think of this as being a little bit more open and public, but not a free-for-all. I dunno. At a very basic level this thing is an online community and managing even something this tiny and insignificant raises some questions. Silly questions, but still questions. I made a call in the sixteen variables post for people to post neat bike videos. If someone pastes a blatant advertisement for themselves in a video that features some cool tricks would I censor it? It won’t happen, but would I? Try not to let this keep you up tonight. 🙂