/Big Question/ Online accountability
26/05/2007 | Filed under Discover > Big Question
The argument over who is responsible for content posted on the net isn’t a new one, but the recent furore surrounding the posting of a HD-DVD crack on Digg has reignited debate. This month, we ask our panel of industry hotshots where they stand on the subject of online accountability.
Web specialist
Andy Clarke
Stuff and Nonsense Ltd
www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk
I believe, without question, that all types of publication – whether they’re offline or online, are socially driven sites with user-generated content, or personal blogs that contain reader comments – must be held accountable for all of the content they host.
Imagine that you walk past a wall that’s emblazoned with racist graffiti about you or perhaps your neighbour. Would removing these comments be censorship or against the notions of creative expression? I think not.
However, many site owners wrongly hide behind the facade that editing or deleting inappropriate content constitutes censorship. As I wrote recently on my own website:
"My sincere belief is that social networking is only valuable when we are sociable, that comments on blogs are valuable only when they offer constructive communication. We should always remember that we are all just people. We should ask ourselves the question, ‘Would I make this comment if the person I am addressing was sat next to me?’. There are many wonderful people who write blogs or who comment on them. There are also people who abuse the privilege. Too often, I see rudeness in place of polite opinion; too many times, I see negativity instead of constructive criticism, and all in the name of “freedom of speech or creative expression."
Andy is a member of the Web Standards Project, and is an “Invited Expert” to the W3C’s CSS Working Group
Security expert
Drew Copley
eEye Digital Security
www.eeye.com
I think, largely, no. This is a slippery slope and where does it end? Does it end with whatever laws a particuliar country may have? Does it end with sites like Digg, or with any online forum or blog? What laws does it end with? Should we consider filtering free communication sites on the basis of Egyptian or Chinese laws? These sites are our virtual bedrooms and coffee houses. They should not be censored.
Drew is a research engineer at eEye Digital Security, which provides enterprise security software that protects networks from intrusion
Activist
Oxblood Ruffin
Hacktivismo
www.hacktivismo.com
No, as long as they issue a disclaimer saying that, “The views represented by respondents represent, blah, blah, blah ...”. It’s unfortunate that the conversational web is being undercut by legal challenges, but the organisations represented by the plaintiffs usually tend to represent social and business interests that are intimidated by change. Sad, really.
Oxblood Ruffin is the founder of Hacktivismo, and is an active campaigner against web censorship
Media & PR expert
Tim Gibbon
Elemental Communications
www.elementalcomms.co.uk
Unfortunately, Digg may have set itself an uncomfortable precedent and created uncertainty for how its users can interact with the community. It has lost a lot of trust and respect from users and industry alike, and there’s no doubting that Digg has its work cut out for the foreseeable future.
Digg was swayed by the force of individuals that increasingly gather a stronger voice in online environments that can have serious repercussions for brands, people, products and services, organisations and website owners. When content offends, the situation can quickly turn ugly and the lawyers are called in. It’s inevitable that the resources hosting the content are held accountable and become targets themselves, not only from the law, but the wider community offline and online.
Socially powered sites now have the ability to display and have content shared quicker than ever before. We’ve seen the most popular publishers such as Google’s YouTube begin to suffer the consequences of its service becoming the home of much piracy. This has led to costly legal suits from content owners. No doubt, we’ll see more legal suits and action taken because, unfortunately, there are more serious problems to focus on within these sites. For example, IT Wire recently reported that MySpace is cooperating with authorities in revealing sex offenders that are using its service, though it previously refused to share such information.
Not enforcing a “prevention before cure” school of thought has created uncertainty and possible confusion on what can and cannot be posted on the Digg community, and what users are allowed to do needs to be reinforced. If not addressed now, it may rear its ugly head again, with negative PR becoming a by-product if clear guidance and rules are not set for the future.
Quite simply, the repercussions for the socially powered websites are too great for them not to be accountable for what its users post. Historically, it’s not so far removed from what has and does still transpire on forums, online noticeboards and within groups, so this issue isn’t anything new.
Tim Gibbon is founder and director of Elemental Communications, a media communications consultancy that caters for traditional and digital media
Internet researcher
Alex Burmaster
Nielsen//NetRatings
www.netratings.com
This is an incredibly thorny issue, and one that’s unlikely to ever go away. The explosion in user-generated content means its virtually impossible for socially powered websites to monitor and act on all of the content uploaded to their sites. The whole scene throws up all kinds of moral and legal issues. For example, it’s ironic that copyright owners are looking to target user-generated content to promote their products, yet are also looking to sue the people who provide the means for it. However, common sense might say that socially powered websites should (your call as to whether on a legal or moral basis) remove
content they spot that is promoting illegal activity.
Alex Burmaster is European internet analyst at Nielsen//NetRatings, a global leader in internet media and market research, offering a source of actionable internet data and digital media research
Hosting specialist
Neil Barton
Hostway UK
www.hostway.co.uk
Socially powered sites such as Digg, Facebook and Flickr will always face challenges because they enable users to upload content freely, and all are policed slightly differently. One of the main problems facing such sites is their rate of growth. Facebook, for example, has in excess of 25 million users. Monitoring individual contributions for inappropriate content is consequently a near-impossible task. I do believe, however, that as soon as such content is located, the website owners should do everything in their power to comply and remove it,
whatever the pressure from users.
Neil is the director of Hostway UK, which provides hosting services in the UK and abroad
Accessibility expert
Julie Howell
Fortune Cookie
www.fortunecookie.co.uk
I’ve run a social network of people with the neurological condition multiple sclerosis since 1995. During the first 10 years, I could probably count on one hand the number of occasions where a member of the community posted something unacceptable. However, the honeymoon period is well and truly over for social networking sites. In the 1990s, web users tended to abide by the unwritten rules of the web (we used to call this “netiquette”), which encouraged us to think carefully before we posted our message, lest we offend or misinform and find ourselves socially outcast. Web users today have no such inhibitions, and this has to mean that the owners of social networks have greater responsibility than before to remind members to keep it clean and keep it legal.
I don’t agree that owners of social networks should be held solely accountable for the content users post on their sites. Individuals must be held responsible for how they choose to behave online. Social network managers have a responsibility to promote and encourage appropriate behaviour but cannot be held responsible for the actions of individual users.
It is of great benefit to everyone if social network managers publish guidelines on the type of content that is appropriate, and make it clear what the consequences of posting inappropriate content will be. It should not be the case that content is removed and then reinstated, as guidelines should already be in place to make clear what type of content is acceptable. A well-managed social network offers members clear guidelines and demonstrates a consistent approach to moderation. There will always be “rogue” members who breach the guidelines. Moderators who deal with rogue posts and the people who post them swiftly and consistently will earn the respect of the majority of people who use the network, and the community will increase in size and strength as a result.
Julie Howell is director of accessibility at Fortune Cookie, a leading digital design agency
Comments
SevenOfNine / 05/06/2007 / 19:10
I'm going to say this and there will likely be quite a few of you who won't like it. Franky, my dears.....
YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.
Think about that for a moment. Freedom of speech pretty much guarantees that we're going to offend one an another at some point. That's WHY freedom of speech is so important. It means that those who do not hold don't agree with someone or something cannot be oppressed or silenced by others. As much as I dislike it, that means all kinds of tacky and hateful things get to be expressed along with all the peace and love messages.
If the Aryans can be driven off the internet and stifled, so can you. If Larry Flynt can be forced out of business by some religious leaders, so can you. If someone says something "unpopular" and gets booted out of an on-line community, that means that can boot you because you said something they didn't like too.
I run several sites and I take a position of benign neglect. If someone wants to be an idiot, I'll allow it because it lets the rest of the community see first hand that UserX is an idiot. The flip side of that is that I also take pains to allow my users block any comments, etc. originating from UserX so they're only exposed to level of idiocy that they can stand. We all have our own tolerance level and some idiots are harder to take than others.
There are some things that I will not tolerate. I don't tolerate the use of copyrighted content. Posting copyrighted content will get you and anyone who looks like you banned as soon as someone lets one of the admins know its going on. I don't tolerate spam. I don't tolerate threats or cyber-bullying.
Angela / 08/06/2007 / 17:50 / http://www.angelaheart.com
I say it is covered under "freedom of speech" and anything like the hack shoud be allowed to be posted online without fear of prosecution or the work being taken down.
Jim / 20/06/2007 / 02:13 / http://your-ps3-for-free.blogspot.com/
Well, there is freedom of speech and then there is the right and wrong. I don't agree with giving out information that is private but then again there's usually a reason for it.
