"User Generated Content" & Ownership: The User as Citizen
Current controversies with both Livejournal/Six Apart and FanLib have one stark issue in common: the conflict between corporate desire to profit from users and the content they generate, and the users' own sense of ownership not only in their content and creativity, but in the hosted services they use to publish that content and to connect with
( Read more... )
In other words, this really does need to be a community effort, not just a fandom effort, and I think it won't be hard to make it so. We have a common cause: EVERYONE here -- even the LJers who actually suspect that HP fans are a bunch of insane perverts who should STFU kthxbai -- has a vested interest in their own freedom of speech (and freedom from molestation by LJ/6A and their advertisers -- and freedom from the sudden changing of the ground rules in medias res, as happened this week).
To me, one of the most disturbing things about Strikethrough was that (as I understand it) flocked journals were suspended (on the basis of "trigger" interests). This idea that even if we protected content, content that has been made private or placed behind a subscirber-only wall, is now vulnerable, well, that seemed an especially shocking violation of the spirit of LJ's agreement with us. And psydeshow pointed out to me this morning that the problem is even bigger than that: assuming that the advertising-supported "Plus" accounts display ads even on the flocked and private entries, that strongly suggests that the advertisers whose ads appear on those pages can see their content. Or rather, that they could see it if they cared to look. Even though it's locked. At best, it means that 6A would have to show it to them if they asked, because given that they seemed fairly concerned when WFI threatened to go to the advertisers with screenshots, well, if Corporation X began to suspect that Plus Account holder toddlerdiddler, with 5000 friends and a friends-only journal, was posting "questionable" content next to Corporation X's ads...well, wouldn't 6A be obliged to look into it?
In which case, those of us with a legitimate interest in posting certain content as private or friends-only (in my case, it's usually content that would link my LJ to my RL identity, as I don't want my political rants and random personal venting to be obviously associated with my professional Web presence) are relying solely on the LACK OF COMMERCIAL INCENTIVE for 6A to invade and/or expose our locked content, to keep them out of there. I'd rather reply on an explicit agreement stating that no user's privacy settings can be violated without the equivalent of a search warrant -- i.e., a legal document demonstrating probable cause for the search that overrides the user's right to privacy. Otherwise, there should be a provision stipulating that flocked content is not divulged to ANYONE not listed in the flist (except in case of a suspected crime and in the presence of a warrant).
There should also be (and may already be) a provision in the agreement stipulating that no advertising is shown on flocked/private entries, period.
Basically, I think that -- in addition to making 6A realize that as the content provders, its users are NOT merely serfs on their lordly cyberestate but actually the content providers without whom NONE of their strategies for generating revenue (be it from fees or advertising) are possible -- we need to insist very firmly on the security of supposedly "secure" content. If it's not posted publicly, it shouldn't be treated as "public," either for commercial or for leqal purposes, period.
Finally, I'll be happy to volunteer my services in whatever capacity to make the above proposals happen....
Reply
Leave a comment