In general though, I take a pretty strong civil libertarian view. I believe that there needs to be room at the margins of our social systems for people to break the law, and for law enforcement to take place after the fact, rather than pre-emptively. Obviously there are some exceptions to that principle, because of course it conflicts with another basic right, which is the right to safety, but in general I believe that the "laws" of privately owned communities should reflect the principle that a user can be trusted, and that enforcement should arise only upon complaint.
For a fan-owned archive, that would mean that it's up to the content-creating user what they post, how they flag it, and who they might allow to access it or filter it away from. If the service provider receives a legally binding request to remove the material, they should take it down. I don't have an easy answer for the most important cases though, the ones in the blurry middle where another user reports a piece of content as potentially illegal and asks for it to be removed. I do have a few general thoughts though: - that community guidelines should be determined by the community, through discussion and maybe also voting, but that voting shouldn't be applied to specific cases. - that if a posting violates community guidelines but not the law, the content creating user should have an option of making the offending item more restricted-access, rather than a black and white of either public or deleted. - that unless it specifically violates a law that is being enforced against it, a piece of content that is filtered to a restricted audience should never be removed, even if the majority of the community would consider it to be offensive, so long as nobody is forced to view it without first being truthfully informed about what the content is. - that if a piece of content is determined to violate a law, the punishment should not automatically and at the first offense stretch to the user's entire account and potential future accounts. Repeat offenders posting actually illegal content that the service provider is obliged to censor should certainly bear a consequence, but unless it's legally mandated I see no reason to permanently suspend an entire account or prohibit future accounts.
*nodnod* I put down some of my thoughts here. (note the new fannish-related public journal, as i was able to get a desired-by-me username :)
And I definitely like the more libertarian approach; I just am not sure how we can make it work in the current political climate without external unwanted interference.
For a fan-owned archive, that would mean that it's up to the content-creating user what they post, how they flag it, and who they might allow to access it or filter it away from. If the service provider receives a legally binding request to remove the material, they should take it down. I don't have an easy answer for the most important cases though, the ones in the blurry middle where another user reports a piece of content as potentially illegal and asks for it to be removed. I do have a few general thoughts though:
- that community guidelines should be determined by the community, through discussion and maybe also voting, but that voting shouldn't be applied to specific cases.
- that if a posting violates community guidelines but not the law, the content creating user should have an option of making the offending item more restricted-access, rather than a black and white of either public or deleted.
- that unless it specifically violates a law that is being enforced against it, a piece of content that is filtered to a restricted audience should never be removed, even if the majority of the community would consider it to be offensive, so long as nobody is forced to view it without first being truthfully informed about what the content is.
- that if a piece of content is determined to violate a law, the punishment should not automatically and at the first offense stretch to the user's entire account and potential future accounts. Repeat offenders posting actually illegal content that the service provider is obliged to censor should certainly bear a consequence, but unless it's legally mandated I see no reason to permanently suspend an entire account or prohibit future accounts.
umm, more later?
Reply
And I definitely like the more libertarian approach; I just am not sure how we can make it work in the current political climate without external unwanted interference.
Reply
Leave a comment