We are entering a time when it is becoming clear that corporations are a means to sidestep the judicial process. Today, and to a lesser extent in the past, companies are put into the position of adjudicating decisions of legal concern regarding peoples' actions within their domain of control. This post will use Flickr and issues around its Safe Search for our examples; but the symptoms described are common.
Safe Search is a feature meant to partition the photos uploaded to Flickr into three groups which they describe as follows:
The Register reports that the restrictions in Germany are due to "stricter legislation and penalties in that country". Here we see Safety Level being used to enforce law, or at least Yahoo's interpretation of German law. Moreover, to facilitate enforcement of the law, Flickr is compelled to enforce a policy that all users, not just those in restricted countries, accurately label photos. Flickr's policy enforcement is where things become problematic.
If we take that we can decompose governance it to Legislative, Judicial, and Executive components, Flickr is acting in both Judicial, and Executive roles with only the Legislative role left to the government of the German people. The result being that Germans are denied the procedures and laws of their country meant to ensure that law is applied justly. ( If this were not bad enough, these rules are applied to all Flickr users not just German ones. )
The process that befalls a user that mislabels a photo under the watch of Flickr is as follows:
In this process the user under judgment is subject to a secret trial with secret evidence initiated by a nameless accuser. The accused does not even know they have been tried unless they are found guilty. They are not informed which act of uploading was their crime; and punished though a ghettoization from which they have very little ability to appeal. ( One can request a re-review but they don't tell users which photos were offensive so it can be hard to correct one's actions. )
Some would argue that this issue will be temporary as the market will correct; but I think that is naive given that social applications exhibit network effect making it hard for people to leave. We need to have a discussion about how we should address this as a culture. What are the boundaries how lawmakers can ask companies to act as enforcers of the law? How will due processes evolve?
Safe Search is a feature meant to partition the photos uploaded to Flickr into three groups which they describe as follows:
1. Safety Level
- Safe - Content suitable for a global, public audience
- Moderate - If you're not sure whether your content is suitable for a global, public audience but you think that it doesn't need to be restricted per se, this category is for you
- Restricted - This is content you probably wouldn't show to your mum, and definitely shouldn't be seen by kids
Note: If your Yahoo! ID is based in Singapore, Hong Kong or Korea you will only be able to view safe content based on your local Terms of Service so won't be able to turn SafeSearch off. If your Yahoo! ID is based in Germany you are not able to view restricted content due to your local Terms of Service.
The Register reports that the restrictions in Germany are due to "stricter legislation and penalties in that country". Here we see Safety Level being used to enforce law, or at least Yahoo's interpretation of German law. Moreover, to facilitate enforcement of the law, Flickr is compelled to enforce a policy that all users, not just those in restricted countries, accurately label photos. Flickr's policy enforcement is where things become problematic.
If we take that we can decompose governance it to Legislative, Judicial, and Executive components, Flickr is acting in both Judicial, and Executive roles with only the Legislative role left to the government of the German people. The result being that Germans are denied the procedures and laws of their country meant to ensure that law is applied justly. ( If this were not bad enough, these rules are applied to all Flickr users not just German ones. )
The process that befalls a user that mislabels a photo under the watch of Flickr is as follows:
1. An anonymous person flags a photo as under-moderated:
2. An anonymous Flickr employee makes a judgment about the flagged photo.
3. If the employee finds the photo to be under-moderated, the entire account hosting the photo is forcibly moderated to a level of the employee's choosing. A second offense can end in account deletion.
Staff hear about this sort of thing because your fellow members can flag photos around the site if they feel that you have categorized things incorrectly, or they may even send a report to us that some of your content is offensive.
2. An anonymous Flickr employee makes a judgment about the flagged photo.
3. If the employee finds the photo to be under-moderated, the entire account hosting the photo is forcibly moderated to a level of the employee's choosing. A second offense can end in account deletion.
In this process the user under judgment is subject to a secret trial with secret evidence initiated by a nameless accuser. The accused does not even know they have been tried unless they are found guilty. They are not informed which act of uploading was their crime; and punished though a ghettoization from which they have very little ability to appeal. ( One can request a re-review but they don't tell users which photos were offensive so it can be hard to correct one's actions. )
Some would argue that this issue will be temporary as the market will correct; but I think that is naive given that social applications exhibit network effect making it hard for people to leave. We need to have a discussion about how we should address this as a culture. What are the boundaries how lawmakers can ask companies to act as enforcers of the law? How will due processes evolve?
Comments (3)
You have a choice in using the service. If you believe that it's acting in a way that's contrary to your beliefs then you simply don't have to use it and I don't think that's naive at all. Just loot at the stranglehold Friendster had and what happened to them when they stopped providing value to their customers. Their customers stopped using them and new players took over the space. And so it will continue. That's the beauty of capitalism in a free and open market. If you want to make the biggest statement then don't whine about their unfair practices and just eat their lunch.
Posted by Jason D- | December 25, 2007 5:49 PM
Posted on December 25, 2007 17:49
The network effect works both ways, and as we've seen with friendster, tribe, Textamerica, etc. when people aren't happy with a service they leave, if people aren't leaving they aren't unhappy with the service, even if you are. I'm not saying these are invalid points, or that you shouldn't be concerned with it, but I can't support suggesting more governmental oversight. There are tons of photo hosting sites out there, at least one of which I'm sure has policies you can support, so if flickr isn't working for you go there and then get your friends to join. Flickr wasn't huge overnight, it got huge because people used it and told their friends. know what I mean? Give people a greener field rather than pointing out the brown spots on the one they are already in.
Posted by Sean Bonner | December 26, 2007 4:33 PM
Posted on December 26, 2007 16:33
To be clear I am not suggesting government oversight. If any thing I am saying we need to stop governments from enacting laws that make companies be the judges and enforcers of the laws.
On the point of taking our ball and leaving I am not sure it will work. It is hard to move a community. Yes we have seen cases where there was a sudden change is the policies of some serves, friendster, tribe, but I am don't think this is the same. There they changed the rules in a way that effected a large number of users where in many cases they only a small minority are effected. In the minority case I think it is less likely that you will see the market work. I have had more then one friend leave flickr and I don't really fallow there photos now. It is like they moved away, some times I still visit them but they are not really part of the same community any more.
All of that aside I think I have missed with this article a bit and think I need to rework it. The point is not really flickr, the point is that like with 2257 laws the law makers can push this down on *ever* site that wants to do bisneses in the a country and by pass due process.
Posted by Jonathan Mooe | December 26, 2007 6:24 PM
Posted on December 26, 2007 18:24