He's a Pedophile! Ban Him!

Everything in italics is written by:. “SigmaX”

 

SigmaX is not a pedophile!

1. THE PROBLEM

As to be expected from Internet communities, some users make controversial posts and/or display provoking, troll-like behavior during discussions, and still others go on lengthy campaigns to purport the illegal behaviors of individuals.

We, the service provider, need a well-defined policy to deal with the wide gray area where it is difficult to tell on a case-by-case basis whether a given comment needs moderating. Our decisions need to be consistent, and we need to have a clear reference point to which we can refer (And point users to -- since there will always be users who think we moderate too little or too much).

User dissatisfaction with the current Blogster platform, and the rumored deletion of select user accounts (i.e. blog.blogster.com) are similar issues emotionally, as far as the involvement of the team in the community, but should be treated separate from the issue at hand, which is the process of defining a general moderation policy. (That is, mmmhollywould's post from 11 June will not be treated here.)¹

I will begin by saying that it was not a “rumored” deleting but a factual deletion and if it is back it is because it was enabled again and it was not only his blog but a three year old article of mine that happened to make the most popular list and was deleted in spite of the fact it had been here for three years and two other owners. Also, it has not been treated as an issue at all. Further, Eddie even lets us link to here, here being Blogster. Seems he is not as petty as some.

Yes you need clear and concise rules in your terms of service. For instance, and this is just an example why would someone who has a business be a spammer if they posted about their business in the business section? What constitutes spam? I have come and seen 20 articles in a row up by the same blogger but they were all different though they were all “copies” of jokes and what not from other places. To me that is more spam than one article from someone talking about their business.

The next big one and while you may think I am asking this for myself , I really am not , what constitutes pornography? I have seen TWO blogs deleted for pornography. One had a sex story one of the users actually participated in and the other had a nude picture. Not a pornographic one, just a nude, artsy fartsy (to clear things up I am referring to a female subscriber not great martin’s ass picture) A user did not like the user in question so the blog was removed which is the same thing that happened with the sex story. Both users were under attack by the conservative bloggers. I do not think that was right or fair since they have the option NOT to read or view that blog. I do not think this should be a place where we can “vote someone off the island”.

In fact I do not think any blog should be removed with out notice(maybe make it a draft so it is off the site but you then as the “chief” have not deleted their stuff) and I believe their should be NO moderation that does not strictly adhere to a clear TOS. You should have to notify someone that you have “pended” their blog to “draft” status why not have some kind of auto mailer that you can just tack the violation on and to save time even link to the material that is in violation?

2. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES:

Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996), online services are not held accountable for content provided by third parties: "no provider or user of an interactive computer shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." ²

In Wikipedia's interpretation, "this immunity applies even if the providers are notified of defamatory material and neglect to remove it, because provider liability upon notice would likely cause a flood of complaints to providers, would be a large burden on providers, and would have a chilling effect on freedom of speech on the Internet." ³

This assertion is affirmed by the 2006 case of Barret v. Rosenthal in the Supreme Court of California (2006), who concluded: "We share the concerns of those who have expressed reservations about the Zeran court's broad interpretation of section 230 immunity. The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications. Nevertheless, by its terms section 230 exempts Internet intermediaries from defamation liability for republication. The statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended. Section 230 has been interpreted literally. It does not permit Internet Service providers or users to be sued as "distributors," nor does it expose "active users" to liability."⁴

In short, Web 2.0 companies (Such as Blogster) are immune from any mandate to moderate their users content, save in the case of "federal criminal liability and intellectual property law” (Which does not include libel).⁵

Then stay out of it.

3. MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES:

In nearly the same breath that it protects us from liability for NOT censoring web content, Section 230 also establishes the right of providers TO censor content as they see fit. “No provider or user of an interactive service shall be held liable on account of – (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

We don't want to neglect our users concerns. Naturally, if users are unhappy, we feel bad, because we are responsible for the construction and maintenance of the community. This month alone we've had several cases of dispute between members, where harsh words were exchanged, posters were accused of libel, racism, etc – and both sides of each respective debacle emailed us expecting decisive action on their behalf.

This has always been the way of blogster. Someone is always bickering with someone about something and sometimes it gets ugly. This is because you have a diverse group of people here with strong opinions on a lot of different topics, which is exactly what you want as a blogging community. It should be up to the blog owner(not blogster) to censor comments. We do have that option, right? To ignore users and delete comments? I personally will not use them because I have a “free speech” blog but for those with tender feelings perhaps that is the way to go.

As Tim O'Rielly puts it in his post last year, Call for a Blogger's Code of Conduct: “Yes, you own your own words. But you also own the tone that you allow on any blog or forum you control.”⁶ For example, the atmosphere my friends and I strive for on our private science-and-philosophy-centric forum at http://ThoughtCommunity.com is vastly different than the high-energy flame and yo-mamma jokes that tend to accompany online gaming.

Exactly my point. Here you have many different types of blogs and because of this you have many different types of people. The yo-mommas are going to, inevitably get mixed up with the techies and the bible thumpers occasionally and I honestly think you have given them the tools to deal with that on their own(provided they work) problems without the need for them to cry to mommy and daddy blogster. That is not your role nor should it be.

Blogster does not purport or intend to control the “atmosphere” of its users' blogs. It's likely that a public Internet site is among the worst places on which to have a flaming debate, and we would love it if everyone would be cordial to one another, whatever their differences. It's not our place, however, to force people to be nice or to censor controversial content.

You should not ever do that no matter what YOUR morals and values are.(or what side of the fence you fall on)

As far as libel is concerned, we do not have the resources to analyze each case and determine if defamation per se has occurred. Defamation is a sensitive issue and is difficult to define concisely – that's what the courts are for. How we choose to react when faced with user complaints, then, is also a difficult question. As established above, we are not under legal obligation to remove defamatory material upon notice, like we are for copyright infringement. As such, our protocol should be established accordingly: We are not liable or responsible for seemingly libelous content, but we reserve the right to remove at will anything we deem to be inappropriate.

Half the people here do not even know what libel, slander and defamation mean. I would not worry too much about the “I am gonna get my e-lawyer to sue your e-ass” people.

The blogger that has the comments made on his or her blog has a button called delete. They can do this. Again there is no need for you to be the mother or the father here. Should someone want to sue them for their words so long as you do nothing you are out of the loop. You gave them the power to control that. Heck you could even make it so, like on word press, should they choose, they can moderate comments.

Simple enough. But when shall we “deem” content “to be inappropriate? Do we force a user to take down a blog post simply because one person – perhaps the defamed -- cries foul and sends us a complaint? Perhaps not, as judging such situations effectively is an inescapable stalemate (Of the two parties involved, at least one of them will invariably be perturbed by our decision for or against action). But in the case of a post which is provocative enough to draw complaints from many different users, it may be best to delete the item at hand.

You don’t. You stick to your stick community guidelines in the TERMS of SERVICE. Other wise it should be hands off because if you do step in you are picking sides in a war when you should be neutral.

As such, we can decide with some confidence that, in the case of serious and controversial matters for which we receive many complaints, we will simply remove the offending material and wash our hands of the matter. If two users simply can't get a long and get engaged in a flame war, however, we will not intervene. Blogster members are generally mature adults or teenagers, and should be capable of managing their own blogs without guidance from big brother.

In short, we're not responsible for the behavior of our users, period.

Then make that your policy to stay out of it which is something Blogster has not done in the past. I have watched blogster delete a few blogs and comments because they were complained about and that is unfair. So If I write say a pro-choice blog and 50 conservative bloggers complain then my blog should come down? Sorry again, no voting people off the island.

4. ERRATA

· Nobody reads the Terms of Service that they supposedly agree to whenever signing up for a service. This is taken as a matter of fact. It might be of benefit, however, to create a separate “Code of Conduct” page, free of legal jargon, in hopes that users will self-regulate their behavior at least somewhat.

It is the responsibility of each and every blogger here to read the terms of service if they do not read it , that is their problem (though if you change it you should notify each and every blogger not just make a post). There should NOT be a need for a code of conduct nor should anyone be expected to follow it. The terms of service are enough.

· Often bloggers will copy and paste quotes or articles from emails and web pages. It should be noted in the Code of Conduct that it's good form to clearly cite the original source.

Again that should be part of the terms of service. To copy and not link is a copyright violation last I knew.

· The current Terms of Service states: “Through your usage of the Site, you may submit and/or BLOGSTER.COM may gather certain limited information about you and your web site usage. BLOGSTER.COM is free to use such information for any purpose it deems appropriate, including marketing purposes.”
Seeing as we don't intend to sell email addresses or send spam to users, I don't see how this clause serves any purpose except to make the few users who actually read it uneasy. We will need to consult our lawyers first, but I'd like to see it made a little more warm and fuzzy.

Exactly that is stupid. (and not something I worry about)

· The current Privacy Policy lists a lot of information that “BLOGSTER.COM may gather” that we would never ask you for given the services we currently provide, such as “Social security or other national ID numbers.” Again, that just makes us sound creepy.

Very creepy indeed.

· There should be a clause somewhere stating that Blogster staff will never ask you for your password.

Right again.

Proof I do actually read the TOS:

http://mmmhollywould.blogster.com/just-cough-no-ownership-rights-at-blogster

Also how about some new categories? Heck you could even have a hell raisers category fort hose who just wanna fight and bicker.

Further, Can I link to my blogs that are Adult and have a age verification page? What about the ones that are pornographic only in text?

You may not know this but when I joined there was an adult section and I wonder why can’t their still be? Adult does not only mean sex. I believe blogger has it so you can make a blog or article adult then they have to click “yes” to enter and they KNOW what they are going to read.

Also how about some new categories? Heck you could even have a hell raisers category fort hose who just wanna fight and bicker.

Another thing that bothered me, I read in the “bugs” section some one claiming another blogger was a pedophile that they had been tracking or some such and asked that said blogger be removed and the blog was removed. Now why in the world did that happen? Was their proof? It seemed fishy too me and then WRONG for blogster to do it. You or I could say that about anyone.

Finally, why not fix the bugs?