I personally are not motivated to use Facebook and the like. Socializing through these sites always leads to some kind of agro somewhere down the line. I don't like the sound of twitter either. Twitter sounds just the thing for twiddle D and Twiddle Dum. All a pathetic invension. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Howard" <colin@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <colin@xxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 5:40 PM Subject: [access-uk] User-Generated Censorship.
Greetings,I do not blog, nor use any of these "social" sites like FaceBook or Twitter,in case any of you do, I suggest you read this and give it further consideration. This came from the VicugL group so is primarily aimed at the USA I believe is just as appropriate for us in Europe. From: Peter Altschul <paltschul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 10:41:21 -0400 User-Generated CensorshipBy Annalee Newitz, AlterNet Posted on April 30, 2008, Printed on May 2, 2008http://www.alternet.org/story/84060/ There's a new kind of censorship online, and it's coming from thegrassroots. Thanks to new, collaborative, social media networks, it's easierthan ever for people to get together and destroy freedom of expression. They're going DIY from the bottom up -- instead of the way old-schoolcensors used to do it, from the top down. Call it user-generated censorship.Now that anyone with access to a computer and a network connection can postalmost anything they want online for free, it's also increasingly the casethat anyone with computer access and a few friends can remove anything theywant online. And they do it using the same software tools. Here's how it works: let's say you're a community activist who has somepretty vehement opinions about your city government. You go to Blogger.com,which is owned by Google, and create a free blog called Why the MunicipalGovernment in Crappy City Sucks. Of course, a bunch of people in Crappy Citydisagree with you -- and maybe even hate you personally. So instead of making mean comments on your blog, they decide to shut it down. At the top of your Blogger blog, there is a little button that says "flag this blog." When somebody hits that button, it sends a message to Google that somebody thinks the content on your blog is "inappropriate" in some way. If you get enough flags, Google will shut down your blog. In theory, this button would only be used to flag illegal stuff or spam. But there'snothing stopping your enemies in town from getting together an online posse to click the button a bunch of times. Eventually, your blog will be flaggedenough times that Google will take action. And this is where things get interesting. Google has the option of simply shutting down your access to the blog. They rarely do that, though, unless it's a situation where your blog is full of illegal content, likecopyright-infringing videos. Generally what Google does if you get a lot offlags is make your blog impossible to find. Nobody will be able to find it if they search Blogger or Google. The only people who will find it are people who already know about it and have the exact URL.This is censorship, user-generated style. And it works because the only wayto be seen in a giant network of user-generated content like Blogger (or MySpace, or Flickr, or any number of others) is to be searchable. If you want to get the word out about Crappy City online, you need for peoplesearching Google for "Crappy City" to find your blog and learn about all the bad things going on there. What good is your free speech if nobody can findit?Most sites that have user-generated content, like photo-sharing site Flickrand video-sharing site YouTube, use a system of flags similar to Blogger's that allow users to censor each other. Sometimes you have to pick a good reason why you are flagging content -- YouTube offers you a drop-down menu with about 20 choices -- and sometimes you just flag it as "unsafe" or "inappropriate." Generally, most sites respond to flagging the same way: they make the flagged stuff unsearchable and unfindable.Censorship isn't working the old-fashioned way. Your videos and blogs aren'tbeing removed. They're simply being hidden in the deluge of user-generated information. To be unsearchable on the Web is, in a very real sense, to becensored. But you're not being censored by an authority from on high. You'rebeing censored by the mob.That's why I find myself rolling my eyes when I hear people getting excitedabout "the wisdom of crowds" and "crowdsourcing" and all that crap. Sure,crowds can be wise and they can get a lot of work done. But they can also bedestructive, cruel, and stupid. They can prevent work from being done as easily as they can make it easier. And just as the Web is making it easier for crowds to collaborate, the Web is also making it simple for mobs to crush free expression.Annalee Newitz annalee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is a surly media nerd whose blogscannot be censored by the mob, even though she's well aware that there are mobs who would certainly like to do it. © 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. From Colin Howard, who lives near Southampton in Southern England. ** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:- ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe] ** If this link doesn't work then send a message to: ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ** and in the Subject line type ** unsubscribe ** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the ** immediately-following link:- ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq] ** or send a message, to ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
** To leave the list, click on the immediately-following link:- ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe] ** If this link doesn't work then send a message to: ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ** and in the Subject line type ** unsubscribe ** For other list commands such as vacation mode, click on the ** immediately-following link:- ** [mailto:access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=faq] ** or send a message, to ** access-uk-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the Subject:- faq
