BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Posting non-work safe pics

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
■
18:04 / 15.05.04
Although I swore to myself to stay out of this any furher, I thought I'd add that there are precedents which say that as long as an online provider (in the original case, Demon) can show they took reasonable steps
-to apologise
-to rectify an error
-to ensure that users did not break the law
that these _might_ be used as mitigating circumstances for a defence against a defamation prosecution.
To quote Scots Law for Journalists on the case of Godfrey v Demon Internet "They [Demon] were held liable for defamation, not so much for hosting the material as for failing to remove it when asked."
 
 
Linus Dunce
00:20 / 16.05.04
Ah, see, this is what we want. Actual precedent/law-type stuff rather than off-the-top-of-my-head-sounds-likely-so-I'll-go-with-it stuff. What a shame though about the word 'might'.
 
 
w1rebaby
00:37 / 16.05.04
A TOS is a useful thing to have for legal arse-covering on a number of issues, but it doesn't really affect the issue of NSFW pictures much. Most of them are not legally problematic, they're just offensive. Some of them might be copyrighted I suppose but that would be covered by a "do not breach copyright" clause.

Now, if someone sued Tom over being banned from the board for posting NSFW pictures, it might come in handy, but I don't think that's a likely problem. I don't think being banned from a message board is considered sufficient grounds for a case as yet.

Sure, if we have a TOS and it's going to cover general behavioural issues then posting NSFW images might be appropriate there - but so might also lots of other bannable behaviours. Putting it in the TOS won't actually discourage anybody from doing it. Most boards have a clause about offensive images yet what is considered "offensive" varies; people who do it are going to be doing it either from a simple desire to cause trouble, or from a misapprehension as to what's acceptable.

And, put simply, nobody ever reads the TOS anyway, unless they're trying to push the envelope.

It might be a good idea to have a TOS in general - that's really up to Tom - but I don't think it will affect NSFW images one way or another. As I mentioned previously, it's hardly a big issue in any case.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:47 / 16.05.04
Well, yeah - nobody reads ToS, but they are still there, and by signing up to Barbelith the person is putting their imprimatur on an agreement not to do certain things that I think most of use would rather they did not do, posting porn/pictures of decapitations being one of those.

Depending on content, this might have saved a fair amount of hassle in the discussions over the sexless backpacker and Modzero - because, having refused to back off after their behaviour had been identified as harrassing, having registered multiple suits, having attempted to conceal their identities and having reregistered after having been banned - they could simply have been removed again without further agonising, on the grounds that they knew the rules. This usually works reasonably well; Modzero is back but keeping trolling to a reasonable minimum, so the board is exercising clemency on the fact that he shouldn't be around, whereas a persistent and aggressive troll would be repeat kickable quickly and easily. It also provides a standard by which moderators could be held accountable on some of the big issues.

So, it's a case of ease of use, with a degree of legal cover, for example legal cover in the case of the sexless backpacker threatening legal action for his "persecution" - had there been ToS in place showing that the behaviour for which he was being shut out had not been acceptable to the board, and that he had agreed to this when he joined, then it would have been far easier within and would be simpler without Barbelith to explain why he was being "censored". It's an ease-of-use thing.

And yeah, weasel. "Crypto-authoritarian" as a term is trying to suggest that anyone who expresses the opinion you don't support is doing so not because they have the best interests of Barbelith at heart, or because they have thought about the implications and benefits, but because deep down they want to set up an authoritarian system, which I don't think is fair, does not seem to be supported by the evidence and, perhaps most importantly, makes me for one significantly less likely to be cordial in discussion with you, because I'm feeling that you have already put dissenting views in a handy box and are not really interested in discussing rather than caricaturing them. It's obstructive and dim, and I think you can do better.
 
 
Linus Dunce
11:19 / 16.05.04
I've already apologised to E. Randy for making him angry over the crypto-authoritarian thing so I don't think I really need to be held accountable for it by you. This is a statement of how I feel -- it is not meant to provoke a continued argument.

Yes, I have compartmentalised the views of others. But you talk as if this is a free and fair dicussion of the possibilities of legislation whereas in fact it's not. The evidence that it is instead an exercise in railroading the concept of legislation is right there in the thread summary.

Legislation has been taken to be, without examination, both desirable and effective. I'm arguing that it is neither.

I don't mind so much if you come to the conclusion that you will have legislation because it is only a minority that objects. I imagine I would stick around, and I imagine that the world of Barbelith would happily continue to turn if I didn't.

But you really must consult a lawyer-type person, and perhaps a psychologist (not for yourself), before concluding that Barbelith legislation will have any kind of efficacy in the real world.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:37 / 16.05.04
As I believe I just said quite simply, the main point is that it will make it easier to avoid lengthy arguments over a very small number of persistent trolls who are either by accident or design causing a disproportionate amount of hassle, either from their sock puppets and supporters or by more recent members who are not au fait with the entire history, which is especially germaine if we wnat the board also to be a) accessible to search engines and b) open to new members. I think there are also potential benefits extending from that in other spheres, but that's the basis. If we don't want Barbelith to be accessible to search engines and open to new members, managing it becomes a lot easier...

However. As far as I know pretty much every bulletin board on the Internet except Barbelith has a set of TOS - as I have said, I'm not sure that it should be noticeably more controversial (or observed) than having the wiki. Think of it as like Hadrian's wall - it isn't designed primarily to stop people getting in (that is, it is unlikely that somebody will read the TOS carefully, think, "oh, curses - I wanted to post loads of porn pics and harrass people. Looks like this isn't the board for me..."), but to help to manage the effects of nastiness subsequently.

Incidentally, I hadn't appreciated that your intention was to apologise individually to every single person who was offended by being lumped in as a crypto-authoritarian. Could you apologise to me, also? In fact, it might be worth a quick straw poll to find out who is *not* offended by being called a crypto-authoritarian and go from there. Maybe then I can call you something nasty, and then apologise for the fact that it made you angry, but state that it was just the way I felt and I don't expect there to be any further discussion about it? Because in many ways that's what the Policy is for...
 
 
Linus Dunce
11:57 / 16.05.04
Yes, every other board on the internet does have a TOS. Makes one wonder where the trolls actually nest and breed. Perhaps they are born and weened in gopher and migrate across to http at the end of the breeding season.

As for an apology:

I apologise to anyone and everyone who was genuinely offended by my use the word 'crypto-authoritarian'. It was histrionic and unnecessary of me.

Haus, as outlined in what I assume was an agreement, is now free to call me something nasty. I rather think he may find the actual execution of this part of the bargain beneath himself, but that would be his decision.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:09 / 16.05.04
Actually, can I just give you a huggle? I *do* sympathise with the idea that we want to keep Barbelith as regulation-light as possible, and I totally respect that, since we have this revolutionary distributed mod system, we should give it as much freedom to operate as possible. If there *were* TOSes, I think we'd want them to be brief and cover only a few top lines - like persistent trolling, harrassment, that kind of thing. However, I think we do have to accept that a Barbelith which is a) distributed in its moderation, b) open to search engines and c) open to new members is quite a hard juggling act.

On "legislation" - I can see the confusion. My topic abstract was a reference to a line by, I believe, Bill Hicks about how only in California would one have to legislate to enforce what elsewhere would be simple manners. I know a lot of you guys are down on Bill Hicks and think he ripped off his act from Dennis Leary, but I think he's kinda funny... Point being, I didn't have a specific action in my head when I used the term "legislate" - I think I was suggesting we put something in the wiki until the possibly distant or never-happening creation of a set of T&Cs, which Tom has suggested and we have discussed elsewhere, I think...
 
 
Z. deScathach
05:10 / 20.05.04
Oh for crying put loud! Barbelith has been functioning just fine for some time now. Now and then, someone comes in and shakes things up, people get upset, there are calls for "policy", and then everything settles dowm. There is no such thing as a utopia. If someone posts something NWS, or offensive, then Tom or other moderators can get in touch with them and tell them to amend it with a disclaimer, or link it. If people bitch, they can be reminded that Tom and said moderators are MODERATORS. That is what moderators do, they MODERATE! I live in a country where every single thing that upsets someone results in a law. As a result, we are DROWNING in them. Is that what the 'lith wants to be?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
06:06 / 20.05.04
One problem is that people who are least keen on the creation of hard-and-fast regulations on Barbelith are also likely to be least keen on accepting the competence of moderators to make changes on a case-by-case basis.

It's a conundrum. In theory, between the wiki and the Policy and Help thread there shoudl be a lot of advice for members of Barbelith to rub along successfully...
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
06:36 / 20.05.04
Admittedly my guidline come TOS was wordy but wordy is the nature of TOS. With a guideline a troll could easily pick holes in it for their own amusement and our much annoyance. Any potential troll clocking our rather "tolerant parent" approach to trolling will be able to spin something out for ages and generally degrade the board.

With a TOS you can, where necessary, lay down the law and stick to it. While it seems rather corporate in fashion I would be inclined to say that it would help if all of the moderators had some terms of reference to work from and a standard to apply rather than the endless attempts at reasoning with trolls that we have seen, or indeed rage when she decides to up hold an (artistic) principle.

There may be a general disfavour of "rules" but there are benefits if they are managed properly. Trust is OK, until someone breaks it.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply