Day 8 Predictions: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Rnagarajan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Should there be Due Process Online== | ==Should there be Due Process Online== | ||
Yes. | Yes. | ||
It's great how the website with the article on the Google death penalty was filled with mostly internal links, which I'm guessing are intended to raise its Google rank. | |||
==Due Process Defaults== | ==Due Process Defaults== | ||
| Line 8: | Line 10: | ||
There are at least two default possibilities for due process of takedowns on the internet: (1) Due process afforded before takedown (default on), and (2) take down immediately upon request and afford due process to restore the content (default off). Google will probably take the stance that (2), default off, is a more appropriate standard for internet due process. Since internet content can do a great deal of harm in a very short period of time, it makes sense to take it down immediately (after someone has complained that it might be harmful information) and create a process by which the uploaded can ask that it be restored. That way the damage of offensive content is mitigated, but could not be unilaterally censored. (also, this process probably does the best job of limiting the liability of companies like Google, YouTube, etc). | There are at least two default possibilities for due process of takedowns on the internet: (1) Due process afforded before takedown (default on), and (2) take down immediately upon request and afford due process to restore the content (default off). Google will probably take the stance that (2), default off, is a more appropriate standard for internet due process. Since internet content can do a great deal of harm in a very short period of time, it makes sense to take it down immediately (after someone has complained that it might be harmful information) and create a process by which the uploaded can ask that it be restored. That way the damage of offensive content is mitigated, but could not be unilaterally censored. (also, this process probably does the best job of limiting the liability of companies like Google, YouTube, etc). | ||
:The counter argument to the above is that this cripples the generatively of the internet. If anyone can request that content be taken down which web companies must comply with, it would be possible for anyone to (at least temporarily) gag the production of new content. A better compromise might be to require that the requester make some showing of who they are and how they will be harmed (at something resembling a probable cause standard) before web companies must comply with such a complaint. | :The counter argument to the above is that this cripples the generatively of the internet. If anyone can request that content be taken down which web companies must comply with, it would be possible for anyone to (at least temporarily) gag the production of new content. A better compromise might be to require that the requester make some showing of who they are and how they will be harmed (at something resembling a probable cause standard) before web companies must comply with such a complaint. | ||
==Google and China== | |||
Although today's class isn't about this topic, it's hard to believe it won't come up. It will be interesting to hear whether the Google guest will have a response to Jason's concern that Google disengaging with China will allow unscrupulous actors to dominate the world's biggest internet market, and that Google, even if it had to make compromises, could do more good than evil by working inside China. | |||
Revision as of 18:34, 13 January 2010
For those who aren't familiar, here are Creative Commons' and Google's explanations of DMCA Notice and Takedown Procedures, one example of Due Process online
Should there be Due Process Online
Yes.
It's great how the website with the article on the Google death penalty was filled with mostly internal links, which I'm guessing are intended to raise its Google rank.
Due Process Defaults
There are at least two default possibilities for due process of takedowns on the internet: (1) Due process afforded before takedown (default on), and (2) take down immediately upon request and afford due process to restore the content (default off). Google will probably take the stance that (2), default off, is a more appropriate standard for internet due process. Since internet content can do a great deal of harm in a very short period of time, it makes sense to take it down immediately (after someone has complained that it might be harmful information) and create a process by which the uploaded can ask that it be restored. That way the damage of offensive content is mitigated, but could not be unilaterally censored. (also, this process probably does the best job of limiting the liability of companies like Google, YouTube, etc).
- The counter argument to the above is that this cripples the generatively of the internet. If anyone can request that content be taken down which web companies must comply with, it would be possible for anyone to (at least temporarily) gag the production of new content. A better compromise might be to require that the requester make some showing of who they are and how they will be harmed (at something resembling a probable cause standard) before web companies must comply with such a complaint.
Google and China
Although today's class isn't about this topic, it's hard to believe it won't come up. It will be interesting to hear whether the Google guest will have a response to Jason's concern that Google disengaging with China will allow unscrupulous actors to dominate the world's biggest internet market, and that Google, even if it had to make compromises, could do more good than evil by working inside China.