Due process on the Internet among private sheriffs: Difference between revisions
(→Wikipedia: removal of defamatory comments in wikipedia community management discussions) |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Wikipedia allows most users to edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or banned, so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made for banned users who use their talk pages "abusively," i.e., to insult other users, or to post obscene or gratuitously explicit material. Arguably, this rule is also sometimes (though rarely) used to silence critics or further anger the blocked user. | Wikipedia allows most users to edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or banned, so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made for banned users who use their talk pages "abusively," i.e., to insult other users, or to post obscene or gratuitously explicit material. Arguably, this rule is also sometimes (though rarely) used to silence critics or further anger the blocked user. | ||
Until recently, a Wikipedia "block log" was practically impossible to expunge, and Wikipedia user pages containing templates stating "this user has been banned" were indexable by search engines. In most cases, these pages and logs still remain in existence indefinitely, and arguably can act as a form of public shaming that is not always warranted or justifiable. In recent months, however, the site's administrators have shown a greater willingness to "courtesy-blank" such material (including public discussions leading up to bans), mostly for users whose Wikipedia identities can be linked to their real identities. This appears to be due to a variety of factors, including recent negative media coverage, an influx of more rational administrators (many of whom are quite young), and an effort to reduce ongoing offsite attacks by banned users by eliminating as many sources of friction as possible. | Until recently, a Wikipedia "block log" was practically impossible to expunge, and Wikipedia user pages containing templates stating "this user has been banned" were indexable by search engines. In most cases, these pages and logs still remain in existence indefinitely, and arguably can act as a form of public shaming that is not always warranted or justifiable. In recent months, however, the site's administrators have shown a greater willingness to "courtesy-blank" such material (including public discussions leading up to bans), mostly for users whose Wikipedia identities can be linked to their real identities. This appears to be due to a variety of factors, including recent negative media coverage, an influx of more rational administrators (many of whom are quite young), and an effort to reduce ongoing offsite attacks by banned users by eliminating as many sources of friction as possible. The concept that such acts of "public shaming" might be either unethical or illegal does not seem to occur to most Wikipedians; when such statements are removed the removals are generally predicated on practical, rather than ethical or legal, grounds. | ||
Revision as of 13:24, 11 January 2010
Issue Definition
Users store valuable content online using services such as GMail and Facebook. What happens if the providers of these services decide to ban or restrict access to "your" content or account? Is there an appeals process? Is there any notion of due process whatsoever?
Related: Is a website a place of "public accomodation" under the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Gmail
From GMail's Terms of Service
4.3 As part of this continuing innovation, you acknowledge and agree that Google may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally at Googleâs sole discretion, without prior notice to you. You may stop using the Services at any time. You do not need to specifically inform Google when you stop using the Services.
4.4 You acknowledge and agree that if Google disables access to your account, you may be prevented from accessing the Services, your account details or any files or other content which is contained in your account. ...
8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated. All such information is referred to below as the âContentâ. ...
8.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service...
Facebook does not seem to have a formal appeals process for banned accounts. [1] In the site's help center, an e-mail address and some simple instructions (for what to include in the e-mail) are provided, but no other details are provided regarding the remedial procedures followed by Facebook (if any) once the appeal e-mail is sent.
Wikipedia
Wikipedia allows most users to edit their own User_talk pages after being blocked or banned, so that they can use this page to post appeals. Exceptions are made for banned users who use their talk pages "abusively," i.e., to insult other users, or to post obscene or gratuitously explicit material. Arguably, this rule is also sometimes (though rarely) used to silence critics or further anger the blocked user.
Until recently, a Wikipedia "block log" was practically impossible to expunge, and Wikipedia user pages containing templates stating "this user has been banned" were indexable by search engines. In most cases, these pages and logs still remain in existence indefinitely, and arguably can act as a form of public shaming that is not always warranted or justifiable. In recent months, however, the site's administrators have shown a greater willingness to "courtesy-blank" such material (including public discussions leading up to bans), mostly for users whose Wikipedia identities can be linked to their real identities. This appears to be due to a variety of factors, including recent negative media coverage, an influx of more rational administrators (many of whom are quite young), and an effort to reduce ongoing offsite attacks by banned users by eliminating as many sources of friction as possible. The concept that such acts of "public shaming" might be either unethical or illegal does not seem to occur to most Wikipedians; when such statements are removed the removals are generally predicated on practical, rather than ethical or legal, grounds.