Crowd-sourcing responsibility: Google and the Italian bullies’ video
Today’s news, covering the Google content trial’s delay, made me connect my current notions on ethics to the wider issues of responsibility in the virtual world. The BBC (Technology) reported that the continuing court case against Google Italy could “have major ramifications for content providers around the globe”. Posted in 2006, shortly before Google acquired YouTube, a video was published, “which showed a teenager with Down’s Syndrome being bullied”. Accused of “defamation and violating privacy”, the prosecutors want to see the four Google executives being charged (up to three years in prison) for not engaging enough monitoring staff and lack of content-filtering devices in place.
Basically, I agree with the Italian prosecutors in that last point. However, arguing that Google, YouTube or Dailymotion should be obliged to seek consent of all those appearing in a video is a step in the wrong direction. Rather than stifling social media sites with bureaucratic measures and creating new problems resulting in problems such as:
- defining what constitutes consent and who can give consent
- verifying authenticity of consenting parties
- ensuring successful follow up of consent when changes have been made to a video
it would be time to think about users who produce and consume (produsers, following Axel Bruns) as involved, responsible, and potentially proactive audiences. Their practices of consuming and distributing content by options such as ‘favourite’, ‘share’ etc. are not given and static, but are socially constructed and hence, they can be shaped and re-constructed. In fact, they should be developed with the users (supposed a learning user is the one imagined by corporations and regulatory bodies), rather than against them.
The kind of protectionist politics informing the debate around the Italian court case echo approaches based on censorship and responsibilities, placed in the hands of a limited number of profit-making organisations rather than the 21st century communities of users. Crowd-sourcing has many faces, one of those is to harness the power of the communities and engage them in the dynamic processes of reviewing, critiquing, and reporting/suggesting changes or removals. Yet, unless the facilities are provided, little will happen in this regard.
I wished corporations would come up with more innovative ideas and helped to expand the notion of citizenship. The least promising option is full broadcast rights applied to social media, resulting most likely in a new wave of passive consumers. Hence, rather than continuing to favour and expanding an ideology of a welfare state policing its territory and society, it would be a lot more beneficial and sustainable to develop a stronger sense of responsibility, citizenship and connectivity in online space that impacts upon offline settings. For instance:
- obligatory pop-up tutorials (brief, relevant and in plain language – similar to plagiarism statement we use as students at The Open University when submitting papers online)
- an extended and meaningful Q’n’A section: it is not sufficient to provide a REPORT button and suggest that’s all that can be done – complaint processes must be transparent and efficient
- citizens who face a lack of resources when reporting crime in real life will have little trust in online processes aiming at regulation: duality rather than outsourcing is required
- an ethical turn – driven by corporations who understand that profit and ethics belong together as ignoring these repercussions, social ills can be tackled in concerted efforts rather than technology-based workarounds
- governments present role-models, they need to do their homework: bullying (as well as other crimes) start in real life, where they need to be taken seriously. Online practices can change and make a contribution towards changes of offline/real life social practices (including reduction of neglect, ignorance, and apathy).
Internet freedom comes in a package with responsibility, I believe, and we cannot assume there is a universal sense of inherent responsibility adopted by each user who uploads or watches videos. But we can work towards stronger ethics, responsibility and citizenship. And we can start understanding that less simplified regulation would be beneficial beyond the one individual instance when the upload was prevented – otherwise, the bullying, the filming, and distribution of such content will continue, by other means, in other ways – it would be a lot less visible and less traceable, though.
About Britta Bohlinger, CFEFounder and Director of RisikoKlár in Iceland. Native German, global perspective - previously in London and Berlin.
- RT @TheACFE: 'Robots will replace lawyers in court' says head of Serious Fraud Office ow.ly/9zQU30gHaaC 13 hours ago
- China to tighten #regulation of #fintech consumer loans: protection from illegal practices and #collateralization ft.com/content/20c885… 3 weeks ago
- In order to understand #risk holistically and mitigate beyond band aid approaches connect the dots and ask very inc… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 4 weeks ago
- Brutal wakeup call: #misconduct & the wrong tone at the top can entail hurricane force damage to the entire organiz… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 1 month ago
- Smokescreening root causes? MEPs still not demanding end of exploitation & destruction of refugees' habitat & resou… twitter.com/i/web/status/9… 1 month ago
Translate my blog into your language
- 88,172 hits
- data analysis
- data collection
- discourse analysis
- editing and publishing
- informal learning
- online collaboration tools
- online tutorials
- real world
- research design
- research resources
- social media and education
- sociology of the internet
- virtual worlds