http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/28/1930215

which links to this.


Sounds oddly familiar......

Interesting...



(perhaps this should be in The Lounge)

or in meta...

anyway..

it seems like how things work right now probably isn't sustainable forever. so something will have to change.

Sometimes we forget the irony that the CDA was intended to address this but instead has become a shield for websites that deliberately facilitate defamation. So who did she file the action against? AutoAdmit? The poster? both?

Also the proposed NJ legislation sounds interesting with the proposed "take down notices." Two problems immediately come to mind. First, wouldn't that be preempted by Sec 230? Second, state by state seems to be a hard row to hoe for something like this. The provision requiring identifying anon posters might survive. I have often thought that legislation to make websites retain logs for a period at least as long as the statute of limitations for defamation would make sense. I think purging logs every 60 days is common. Most jurisdiction have a short S/L for defamation but it is usually at least one year.

(Not sure if this belongs here or where. Someone, feel free to move it to wherever.)

The problem of online defamation, attacks, etc. is becoming worse by the day, and it is depressing to consider that it may be inherently unfixable. Although Wikipedia is the focus of this website, and represents a particularly dangerous forum for tampering with BLP's because of its high search-engine rank and easy editability, it is actually just a small part of the overall problem.

About a month ago, I made a presentation on BLP issues at the last New York WP meet-up. (It was supposed to be videotaped, but I think the tape didn't come out, and my efforts to turn my remarks into a wiki essay haven't gelled yet.) That very morning, as I was reading the newspapers over breakfast and coffee, there was an article in the New York Post about a situation in which a PR agency was apparently hired to create negative publicity about a lawyer who was suing one of their clients.

A leaked e-mail from within the PR agency bragged that overnight they had created a website ("The [Lawyer's Name] Files") disparaging the lawyer, as well as a sharply negative Wikipedia article, and these had become two of the top Google hits on the lawyer's name. I consulted with a couple of other WP admins, and we quickly nuked the wiki article on BLP grounds. But the other website, meanwhile, is still there.

(Please do not hunt down and post links to the disparaging pages, preferably at all but certainly not in a searchable fashion.)

I agonize about the role that Wikipedia plays in spreading falsehoods or disputed information -- but an equally serious problem is its spreading privacy-violating information and gossip even where it happens to be be true. The BLP policy has been amended to help address this issue, and there are ArbCom decisions on it, but there will always be disputes over line-drawing.

But again, Wikipedia is only a small part of the overall issue. Some of the instances in which I have deleted controversial BLP content have involved situations that I did not believe should be publicized, involving individuals whose notability was borderline at best, and who were not responsible for unfortunate events that had taken place in their lives. In some cases, I've been able to make those deletions stick. To that extent, the standards of Wikipedia, as I see it, were improved. But I don't delude myself any more that I've actually helped the subjects of the articles very much, where the news coverage of their situations on fifty or five thousand other websites spreading the same gossip and showing the same disrespect for privacy and dignity are still out there. My "delete" button covers only one website -- a critically high-profile one, and I don't denegrate for one minute the importance of improving things on that site -- but there are plenty of times I read something despicable on another website and wish I could delete it and block the person who wrote it, but no such luck.

Even developments in the spread of online information that seem unambiguously positive, can be anything but, if privacy is the overwhelming objective. Within the past year, online access to the complete back contents of The New York Times has become available, with searches free of cost, and the complete text of the newspaper available free during some years, and for other years at a nominal cost. That's a home run for increasing the flow of information to the world, right, and great news? Well, yes, it certainly makes research easier in a number of ways, as opposed to screening the old microfilms as one used to have to do, and for purposes of my research for both sourcing Wikipedia articles and my RL article-writing, I like it very much. And yet ... anyone who ever committed a youthful indiscretion that happened to make page C17 of the Times on a slow news day, will now be defined by that as one of the top results for his or her name, for the rest of his or her life. And multiply by dozens of other newspapers, and every other type of medium and website, and on and on and on.

Another example: The US court system, state and federal, is increasing moving to making all the pleadings as well as court decisions in all litigation available online, and I'm sure in due course it will be freely searchable. That will surely be a valuable resource for litigators and for journalists. It will also mean that any allegation, truthful or false or disputed, will be available forever. The court system has directed that in light of the increasing publicity given to this type of information, lawyers should be careful to be sure that data such as full social security numbers, full dates of birth, and medical records are redacted from as-filed versions of documents. Some might consider that this is a less than complete resolution of the tension between transparency and privacy. But in the United States, the Supreme Court has recognized (and probably correctly) an absolute First Amendment right to publish anything appearing in a court file, even if it is (e.g.) the name of a minor who is the victim of a sex crime. And even if there is general consent that a given matter should not be publicized or disclosed, all it will take is one dissenting voice for the information to be put out there.

Isaac Asimov famously predicted in 1957 that emerging technology would come at the cost of vanished privacy, though he didn't get the exact form of the technology right. Fifty-odd years later, much of his prediction has come true. All of us live in the goldfish bowl now: It is not always a pleasant place to be.

AutoAdmit was the most sickening sites I've ever contributed to. For a while I would try to give people helpful answers to sincere questions, but then I realized that I was adding value to a site I considered actively evil.

The site had mods for a short time, and they used to quietly take care of things (I know this because one of the most famous posters on AutoAdmit, a onetime mod, was a classmate of mine). But then the owner--a student himself--put the kibosh on that, saying that the site believed in free speech and should never remove comments. I assume the lawsuit might of changed his tune. There was suggestion by a liberal UT professor that the legal profession should blacklist him. Nothing came of that, of course.

I'm told by my classmates that it's no longer as influential as it once was. That's good. You can still finde echos of the site in the comments at abovethelaw.com ("TTT," "HTFH," "TITCR," and other anagrams were popular at AutoAdmit).

(Reply to Brad's post)

1. This is why reform on Wikipedia is important. Such a high-profile site making very public statements about the way it handles coverage of Living People gets the whole internet thinking.
2. We don't have to accept that "this is the way of the future, like it or lump it", do we? People can reject that and force reforms?

I know the feeling.

In response to your point 1, I agree.

In response to your point 2, I am pessimistic. The key feature of the Internet is that anyone can write anything at any time, without clearing it with anyone, with basically no controls at all, except for weak, expensive, and post-hoc ones. And there are real civil-liberties concerns about trying to change that, because how would one do so without creating a genuine risk of censorship and suppression? (As an example, even the moderators of and contributors to Wikipedia Review can't agree on what is or is not suitable for publication here ... multiply that by a few million sites and one begins to compass the scope of the problem.)

Yeah, I've heard ex-Wikipedians describe something like that. I sympathize. It's demoralizing to put your precious time into a project that you come to realize stands against your principles.

I moved this thread from "Articles." It might properly belong in the lounge but I would like to keep it above the fold, even if it is directly about other sites besides Wikipedia.

Thing is, who knew Wikipedia had principles when they first saw it? Beyond allowing open access for people to create a vast free body of work?

Only later does it come apparent that the site is a stalking horse for extremist "Free Culture" nerds, driven by "Libertarian" mousemobs who would call out their own mothers over imaginary "censorship", and in no mood to bend to decent norms. And were they really interested in creating a body of work to inform readers? Hmmm.

Many were. Indeed, I think most were, and still are.

I can understand, without endorsing, the view that the problems with Wikipedia are enough to overshadow the good that it does. But I don't think it's fair or supported to suggest that a majority of the contributors aren't seeking to create a useful work.

I think it is fair to say that only standard of utility recognized by a significant number of extremely prolific editors is their own pleasure at the creation of the content without concern for the impact this might have on others. This is the standard of utility a junkie might have for heroin, as opposed to say a physician who want to find effective ways of treating pain. If you encounter Wikipedia from a place outside the project this looks exactly like "not seeking to create a useful work."

It doesn't really matter what the "users" were intending. What matters is what generates the value.

Why is Wikipedia such a powerful force?

1. because it's the no. 7 website in the world based on web traffic statistics

and

2. It's on the top of any Google search, which generates traffic.

Does anybody see any notion of quality in either of these two ideas? I certainly don't.

Traffic is value. Content is not. Section 230 protects traffic, but protects website providers from problems generated by...content. Content generates...liability.

Arbcom deals with User conduct (ie drama generation, which leads to...more traffic), but does not handle content disputes. If they were to decide content disputes in any official manner, they could be seen as liable for any problems generated by the use of the content.

Is anybody starting to see a pattern here?

Drama is a quality in this game because the more drama you generate, the more traffic you have. Traffic is potential ad revenue, an audience...what have you.

In a free content site, content is valueless by design. That's the whole point. They don't care what you say, as long as you say it--as a matter of fact, they don't want to have anything to do with what you say, since you could say something stupid. The idea is to generate the traffic, which creates the power and to leave the liability with the users who have been stupid enough to give the organization their free labor.

On my Akahele post, I pointed out that when the financial incentives were withdrawn from the mp3.com, people still kept playing the same game, as if they couldn't stop. It looks as if that's still happening on Wikipedia.

Not exactly. One problem is that you still have not gotten your mind around the full perniciousness of CDA 230 and the case-law that surrounds it. Even if WP's directors, in their official capacity, WERE to perform "normal editorial functions" upon the content of what they publish, they would not be liable for any defamation produced. They are immunized by 230, unlike paper publishers.

Now, this is totally bizarre and contradictory and unfair and possibly (probably) unstable. But right now, it happens to be as near as you can come to saying what is the US law on the matter. The only time the veil of immunity of 230 has come even being close to being pieiced was one 9th circuit court decision about editing housing applications in a way that violated civil rights law. That's far more eggregious to the fed courts than BLP, because frankly the feds care a lot more about civil rights issues than they do about "ordinary" personal issues. IOW, you can murder somebody for their life insurance money, for example, and it's not a federal issue. Bust them in the chops because you don't like their skin color, however, and now it is a federal issue. BLP and defamation are rather like ordinary murder in that sense. The feds just don't care, and it's the feds who control US publishing and defamation laws.

Don't the states also have laws? Or does the CDA purport to immunize web service providers from those too?

On Point: Cyber Harassment and the Law

Cyber bullies verbally savaged two Yale law students. The women fought back. Their case may change the rules on what you can say online.

Cyber-bullying is too mild a term for some of what goes on in the rougher corners of the Internet.

When anonymous online attackers went after two young women at Yale Law School, it had the feel of a gang beating. Maybe worse. Brutal. Obscene. Relentless. And done, it seemed, for fun.

Now the women have pushed back in the courts. Defendants say it’s not their attacks but free speech that’s really under fire. The case may change what you can and cannot say online.

From National Public Radio — On Point: Mob psychology, harassment on the web, and how one case may change the rules.

Have you seen it? Bullying? Harassment? A mob attack online? Can it, does it, go too far? What about free speech?

Tom Ashbrook hosts an hour-long discussion on National Public Radio with his guests:

• David Margolick, contributing editor at Portfolio magazine. His article “Slimed Online,” about the case of the two Yale law students, appears in the March issue.
  
• Danielle Citron, professor of law at the University of Maryland. She has written extensively on cyber harassment and the law.
  
• Anthony Ciolli, University of Pennsylviania Law School graduate and former administrator of the online forum AutoAdmit.
  
• Marc Randazza, attorney who represented Anthony Ciolli. He has commented on the case on his blog.

The program aired live this morning on NPR. The audio archive will be available later this afternoon.

Section 230(e)(3) provides: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

I'm no lawyer, but doesn't the second sentence there mean the exact opposite of the first?

Where exactly does the federal government get this authority anyway? (oh, right, the interstate commerce overreach clause)

A lot of Wikipedia users love to dis another user-driven web site, the Internet Movie Database, as being unreliable. But the IMDb has one thing going for it that Wikipedia does not – vetting of information by professional editors. Unlike Wikipedia, you cannot just submit material to IMDb and see it published immediately. Submitted data can take a week or more before it goes online – and more often than not, it won’t go online unless it meets specific IMDb editorial requirements. Yes, errors occasionally get online -- but that happens in all professional media (Iraqi WMDs, anyone?). However, IMDb is light years ahead of Wikipedia in regards to quality control and getting their fact right. I will always rely on IMDb for any film research I need -- I wouldn't even think of reading any of the Wikipedia film articles.

Wikipedia will never work correctly as long as information is immediately published and as long as there are no professional editors reviewing the material that goes online. There is a huge difference between professional adults who know what they are looking and Twinkle-banging teenagers who think they are too clever. The complete lack of professionalism in the editorial process contributes to Wikipedia’s poor reputation as a responsible source of serious information. And, yes, I overused the word "professional" -- and that is one word you never see in regard to Wikipedia content management.

I would respond to this in detail, but have been urged in the past not to make any more long and boring legalistic posts.

No, because the first clause says "consistent" and the next says "inconsistent." In other words, Federal law immunizes websites and electronic content providers from defamation suits and just about everything else except copyright infringment. The states can pass or enforce any law regulating content providers which is consistent with that. They can toughen the copyright penalties and add state ones. They can further add immunization WRT state defamation laws, or whatever. What 230 says is simply that States can't enforce any law that is inconsistant with 230.

Now, the Roomates decision would seem to me to be a case where exactly that happened (the State enforced a California Fair Housing act law which was not consistent with the letter of 230), and I believe the state won and defendent (Roomates.com) lost, even arguing 230. That was a circuit court ruling. It would be interesting to see if it could be taken to the US Supreme Court. The ninth circuit ruling looks to me to be in violation of the much case law in previously interpreting 230, which allows content providers "editorial control" without liability, so it might be an intereting case to appeal to the next level. A dropdown menu for users is certainly less "editorial control" of content than most sites have successfully gotten away with, in other 230 decisions. So the arguments could be good.

Cop out. Just because that was somebody's opinion about one of your WP posts in service of a decision which really didn't depend on it, doesn't mean you're not free on WR to show us your stuff as regards something which is topical and germane.

IOW, the obnoxious part of legalistic arguments on WP is that they're used to disingenuously buttress misuse of power which has nothing to do with them. That doesn't happen on WR. People who want to skip long posts and not pay attention, can do so HERE, without worrying that the next time they try to log on, they get that message that their account can no longer edit. Would that this were true on WP.

Yeah! That's right, Brad. A long and boring legalistic post would be suitable in this instance, because the matter in question is inherently long and boring (and legalistic too). It's not as if I have to read it, for God's sake. So just you get working on some tropical and German screed. No skin off my nose.

I didn't read it properly. Or maybe I skimmed over it out of sheer [subconscious] disbelief. WTF?? So the law doesn't prevent the enforcement of laws that are consistent with it... WHY would you need to say such a thing? Isn't that true by definition? If it could be even theoretically construed to prevent enforcement of some law, wouldn't that mean that that law is inconsistent with it?

I was teasing. I'll respond to this tonight, unless someone has beaten me to it.

Some Federal laws pre-empt the field, and no state law can tighten up over the Federal standard.

Other Federal laws establish a minimum national standard, but states can tighten that up (but not loosen it).

I think that clause is to prevent anybody from saying "Hey, my state takes a harder line on this issue even than the feds do! The maximal liability immunization has already been set in federal code..."

This clause says that's not so. Publishers are immunized AT LEAST as much as the federal code says. If the states want to do even more, so long as it's consistent with this, they can.

This sort of thing is rather common. The California Fair Housing Act itself (what was used in the Roomates case) is a statute which codifies and and extends all kinds of federal civil rights laws, like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972,and so on. Just because the feds have extended certain rights doesn't mean the state can't extend additional ones, and nobody can use the fed laws to say the state can't, if such an enabling clause in the federal law is inserted. See the point?

I guess I'm still getting tripped up on the definition of "consistent with". If there would be any valid reason at all, in absence of such a clause, to say the federal law would prevent enforcement of some state law, shouldn't that mean the state law is not "consistent with" the federal law?

There are technicalities, but to a first approximation, Moulton and Milton have it right.