Photo du Jour 516
Welcome Back! Um, Why Are You at Work Today?
Tiger Woods In "Serious" Condition After Car Crash
-thumb-110x110-461569.jpg)
Photos from Black Friday
Builder of Oakland's Fox Theater Once Imprisoned For 'White Slavery'
The very definition of a 'chilling effect' on free speech is when legislation or enforcement of new laws are so potentially onerous that people and organization self-censor out of fear and potential liability. Today, the users of Tribe.net were one of the first groups on the internet to feel that cool breeze, as Tribe have instituted their new Terms of Use with amendments to the provisions regarding mature public content, and presumably, any content deemed offensive by a Tribe user.
Of course, you know who to thank, ultimately. The changes to the obscenity code recommend by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and recently passed into law have jurisdiction over a wide range of potential content, as the Supreme Court has defined 'community standards of decency' the ultimate standard in an obscenity hearing. While Tribe.net has a strong local user base, and naturally our standards of decency here in the Bay Area are rather tolerant, this opens up the potential for a user in the flyover states to deem content produced here obscene, since they can access it from anywhere in the world. Blogger and EFF attorney Jason Schultz explains:
What happened at Tribe is what we can expect in a world where the FBI dictates the terms of what freedom of expression means. It's disappointing that Tribe overreacted like it did and banned far more speech than necessary, but one also has to realize, in a world where you can go to jail for what you help publish on the Internet, there's a serious chilling effect from laws like 2257.Our own SFist Violet has been all over this story, posting on her own blog after a conference call with Tribe. She explained her own point of view as a producer and moderator of mature content on Tribe to Irina Slutsky of GETV in this video interview, and more recently discussed the changes with Altporn.net. She's rather distraught over the change, and has asserted that she'll be removing links to Tribe content from her own blog.
After the jump, we asked some questions of Tribe's CEO, and have the official response. We also culled some comments from Tribe users around the web on the changes, one of whom suggests that the move may be related to the pending sale of Knight-Ridder, an investor in Tribe (along with the Washington Post). If you're a Tribe user and want to check ot the new rules, refer to Tribe's updated FAQ. As Violet's stressed to us, when someone wants to attack free speech, they generally go after porn first and politics next.
Trust us, at SFist, we understand the potential danger behind publishing content that could be punished by law. There are real issues of civil and criminal liability for any internet publisher. And remember, Tribe is a local company that has introduced a number of technological innovations in the sphere of social networking and building community online. Needless to say, they're looking towards the positives in the situation:
Why are we doing this now?Users, however -- especialy those who will have to begin sifting through their content -- are being given the choice of working to tone it down, leave entirely, or be booted from the network. And they're not happy about it:We spent quite a bit of time thinking about how we wanted tribe to be an online community that was welcoming to all and yet celebrates diversity. To us this meant involving the community in identifying offensive conduct and establishing community standards consistent with our terms of use while encouraging diversity and a positive spirit of community. We also wanted to provide improved control to members to establish privacy around their content. This resulted in a comprehensive product plan which we have been developing for some time. As you may know, the legal environment did tighten with promulgation of 18 USC 2257 in June while more restrictive legislation has been introduced.
What changes will be made?
The most important changes are two. We've given members lots of control over the privacy level of the content they post--whether to show something to everybody or just friends, for example. And we've empowered the community itself to react to content by flagging it appropriately, with a mechanism that's similar in spirit to those of other community sites.
Reaction from users
With millions of people visiting tribe every month for a variety of reasons, of course there will be those who object to any change. The tribe community has always been a expressive group and we expect that to continue. But we think the community as a whole will understand these objectives and changes.
It's a truly Whisky Tango Foxtrot move, but it's precisely what the government (particularly the Gonzales Justice Department) want to see happen. How long before LiveJournal (or Six Apart, who now own LJ) decide to apply this too, considering some of the stuff that pops up on LJ?Insanity. The air is going to be thick with legal cases before long, I'm sure... Papa Bear's Cave
According to Blue, 2257 would prohibit *everyone* in the US from seeing images such as the prison photos from Abu Ghraib. The law is so broad, it can include bloggers, publishers, television and Hollywood. A political or human rights tribe would be wiped off the Tribe.net map for failing to conform to the laws, by including an Abu prison photo in their photo album.
If this is all correct, does that mean that all dating sites would need to keep track of the ages of all it's members and all of their photos? Yahoo Personals asked me for my birthday yesterday, perhaps that's part of the new law... David Evans, Corante
...But while the Friendster "Friendstapo" (as the Friendster user Wired interviewed called those on Friendster.com who censored language and audited photos) was bad, that was milk toast compared to what Tribe.net has in mind. And everybody but Tribe seems to know it.
The exodus is already being planned, according to moderator scuttlebutt, and it sounds to be big enough that even Tribe's dense management will feel the breeze; which is sure to make their parent company, Knight-Ridder, wince. If Knight-Ridder thought Tribe was a money drain before, after December 20th, when all those moderators with all those Tribe members hit the delete key and move on, it's going to feel like a broken dam. Advertising dollars (or "impressions", as it's called in the web world) by the tens of thousands (or more), gone! And getting that progressive, open minded market segment back will be a very hard sell... Michael Matson
...Tribe is not a producer of content, they're a forum for end-users to communicate and share content they create or collect. What's next? AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo ban jpeg attachments because there's no way to enforce age documentation for amateur nudie shots swapped by users of those free email services? Xeni Jardin, BoingBoing
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I also see a Wimpification of the Blogosphere happening rapidly.
Blogocombat, friendly inquisitive debate, critique of blog techniques, and harsh analysis of pseudo blogs and blogoid objects...
...all this confrontational activity is being called "the dark side of blogging" or "when blogs go bad".
If you criticize, for example, an irrelevant fictional character as the chosen spokesperson for a company, and say that it deviates from the core values of blogging, you're called "ugly" or "sharp tongued strife maker".
This is done so false, mediocre blog consultants can save face when their clients ask them why certain blogologists are ranting against their dumb marketing idea.
What Tribe is doing has nothing to do with "decency". It has to do with a government that is trying to get everyone to conform to their myopic, puritanical views. Personally, I (and many others on Tribe) do not find nudity and sexuality indecent or obscene. But we certainly find George W. and his actions indecent and obscene. Will his pictures be removed? I think not. Why? Again, this has nothing to do with what is and isn't decent. It has to do with the beginnings of a new kind of government and society in this country. Totalitarianism? Fascism? Dictatorship? Monarchy? Take your pick - they all apply.
What tribe.net management did had nothing to do with decency, U.S. 2257 or any of the other stated reasone. All that talk was blowing smoke. Tribes then leaders Jan and Wade neither liked or understood the tribe.net community and as such they wanted to get rid of the community and replace it with a more marketable group of people.
chris vale