Cyber Laws Can’t Save Us From Ourselves

What happens when cyberspace laws don’t reach far enough to save us from ourselves? Laws can protect us from litigation and hefty settlements, but they can’t keep us from losing customers because we let the idea of “engaging readers in a conversation” go too far. That’s our responsibility. So how do we know what is okay to post on our sites and what isn’t?

It seems the debate over ownership and liability regarding third party content is going to rage on forever. Defendants like eBay and others are taking refuge in the so called “safe harbor” immunity offered under the section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. But this doesn’t seem to stop anyone from filing costly law suits anyway. So it’s no wonder companies are being more cautious about what they allow on their sites. Some organizations have resorted to employing a team of lawyers and content moderators to protect their sites from potential liability. Who can blame them?

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean it’s a good idea for people to go around saying anything that pops into their heads. Didn’t we get into enough trouble for that in grade school? Nor should we necessarily use our company blogs and forums as a place for exerting First Amendment rights–unless, of course, you are a First Amendment rights web site. Why let controversy distract everyone from what you are really trying to accomplish?

What are others doing to mitigate the problem?

Some highly visible sites have taken steps to assure this doesn’t happen. A partnership between YouTube and PBS launched a video your vote, social media site last summer that encouraged people to document their voting experience and post it to the site.The goal was to document voting processes and experiences, not actual votes. They were in no way trying to coerce voters.

Video your vote took great pains to inform users that in many states taking cameras into the booth is illegal, and posted a link to Citizen’s Media Law Project, so amateur videographers could check on their own state laws. The site also posted some video your vote basic rules of decency. But some contributors were filming themselves holding up marked ballots and pulling levers.

To discourage these kinds of posts, Video your vote went even one step further. An AP story reports they also checked video contributions to make sure they were legal:

YouTube spokesman Aaron Ferstman said PBS is checking videos in the “Video Your Vote” section to make sure they’re from a state where creating a video is legal. “That said, it’s in the hands of the voter to know what’s legal and what’s not in their area,” said Ferstman.

In another highly public instance, on November 6, craigslist signed an agreement with 40 States Attorneys General to “prevent illegal activity and improve safety” of its online community even though a US Court of Appeals earlier this year ruled that craigslist wasn’t liable for discriminatory adds place on the site. Apparently there are limits to how far some companies are willing to go to protect human traffickers and other despicable criminals and at the same time retain its own credibility. A press release posted on the craigslist blog shares with readers some of the steps they have taken, including:

“craigslist is constantly working to improve its existing tools for enforcing its terms of use. In this regard, the company has continued to refine its protocols for blocking inappropriate postings and advertisements for illegal services. In addition, a flagging system accompanies each ad, so that inappropriate content can be identified by users for quick removal. craigslist has also implemented the industry standard PICS rating system for tagging adult content, to facilitate parental screening software on home computers.”

So, it seems taking a little preventive action could save you from lots of problems later (as craigslist nearly found out).

What can we do?

Organizations need to consider carefully what price they are willing to pay for moderating (or not moderating) comments and postings on sites they build. If you are a small company or the lone blogger for your boss, aside from employing that team of lawyers and content moderators, how do you decide what kinds of content to allow on your blog or forums? You can try posting “guidelines for posting comments,” but those go largely ignored.

First, talk to a lawyer. Get a referral from your corporate lawyer (You do have one, don’t you?) for someone who practices Cyber law from an accredited university. After all, they know the law, and are familiar with current decisions that could affect your organization.

But the law only goes so far. It’s not illegal (at this point, anyway) to use four-letter words on your blog or web site, nor to post comments that contain them. It’s also not illegal to post sexualized photos or gory images. But again, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. Along with following the advice of your cyber lawyer, the best way to determine the more subtle do’s and don’ts of posts and comments is the same thing your high school composition teacher always said. Know your audience.

Know your audience

If your web site primarily attracts a smarmy under-thirty crowd, then allowing someone to post a comment saying “Your product is F’n great,” might be okay. But if you sell diabetic supplies to seniors or church supplies to pastors, it’s probably not. If you’re trying to attract a family audience, it’s probably best to refrain from the sex and gore.

Am I making generalizations? Sure. Some pastors user four-letter words. Some families let their kids watch gore. But unless you have a very small and specific customer base, your web audience, or the new audience you are trying to reach, is determined by demographics, not individual behaviors. Communications based on customer behavior data are best saved for targeted email blasts, and other direct marketing efforts. In other words, you have to write for your audience, but keep it broad.

In the cyber world we can’t know each customer intimately like we do when calling on them in person. There’s no way to know how to monitor our words or behaviors by reading body language or facial expressions. It’s tempting to allow controversial comments and posts on our sites and hope they encourage conversation (and increase Google presence), but not at the risk of losing important customers. Again, why let controversy distract your users from what you are really trying to accomplish. Most people who don’t like something they see on our web site will never write in to let us know, they’ll just stop buying.

I’m interested in what others’ experiences have been with this and what types of efforts you or your company are making to protect your credibility when it comes to comments and forums.