In the Site Usage Agreement the EF Admin outlines use for eCommunities. This agreement was created by EF and must be agreed to by members before they can create an account. EF holds the “right to bar registration from any specific email service or ISP.”[1] It also states that members “agree that neither this site, nor any person or entity associated with it, will be held responsible for the contents, accuracy, completeness or validity of any information posted in them.”[2] In addition, “You agree that you are solely responsible for the content of your messages and that you will indemnify and hold harmless the Epilepsy Foundation, the software manufacturer, and their agents and employees with respect to any claim based upon the appearance and/or transmission of your message(s).” [3] Finally, the usage agreement states, “In the event of any complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you, the Epilepsy Foundation reserves the right to reveal your identity and any other information we may know about you.” [4]
[1] Site Usage Agreement. http://epilepsyfoundation.ning.com/page/site-usage-agreement
[2] Site Usage Agreement. http://epilepsyfoundation.ning.com/page/site-usage-agreement
[3] Site Usage Agreement. http://epilepsyfoundation.ning.com/page/site-usage-agreement
[4] Site Usage Agreement. http://epilepsyfoundation.ning.com/page/site-usage-agreement
Monday, May 11, 2009
Modes of Control
Filtering: EF Admin exercises the right to filter content that breaches any of the three documents users agree to abide by when they create an account. Ethical considerations regarding filtering include over breadth, under breadth, time, and medical decisions made by non-professionals.
Filtering always has the possibility to accidentally allow items that should not be included (under breadth) or exclude items that should be included (over breadth). In this case, posting of photos has been delayed until individually approved by site admin. This also creates a concern for time. Timeliness of posting photos has been outweighed by necessary protection for the community in a balancing test comparable to the ad hoc balancing test. The value of the image’s content is weighed against the possible harm it could produce- or the interest in making the photo public to members versus keeping it from members.
One final ethical thought to consider is who is making the decisions regarding filtering. If EF Admin is not a trained professional, how do they have the capacity to judge which images could invoke a seizure and which are safe. Allowing a person without a medical background to do this is of great concern to me. Especially when epilepsy in all its form is still very much an unknown; in fact that is the definition of epilepsy: two or more unexplained seizures.
Norms: eCommunities has established norms for members. They are best outlined in the Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, and Usage Agreement contracts. These documents combined with the precedent of member action establish what is right and wrong in the community.
The invasive photos clearly violated not only the established community norms, but EF was able to take action because of the Usage Agreement all members agree to upon creating their accounts.
Participation: This site was built for members and is run on member-generated content and interactions. Members also alerted EF Admin to the invasive content. This site is deeply rooted in participation.
Pressure: Reactions (both emotional and potentially physical) prompted EF Admin to remove the invasive content. Extreme possible consequences force ER to closely moderate the site to protect its members. If they community is one that can be easily infiltrated, it will loose its credibility and members will move elsewhere.
Liability: EF is not liable for content as an internet host. Ning is also not liable for content. Under the bookstore model, which includes internet hosts, EF cannot be held accountable for their content as they do not exercise complete control over what is written and/or posted.Liability has the potential to make the site a lot safer. If EF were help responsible for all content, it can be assured no harmful images would ever be posted, as a large legal suit would likely be filed. Using liability as a mode of control for site content would protect users, but would increase the likelihood of over breadth filtering.
Filtering always has the possibility to accidentally allow items that should not be included (under breadth) or exclude items that should be included (over breadth). In this case, posting of photos has been delayed until individually approved by site admin. This also creates a concern for time. Timeliness of posting photos has been outweighed by necessary protection for the community in a balancing test comparable to the ad hoc balancing test. The value of the image’s content is weighed against the possible harm it could produce- or the interest in making the photo public to members versus keeping it from members.
One final ethical thought to consider is who is making the decisions regarding filtering. If EF Admin is not a trained professional, how do they have the capacity to judge which images could invoke a seizure and which are safe. Allowing a person without a medical background to do this is of great concern to me. Especially when epilepsy in all its form is still very much an unknown; in fact that is the definition of epilepsy: two or more unexplained seizures.
Norms: eCommunities has established norms for members. They are best outlined in the Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, and Usage Agreement contracts. These documents combined with the precedent of member action establish what is right and wrong in the community.
The invasive photos clearly violated not only the established community norms, but EF was able to take action because of the Usage Agreement all members agree to upon creating their accounts.
Participation: This site was built for members and is run on member-generated content and interactions. Members also alerted EF Admin to the invasive content. This site is deeply rooted in participation.
Pressure: Reactions (both emotional and potentially physical) prompted EF Admin to remove the invasive content. Extreme possible consequences force ER to closely moderate the site to protect its members. If they community is one that can be easily infiltrated, it will loose its credibility and members will move elsewhere.
Liability: EF is not liable for content as an internet host. Ning is also not liable for content. Under the bookstore model, which includes internet hosts, EF cannot be held accountable for their content as they do not exercise complete control over what is written and/or posted.Liability has the potential to make the site a lot safer. If EF were help responsible for all content, it can be assured no harmful images would ever be posted, as a large legal suit would likely be filed. Using liability as a mode of control for site content would protect users, but would increase the likelihood of over breadth filtering.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Research Question
Research Questions
What modes of control do EF Admin exercise to protect the community?
Do the members agree with the actions taken?
Can legal action be taken for online actions that produce physical harm?
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Forum post 5/7/09
Hello,
I am a Journalism student at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, WI. I am studying the Epilepsy Foundation's eCommunity for a research project I am working on. I would love to converse with users on this site about why you use the site,
These questions are for anyone to answer:
What does this community mean to you?
How did you find out about eCommunities?
How do you participate?
How did you become aware of the posted images which violated the Terms of Service?
Do you agree with how EF Admin handled the situation?
I appreciate all and any responses, feel free to message me your answers or just comment here.
Thank you!!
I am a Journalism student at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, WI. I am studying the Epilepsy Foundation's eCommunity for a research project I am working on. I would love to converse with users on this site about why you use the site,
These questions are for anyone to answer:
What does this community mean to you?
How did you find out about eCommunities?
How do you participate?
How did you become aware of the posted images which violated the Terms of Service?
Do you agree with how EF Admin handled the situation?
I appreciate all and any responses, feel free to message me your answers or just comment here.
Thank you!!
Friday, May 8, 2009
Responde
I have had many more replies to my post than anticipated! Everyone is very nice and extremely open about their opinions and use of the site. I will relay more information on the posts later.
I will follow up with a few of the responders and undoubtedly their posts will formulate a large part of my description in the final paper.
I appreciate the community's openness and willingness to share.
I will follow up with a few of the responders and undoubtedly their posts will formulate a large part of my description in the final paper.
I appreciate the community's openness and willingness to share.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
To disclose or not to disclose?
I have chosen to research the Epilepsy Foundation's eCommunities site on ning. Immediately after joining and creating a profile with limited information, I was welcomed by a fellow member. Even after identifiying myselft as a researcher, I was able to maintain my relationship with the member and he agreed to an interview.
Now I have just posted a topic on the "forum", a portion of the site that allows members to post information, questions, experiences, anything- and other members can respond. I am asking users what the community means to them, as well as a few other open-ended questions.
As a person living with epilepsy, this site was of great interest to me. I created my profile with my condition in full disclosure. After revealing myself as a researcher, I wasn't sure if I should expect people to believe me, or if they may think I was trying to work my way in to the community by claiming I have epilepsy.
In my "forum" post, I was unsure whether to disclose my condition. I felt I should keep my experiences off the table in trying to complete an ethnographic study, but all the while, I had a feeling more people may open up if I was honest about my situation.
Well, I decided to leave if off the "forum" for now. My profile still discloses my epilepsy, but I did not include it in my "forum" introduction and questionaire. If I don't receive replies I may repost and see if there is a difference in response based on my idetifying as epileptic.
Now I have just posted a topic on the "forum", a portion of the site that allows members to post information, questions, experiences, anything- and other members can respond. I am asking users what the community means to them, as well as a few other open-ended questions.
As a person living with epilepsy, this site was of great interest to me. I created my profile with my condition in full disclosure. After revealing myself as a researcher, I wasn't sure if I should expect people to believe me, or if they may think I was trying to work my way in to the community by claiming I have epilepsy.
In my "forum" post, I was unsure whether to disclose my condition. I felt I should keep my experiences off the table in trying to complete an ethnographic study, but all the while, I had a feeling more people may open up if I was honest about my situation.
Well, I decided to leave if off the "forum" for now. My profile still discloses my epilepsy, but I did not include it in my "forum" introduction and questionaire. If I don't receive replies I may repost and see if there is a difference in response based on my idetifying as epileptic.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)