TJC Stomp Scandal - 34 views
started by Weiman Kow on 19 Aug 09
started by Weiman Kow on 19 Aug 09
Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group
started by Weiman Kow on 19 Aug 09
Oh man, I hope I haven't participated in an act of defamation/online rumor-mongering with that typo...which incidentally I still can't find a way to edit...(help anyone?)
There are many issues with how STOMP is run, and I have much to say on its intrusive surveillance and flawed reporting, but for now I'll address the issue at hand -
To re-phrase the question I asked, since the discussion has clarified it up slightly:
Who holds the responsibility for posting erroneous (and damaging) information? Is it STOMP for posting it up after an editor has gone through it, or is the the irresponsible public who sent in the information?
I believe as you do that the STOMP should take up responsibility of it, even though it does not state explicitly that it reports the truth. However, I will not generalize it to ALL platform providers, as this case is very specific to STOMP.
The reason I believe STOMP has responsibility in this case are as follows:
1. The articles go through an editor before being published - hence the editor has responsibility in the matter.
2. It associates itself closely with the Straits Times, a reliable newspaper, and hence implies that the same discernment and judgement in reporting is present in STOMP. It is evident that this is not the case. However, this implied relationship gives the articles on STOMP a greater sense of authority than they would if they were posted in any other forum, and the public will give greater importance to the articles posted.
Hence, if the incident regarding TPJC couple were posted on the hardwarezone forums, and the controversy resulted in their dismissal from student council, I will not demand that the platform provider is responsible, because it does not give the illusion of authority, which STOMP does.
In that case it is clearly the responsibility and fault of the person who posted the incident for misrepresenting facts, much like if the article appears in someone's blog.
Also, just stop and think for a moment - will the principal dismiss the students from their positions if the article were posted on someone's blog or in a random forum? He would probably be hesitant to act based on such flimsy evidence.
Obviously, it makes a difference if STOMP was the one who reports it.
Here's a talk by a STOMP editor: http://theory.isthereason.com/?p=1612. I just found it and hadn't had the time to watch it yet, but the brief given by the blogger seems to list several ethical issues that STOMP tried to address during the talk.
To answer the first question, I would say "no" because I have checked STOMP's "Terms & Conditions" (www. stomp.com.sg/tnc.html). Users are automatically bound to the "Terms & Conditions", which include clauses such as "you must not use (STOMP) in such a way that will break the law or cause loss to anyone or violate anyone's rights… If you cause us to suffer any kind of claims, loss, damage or legal costs, you must indemnify us… We will not be responsible for any claims, loss, damage, and legal costs that you may suffer because of your use of STOMP".
If users do not agree to the "Terms & Conditions", they should not use STOMP. However, in my opinion, STOMP can practice Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by performing content regulation. This is to reduce harm to innocent people to the minimum, i.e. inappropriate content for the minors. The least STOMP can do is to provide a feedback channel for users to report on inappropriate content, which STOMP has implemented - "If you do not like what you see on this site, you must inform us immediately…" (Duty-based morality?)
Supporters of freedom of speech may not be pleased with a system of content regulation, which is something STOMP is advocating for as well - "One of our main objectives for building STOMP is to encourage an exchange of views freely". (Rights-based morality?)
However, one can never remove enough inappropriate content. It is definitely not a long-term solution that effectively promotes healthy free speech. A better approach, though cliché, is to educate online users . The responsibility to learn and educate lies on every party, especially large corporations since they have more power at influencing. Ideally, a balance between free speech and content regulation should be achieved. (Utilitarianism?)
To answer the second question from the first paragraph, I would like to provide some opinions of a STOMP employee whom I chatted with before. He said that photographs taken in the public sphere are legal, unless taken within private property. He also said that STOMP even tried to protect the identities of "victims" in the photographs by editing them, i.e. technically covering their eyes with black boxes.
Well, what do you think of the employee's point of view? Below are some ethical questions I can think of:
1) Is it right to assume that identities/ privacy rights can be protected by doing some touch-ups to photographs?
2) To enjoy freedom of speech, should users first sacrifice some of their privacy rights (i.e. personal information) so that they will use STOMP in a responsible manner (i.e. not posting inappropriate content/ abide by copyright laws)?
3) Is it right for STOMP to use "Terms & Conditions" to protect itself, considering that it is a large corporation and more likely to attract parties who sue them for financial compensations?