5 ms·
It occurs to me that we need a more nimble and inexpensive method for removing or forcing the correction of defamatory materials online. This is a common probl
by eavc 16y ago
It occurs to me that we need a more nimble and inexpensive method for removing or forcing the correction of defamatory materials online.
This is a common problem already, but as the web evolves to allow for more easily discoverable anonymous comments about average people (and it will), it will become an even more pervasive one.
- mortenjorck 16y agoHere's a startup idea: A centralized forum where people can respond to potentially defamatory content. Log in via OpenID or FB Connect, enter the offending link, and then tell your side of the story. Freemium model lets anyone do this, but you can verify your identity for a small fee. Alas, clearmy.name is currently squatted.
- slapshot 16y agoA site like "Clearmy.name" would be useless unless Google brings that site up at the top or unless readers bothered to fact-check every allegation against that site. If you've ever gotten a chain letter by email, you know that people can't even be bothered to check Snopes.com before sending a dubious letter to hundreds of "friends", so I sadly doubt that a lot of people would check Clearmy.name.
- gojomo 16y agoSome jurisdictions have proposed a 'right of reply'. Online, this could mean potentially compelling online writers (such as bloggers) or aggregators (like search engines) to include prominent links to, or the text of, official responses from disputants. See for example: http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/intellectual-property/don%E2%80%99t-censor-search/ http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/i... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply
- eavc 16y agoThanks, that's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind.