Kate Crawford and Tarleton Gillespie, What is
a flag for? Social media reporting tools and the vocabulary of complaint, 4
New Media Society (2014). One of the points
I most liked:
[F]lags speak only in a narrow
vocabulary of complaint. A flag, at its most basic, indicates an objection.
User opinions about the content are reduced to a set of imprecise proxies:
flags, likes or dislikes, and views. Regardless of the proliferating submenus
of vocabulary, there remains little room for expressing the degree of concern,
or situating the complaint, or taking issue with the rules. There is not, for
example, a flag to indicate that something is troubling, but nonetheless worth
preserving. The vocabulary of complaint does not extend to protecting forms of
speech that may be threatening, but are deemed necessary from a civic
perspective. Neither do complaints account for the many complex reasons why
people might choose to flag content, but for reasons other than simply being
offended. Flags do not allow a community to discuss that concern, nor is there
any trace left for future debates.
We often speak of the internet as a boon for communities,
but it is so only in certain ways, and it can be structured so that certain
kinds of communities have a harder time forming or discussing particular
issues. I have similar concerns with
Amazon’s Kindle Worlds compared to the organic, messy world of noncommercial
fan fiction, for example.
No comments:
Post a Comment