As promised, I'm going to talk about communities, which is a
horribly multivalent word, but it's the best there is1. No, I'm
not going to give you advice on how to manage
a community or
trott
out Clay Shirky, I'm going to talk about what happens
when someone fucks up.
First, let's set the stage. There are many websites whose
visitors form a community - wanting to belong is part of
human nature. There are discussions, flame wars,
friendships2, disagreements. And then, out of the blue,
someone in power does something that crosses the norms of the
community, and all
hell breaks loose. Why? Because most of the time, 90% of the user base
is silent, so when the shit hits the fan there's
suddenly 10 times the volume of comments. I'll give some
examples of the reactions to poor community management.
Back in May, Digg started quietly pulling stories containing
09-f9-11-02-9d-74-e3-5b-d8-41-56-c5-63-56-88-c0, the AACS
MKBv1 processing key, and banning the users that submitted
them. Digg users are more technologically inclined than the
average person, and have quite a dislike for DRM. So when
the Digg blog said this was happening because they'd
been served DMCA takedown notices, the Digg users revolted,
posting the story continuously. Digg management responds
by banning more people, and eventually taking down the
submission page. Eight hours later, the whole site is taken
down for maintenance and Digg capitulates to
this civil disobedience.
Flickr recently expanded into several countries and
languages. However, as part of this they decided that due to
a German law, German users were not allowed to see pictures
labeled "moderate" and "restricted", as they did not have
measures in place to stop minors seeing them. This change
again occurred with no warning, causing users to moan
loudly
and leave,
and note that Flickr was misreading
the law, as the German definition of inappropriate for
minors covers less than US laws, and Flickr only needed to
take down photos when notified, instead of pre-emptively
filtering them. After a few days Flickr
started
talking
and after a week relented to allow "moderate" pictures to be
shown, but still banned "restricted" images.
Eve Online has been subject to continued allegations that
CCP employees have been giving favors to one of the main
factions. Some allegations have proved
true, others turned
out to be disinformation. CCP already had an internal
affairs division that performed regular audits, but there
were still accusations of bias. So CCP will hold
elections for an oversight committee which will audit
CCP's operations.
The LiveJournal section of this post exploded so I've moved
it to a separate
page. The short version is that SixApart
has consistently acted against the LiveJournal community in
an arbitrary and unjust fashion, while the community has
been unable to effect much change - most often after a
scandal LiveJournal claims
nothing has or needs to be changed: "We are
making no major policy changes, we have made no changes to
the TOS, and we do not anticipate making any changes in the
future." Even open
letters with suggestions and asking
for clarifications are being ignored for days.
Facebook had over 700,000
people protest over its introduction of News Feeds which
broadcast everyone's activities to the world. At first
Facebook claimed everything
was ok because "The privacy rules haven't changed" but
then three days later backed
down and added more privacy controls.
So what can we learn from the above cases if you're the
owner of a site that has a community? Firstly, don't
govern by stealth, banning people on the sly and leaving no
traces, because people will notice and complain. Inform your
community of the rule changes
you're making ahead of time, and make it clear who is
affected by them. This is now backed up by law, due to the
recent Ninth Circuit3 decision
requiring notification when terms of service change.
Secondly, communicate. As Hugh McLeod
says,
corporate blogging reduces the difference in
conversations between the company and the community, so the
company understands what the community is on about, and is
therefore less likely to act stupidly and piss them off. And
when you do fuck up, communicate quickly to say you know
you've fucked up, explain why you fucked up, and are working
on fixing things. Otherwise people will continue to rant and
lose faith in the site owners. Thirdly, be consistent. Don't
ban some people and not
others. In particular, don't let yourself appear to be doing
the bidding of a third party with an agenda. List your
rules, make a decision about edge cases, and stick to them
impartially. Ideally you should involve your community in
making these rules, but sometimes that isn't possible.
Or, to steal the conclusion of Governing
Transformative Technological Innovation: Who's in
Charge? which I chanced upon in the Co-op
Bookshop while buying Accelerando (synopsis:
Singularity, Stephenson-style), governance must be
Accountable, Responsible
and Transparent. In
particular, I applaud CCP for their creation of a
player-based audit committee. The second most recent LiveJournal
fuckup prompted this
response proposing
that any business entity
that is primarily driven by and dependent on an active and
content-generating user base be obligated to assign some
share of real and actualized decision-making power to
democratically chosen representatives of that user
base.
It remains to be seen if more businesses
will open themselves up to scrutiny by their community.
However, there's a bigger issue at play here - in the case
of sites devoted entirely to community, there exists terrible
lock-in. Or, to quote
Blizzard:
Advantages
that accrue to
highly successful MMORPGs... high consumer switching costs -
the player has to leave their characters and
friends!
This
removes a lot of the incentive for the owners to behave
responsibly, since they'd have to fuck up incredibly badly
to force people to leave. LiveJournal seems to have
managed
this, but the diaspora is spread across a
variety
of
sites
based on the
LiveJournal code,
causing pain for those whose friends are now on different
sites. It's somewhat ironic that the
"network effects" these sites have accrue by making
everyone use the same database instead of being spread out
over the
network. It's just another level of
N=1 thinking,
and leads to pleas like
"You
can have any social network you want, as long as you all
pick the same one."
But everyone using the same system is never going to happen,
no matter how much Google, Facebook, Microsoft or Yahoo
desire it. Which is why the Online
Desktop excites me so
much, in particular the work towards an open
service definition and applications that fulfill it.
It's proposing a counter-narrative
to the
silos
of
the
online
behemoths.
This is what
Eben's talking
about. Or as Luis
put it:
We are standing at the brink of a
huge change in how people store the data that makes up the
emotional content of their lives. We must start coming to
grips with the policy implications of that ... and I’m
excited to think that free and open services could be part
of that.
So what I am going to do about it? As a natural sysadmin
I have the confidence to host online services
myself, and UCC provides the
perfect place to
host them and provide them for my friends as well. But that
doesn't help with integrating with the rest of the world. So
for my fourth
year project I hope to work on integrating identity
across online services. I'll go into more detail once my
proposal is submitted.
One closing thought - IRC can act as a social network
system, or at the very least helps create an identity
story.
I talk with most of my friends via IRC, it's a nice unmediated
public. And yet IRC is used mostly by the technically
inclined, in part because it's most rewarding if you stay
connected all the time, which requires technical assets
(knowing how to use screen, or having a computer on all the
time). IRC is pretty much a non-starter from a mobile
device, unlike IM, SMS or any of the web-base social network
systems.
1.Calling the people who
frequent a website users
is too
passive, participants is too vague,
contributors is too active. Lacking
a more specific term I'll use community for the
rest of the post.
2.
Friend, now
there's
a
multi-valent
word
that
causes
issues.
3 Which
includes California, Oregon and Washington, hence
Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Microsoft, SixApart and many other
dotcoms.