Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Sep 19, 2012 in Freedom of expression, Internet, Technology |

We can delete

We can delete

A few days ago I was immersed in a recurring feeling that humans have “hatred of our bank.” He was making a relatively complex process, I had to submit a list of documents, the problem is that each time he would carry the folder, asked me something new. Tired of the bank come and go, and wish 7 plagues for owners of the institution, I decided to investigate my options. It was really annoying. In this bank there is an entity called “Ombudsman”. This is similar to what many newspapers have an “ombudsman”. A kind of independent internal department has the authority to act for the client and putting his hand on the claim against the ruling bureaucracy. An internal power balance. They have started to help me solve the problem. I’m a less annoying, and in an unknown corner of my being I started to having an inch of sympathy to my bank forever.

In the case of the journalist who complained on Twitter about the terrible NBC’s decision to postpone the opening of the London 2012 Olympic Games, when he suspended his account in the tool, and that the pressure of many media and newspapers , was activated again. And now with the case of Ricardo Galli (founder of Digg), who have suspended his without much explanation. I began to think that it is essential that companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and many others, have the figure of “Defender of the tweeters” (or Facebookero or Googleplusero). And I think at some point there must be a clear law that defends people against the power of these companies. I do not mean a law that puts limits on what people can do on the Internet, not to put limits on companies, but if there are basic rights set, and channels that meet.

Accounts that are users of Twitter and will eventually be part of the assets of the person, their history, their heritage, their content, their photos, their lives, and although these services are hosted on (in these companies), must there is a limit to how how are you account may be suspended. Whatever the conditions of use, and although we gave click the little picture and accept that we never read, companies can no longer unilaterally disabling accounts, and neither can do simple algorithms.

Maybe today is not a fundamental problem, it happens to a few people, in general these companies try to act cool, and not evil, some describe themselves as better than the Justice League. But this may change, an independent company may be bought by a government on the side of the world where I live most often occurs in Iceland a few years ago happened. How will Twitter if their owners are the U.S. government? Or if a president decides to buy Facebook totalitarian thanks to money given oil?. There are a lot of questions for which I have no answer. For now I think that companies can create a completely separate department, which has autonomy within the company and manages certain user complaints, not simply customer service or technical support, rather something close to hiring Internet personality, a mixture of Chocolate Rain with Julian Assange , who can coordinate a relatively large department resources and people, and where to contact in case you need to defend a Twitter user of Twitter. Not your typical Who watches the watchers? is rather trying to break from within the process of bureaucratization that these companies are so large and with so many millions of people. If I have tools to complain against a government of a country of 30 million people, there should be a logical, beyond an automated email to complain about a company of 400 million users. There is some scale, there are some civil rights, there is some humanity, there is something I can not explain well. I think at some point these things come into the agenda.

A company with 400 million users can not do what he wants with one of those users, I can stomp, deny his account of years, closed without warning, delete the photos, take your friends, erase your connections, remove the videos of your baby because someone said the song Beautiful Boy by John Lennon and not humanity. And even if they have the power to do, and although they may have to make excuses, and although the law may have to do it, not right. It is well clear to people, not well deny the right to defense, not well believe in copyright and in the joy of a father.

We can not be deleted.

Tags: , , ,