NEW TECHNOLOGY

Who polices Facebook?

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 28 Nov 08, 16:42 GMT

A young producer on Radio 4's Today programme got a shock the other day when he logged onto Facebook. In his newsfeed was an item posted by a friend linking to a photo, allegedly of the mother of Baby P, the child killed in the recent notorious case. Various obscene and threatening comments were then posted next to the photo. Facebook is removing the picture and other details when notified by members, but new groups keep popping up.

The names of the baby's parents are also being distributed via text, and presumably on other web outlets. A court order protects the identity of these people and no mainstream media outlet would even consider breaking that ruling. So what are the responsibilities of social networks when their members break the law in this manner - and how carefully should they police the material that is generated by their users?

It all comes down to how you see the likes of Facebook and MySpace - are they just technology platforms, playgrounds for their users to exploit as they will? Or are they now becoming major media businesses facing the same regulatory demands as a broadcaster or a newspaper? The networks would like to be treated much the same as telecoms businesses - after all nobody is suggesting that the mobile network on which that text about Baby P's parents was sent should have any responsibility to stop that happening.

But there is growing pressure from politicians and regulators, who, as the online child safety expert John Carr told me, "are getting more self-confident, more assertive, about the internet, and are no longer convinced it's lawless and ungovernable." Mr Carr, who acts as an advisor to Facebook's rival MySpace, pointed out that MPs on the Culture Select Committee had ordered social networks to be more proactive in their policing of their members.

Nicholas Lansmann, chief executive of the Internet Service Providers Association said on the Today Programme that sites like Facebook are "not the police of the internet" and worked under the "notice and take-down regulations", which required them to remove illegal content once notified about it. He said that system was working well but that it was very difficult to tackle what were in effect millions of self-publishers particualrly given the cross-border nature of the internet.

Which bring us back to Facebook, a California-based company, which is now a major force in the UK, and boasts of its ambitions here. The company did give us a statement about the Baby P issue,detailing out all the actions it has taken to remove content that violates its terms of use, and pointing out that the network is a "highly self regulating comunity". But despite being given 36 hours notice, the company refused to provide anyone in California or London to speak about the issue. It has also been less forthcoming than other networks when asked to comment more generally on privacy and security issues.

Facebook is becoming the place where millions of British people get news, views, and all sorts of media content, and that means it will be under the spotlight more and more. It has a perfectly decent case to argue when it comes to its self-regulatory model - so shouldn't it be out there making that case?

• Permalink

Recent entries

Can Stephen Fry kill a gadget?

• Rory Cellan-Jones
• 27 Nov 08, 17:51 GMT

Who or what decides whether a new gadget flies - or fails? Is it the quality and quantity of the advertising? The reviews in newspapers and magazines? Word of mouth among consumers? Or, in the UK at least, could it be the views of Stephen Fry?

In the old days, any new product launched by a major consumer brand was accompanied by a marketing blitz that would almost guarantee decent early sales. Then eventually the reviews in newspapers and specialist magazines and word-of-mouth from happy or disgruntled consumers would determine whether a new car, camera - or mobile phone - would be a long-term hit or miss.

Now the whole process has been accelerated by the web and is far more difficult for companies to control, with early pictures and opinions emerging online before the real "specialists" have had a chance to deliver their judgment. But with so many different views of products - from technology blogs, from specialist online forums, from any old Facebook friend - it becomes difficult for consumers to filter the noise and get a clear view. That is where a "trusted guide" like Stephen Fry comes in.

As well as being a much-loved entertainer, Mr Fry has built a reputation as one of Britain's most knowledgeable gadget lovers - though as the second person in the UK to buy a Mac (after Douglas Adams), his passion for anything made by Apple is pretty clear. He is particularly keen on smartphones and has written at length about the various delights and disappointments of using them.

So along comes the Blackberry Storm, with an avalanche of advertising from Vodafone - which has the exclusive contract in Britain - and plenty of excitable speculation amongst the kind of people who really, really care about whether a new mobile phone has wi-fi, and whether it can turn the bath on before they get home.

Then on Twitter, where he has quickly built an audience of more than 20,000 followers, came this series of messages from Stephen Fry:

"Been playing with the BB Storm. Shockingly bad. I mean embarrassingly awful. Such a disappointment. Rushed out unfinished. What a pity."

"Yes, I blame n'works more than RIM. Problems are terrible lag: inaccurate t'screen, awful, slow and fiddly text input. I SO wanted to like it."

"Plus the GPS maps won't work - issue with BIS connections. I see from forums postings this is widespread in the UK. iPhone killer? Ha!"

Those short bursts of instant reaction were then recycled and passed on by other Twitter users. As the "Twitterati" tend to be early adopters who are likely customers for new smartphones, this is a more important audience than its numbers might suggest.

Mr Fry was by no means the only expert to be deeply unimpressed by BlackBerry's new baby. David Pogue of the New York Times, another very influential technology pundit, has also given it a stinker, and his views are now racing around networks like Twitter.

I'm sure there will still be some decent sales figures for the Storm in the early weeks - unless that advertising blitz has been completely misdirected - but what a high-end product like this need is a buzz of anticipation and that's been silenced by Messrs Fry and Pogue.

So a couple of "trusted guides" - or "super-advocates" as someone else described them - could have sealed the fate of a product of huge importance to both RIM and Vodafone. What's the lesson for the gadget-makers? Maybe they need to spend more time hanging out on social networks and listening to what is being said. Or perhaps they should get their products thoroughly tested by Stephen Fry and David Pogue before they are launched - rather than sit and watch their damning views go viral.

And having had my say, what does Stephen Fry himself think? I asked him - this was his response:

Crumbs Rory! Do I have the power to kill a gadget? Of course, like all pusillanimous people I enjoy the idea that I could make a gadget - but break one?
If I really thought my influence was that great it might make me a little wary of being quite so definite and it would probably force me to be more specific about all the features/pricing/services, as a responsible tech journalist should be. As it is, I hope people know I am no more than an enthusiastic, passionate amateur (I'm including the French sense of the word amateur - lover). It gives me no pleasure to be negative about the BB Storm and I know that many people have been looking forward to receipt of theirs and were very disheartened to hear my loud disappointment. But, honestly: play with the Storm for two days as I have and you will admire my patience at not throwing it out of the window... I do like the Bold though. Could live with that. But to return to your point. The net should make us all equal in our influence. Okay - more equal.