Recent events raise a number of troubling questions for the future of web freedom in general and social media in particular.
The background: In September of 2006, a truly disturbing piece of video was posted on Google Italy. It showed a group of boys tormenting a another boy. The victim had Down's Syndrome. It stayed up for two months and went on to become the most viewed clip in Italy.
As a result, three Google executives were convicted this week of breaking privacy laws. This is a bad thing. In fact, one British M.P. went so far as to say it represents the "biggest threat to Internet freedom we have seen." Google concurs and will appeal.
Let's be clear. Google is not above the law. The question is, what exactly is Google, and where does the responsibility lie? Why punish the railroad tracks for the act of the villain who tied the maiden down?
The ruling brings up a number of questions: Is Google just providing rails for content and is, therefore, 'infrastructure'? Or is it no different from any other service provider and therefore bearing the responsibilities of such an entity? What does this mean for YouTube? Whose responsibility is the content which is uploaded to Google, or other video sites? The producer/uploader, or host? And, if this ruling stands and is precedential in other jurisdictions, what might result?
One scenario may well be that all content will need to be pre-screened. Who will do that? Do we really want the Google Ministry of Content going over every 'dog on a skateboard' video in order to find and censor - even if reluctantly - the one or two repulsive things that sick individuals feel worthy of inflicting upon the web?
The most populist creative outpost the world has ever known will be neutered.
And what about Facebook? Six Pixels notes that it recently overtook Yahoo as thesecond most popular website in the U.S. Will that amazing achievement be accompanied by more rigorous scrutiny of content as a result of the Italian ruling? And what kind of content?
Recently, we in Canada saw the rapid growth of a citizen-engagement, protest-oriented Facebook group. And despite administrators' best efforts to 'keep it nice', some of the content posted by members is over the top in its vitriol. Could such a situation raise the ire of state authorities such that pressure was brought to beear on Facebook itself?
Probably not. Yet, still, should the Italian conviction obtained against Google stand, it may have broad and severe implications for the way we access - and contribute to - the vast body of content on the web.
And we thought the efforts against Net Neutrality were bad.
