How are social network depositors worse than banking?
More and more now there are materials about the rights and obligations of users of social networks. Even about the trade union of users of social networks, there was talk. However, in few places, the question of rights of information contributors is raised to its fullest voice. More on duties. I have already spoken about one of these rights - the right of a blogger not to respond to a comment. And now I want to talk about another right - the right of the author not to be the object of subjective assessments and offensive comments. And the associated responsibility of the owner of any social resource is to protect this right of its information contributors .
Among the labels, which sometimes hang on me, was the “offended contributor.” At first, such a definition seemed to me to be not an entirely successful analogy related to the financial adventures of the “troubled times”. However, recently I suddenly understood its deep meaning. I do not know whether the author of this “term” himself meant it, but see for yourself.
After all, each blogger, in fact, invests what is now accepted to magnify content in some world information bank. Why does he do it, and who needs it - separate questions, but the fact of the contribution remains undeniable. There are very few people capable of generating original content; say, no more than 10% of all users of the social Internet.
Now I will not touch upon the issue of payment for information, which has been strenuously raised by many. Some of them even say that this will be the main quality of Web3.0. I do not know, but I am sure that the authors in social networks still need a certain motivation for their work. And the minimum that any normal person hopes for, regardless of whether he published a detailed article on his blog, made a small comment on someone else, spoke on a forum or shared an interesting link with other users, providing it with an annotation, so it’s a respectful attitude to their "contribution". By the way, in Clear Space all content carriers are called contributors.
')
But after all, any information contributor has some kind of interest in launching information in social networks, the reader will say. And for the interest and you can suffer. I will not argue. In very many cases, this is so - this or that interest takes place. However, a bank depositor, as a rule, does not invest its hard-earned money for charitable reasons. There is interest. And the less depositors bankers are highly respected. Why is this happening, I think, it is not even worth explaining. And how do the owners of social resources differ from bankers? Why do they for the most part so do not respect their investors?
I well understand that it is difficult for administrators of these resources to keep track of everything, even with the help of UFOs :). But why, for example, in the same Habré not to transfer the functions of restoring order to the moderators of each collective blog? After all, a collective blog is essentially a community of like-minded people. Why I as the caretaker of this blog can’t close it for comments from people not registered in the collective blog? And why can't I get any member out of the blog for dirty comments? All that today Habr allows me to do is close the collective blog for new notes (topics) from non-participants. True, any member of the blog can make a closed publication. But few people use this, since in this case no one else can even read the note. And everyone is interested in attracting new readers. In other words, the following rule should act in a collective blog: “Please read, but the right to comment must still be earned . ”
A more detailed text of this note with all the necessary links is in my iTech Bridge blog .
Among the labels, which sometimes hang on me, was the “offended contributor.” At first, such a definition seemed to me to be not an entirely successful analogy related to the financial adventures of the “troubled times”. However, recently I suddenly understood its deep meaning. I do not know whether the author of this “term” himself meant it, but see for yourself.
After all, each blogger, in fact, invests what is now accepted to magnify content in some world information bank. Why does he do it, and who needs it - separate questions, but the fact of the contribution remains undeniable. There are very few people capable of generating original content; say, no more than 10% of all users of the social Internet.
Now I will not touch upon the issue of payment for information, which has been strenuously raised by many. Some of them even say that this will be the main quality of Web3.0. I do not know, but I am sure that the authors in social networks still need a certain motivation for their work. And the minimum that any normal person hopes for, regardless of whether he published a detailed article on his blog, made a small comment on someone else, spoke on a forum or shared an interesting link with other users, providing it with an annotation, so it’s a respectful attitude to their "contribution". By the way, in Clear Space all content carriers are called contributors.
')
But after all, any information contributor has some kind of interest in launching information in social networks, the reader will say. And for the interest and you can suffer. I will not argue. In very many cases, this is so - this or that interest takes place. However, a bank depositor, as a rule, does not invest its hard-earned money for charitable reasons. There is interest. And the less depositors bankers are highly respected. Why is this happening, I think, it is not even worth explaining. And how do the owners of social resources differ from bankers? Why do they for the most part so do not respect their investors?
I well understand that it is difficult for administrators of these resources to keep track of everything, even with the help of UFOs :). But why, for example, in the same Habré not to transfer the functions of restoring order to the moderators of each collective blog? After all, a collective blog is essentially a community of like-minded people. Why I as the caretaker of this blog can’t close it for comments from people not registered in the collective blog? And why can't I get any member out of the blog for dirty comments? All that today Habr allows me to do is close the collective blog for new notes (topics) from non-participants. True, any member of the blog can make a closed publication. But few people use this, since in this case no one else can even read the note. And everyone is interested in attracting new readers. In other words, the following rule should act in a collective blog: “Please read, but the right to comment must still be earned . ”
A more detailed text of this note with all the necessary links is in my iTech Bridge blog .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/15039/
All Articles