Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by NCommander on Monday May 12 2014, @08:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the #define-soylentnews dept.

You know, this is probably one of the hardest things I've had to write since we went live. My first few attempts just lead to writer's block and frustration, so I tried to take a different tack with this and do it the way I usually do my write-ups for anything; by the seat of my pants. The staff have poked and prodded my early attempts, and I think we're ready to open this up to everyone to add their two cents in as we work towards a final version.

Since we've gone live almost three months ago (yeash, time flies), we've already had our fair share of debates, strife, and conflict, yet at the end of the day we remain operational with an involved community that keeps growing day after day. As I continue my relocation to NH, we're getting scary close to the point we're going to need to start drafting the bylaws and operating principles for this site. One of the pressing questions that have been asked time and time again is, "What will we be?" I'm ready to give you that answer.

Without further ado, let me present the current draft copy of the site manifesto. I'll read through and debate feedback below, and keep refining this until it becomes the defining statement for what SN will be.

SoylentNews Manifesto: Version 0.1

Preamble:

In recent years, many alarming trends have surfaced regarding the free interchange of news and ideas on the internet. The practice of selling users' information for profit, without their approval or even knowledge, has become rampant. People are being prosecuted simply for expressing their opinions. A "Big Brother is Watching" mentality from both state and commercial actors, with universal surveillance now becoming common, has created a chilling effect, preventing people from exercising their rights or speaking up.

Unpopular or unusual views are being actively suppressed, diversity of opinion is too often deemed a problem, and actively restricted, at the whim of corporate and political power.

Too often, the focus upon profit has led to owners forgetting that sites exist for the benefit of their community, and the leadership and staff live to serve that community.

Too often, useful help and input from a site's community is ignored by staff and management who are so out of touch with the very people they serve that they will destroy the support of the community they built, and eventually the business itself.

Statement of Purpose

Our aim is to stand in stalwart opposition to these trends. We will be the best site for independent, not-for-profit journalism on the internet, where ideas can be presented and free discussion can take place without external needs overshadowing the community.

Our Principles

Right to Privacy

We will limit the amount of data collection we do whenever and however we can.

Our user database, and the information in it, is not, and never will be for sale.

Any data collection we do will be done with the consent of the community, and destroyed once we are finished with it.

Any information we collect for legal purposes (i.e., DCMA safe harbor protections) will be destroyed as soon as legally possible.

We will continuously look at ways to shore up users' privacy, including, but not limited to, the tor proxy presently available to our users.

Right of Opinion

Diversity will be respected and encouraged as an important aspect of our community, as groupthink can easily prevent people from seeing other, perhaps better, ideas.

Except as required by law, no one will be banned or have their comments deleted due to stating a fact or opinion, no matter how unpopular or repugnant it is. We will not ban or silence a user for merely stating an opinion.

Freedom of Access

Access to information needs to be available to all members.

We will, to the extent possible, attempt to accommodate members of this site with disabilities, such as those dependent on screen readers.

Content produced by this site shall be available in a format that does not require proprietary or patented software. Non-free methods of access in addition may also be provided for sake of convenience (i.e., a YouTube video)

Freedom from Financial Backers/Handling Advertising

Media can be influenced by those who fund it; to prevent us from becoming slaves to a new overlord, the LibreNews Foundation shall be funded independently by the member sites (such as SoylentNews) which comprise it.

Should fundraising efforts prove insufficient, at the discretion of the staff, we may run advertising on this site in an attempt to supplement income.

No attempt to block access to this site shall be made by those who use ad-blocking software, though we urge such users to subscribe.

Permissions granted by the user to this site shall not extend to other sites (i.e., if you give us permission to email you, we're not going to give anyone else permission to do so).

Third-party media hosted on this on this site shall be limited to a form which is non-distracting, and non-disrupting.

Freedom of Topic

We recognize that the free flow of ideas can only take place in an environment free of taboo subjects.

No topic will be deemed unsuitable for our community to discuss.

Right to Criticize/Right of Reversion

A true community can only exist when communication can flow in both directions.

The right of our community to criticize, make suggestions, and help us improve our site will be respected. No staff or leader will ever be above criticism.

We recognize that mistakes will be made, as we are all human. It is both the right and privilege of others to correct us when needed.

If serious errors are made, we promise to revert them and fix the problems.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday May 12 2014, @09:27PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 12 2014, @09:27PM (#42347)

    You know, the "no topic is off-limits" and the like seems great and all, but what about criminal activity? Say, for example, somebody is using SoylentNews to plan a burglary, grand theft, or even something more serious. Does SoylentNews try to prevent that activity from going through, assist the authorities in finding out who's doing it, etc etc?

    How about if the criminal activity in question is criticizing the government where the commenter is living, which is a crime in some places? I could imagine that being on a different side of the line of OK/not-OK.

    It's a hypothetical, but my experience is that when somebody says "no limits" they often have some limits, even if those boundaries are very wide.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by skullz on Monday May 12 2014, @09:43PM

    by skullz (2532) on Monday May 12 2014, @09:43PM (#42353)

    Similar to this, and I know this would never happen here and all but suppose someone with a good reputation gets their account taken over and starts posting well crafted click bait to some blob of bits that just happen to exploit some zero-day oops.

    Seeing as this is the manifesto the SN overlords may consider throwing in some "except where it is reasonable to protect the community" bits in there. Its vague, undefined, and open to wild interpretation but you are communicating human intent and a thought process through English, not math.

    Or say you won't even block that, which would be fine as well.

    • (Score: 1) by paulej72 on Monday May 12 2014, @11:18PM

      by paulej72 (58) on Monday May 12 2014, @11:18PM (#42400) Journal

      That "except where it is reasonable to protect the community" phrase or something very similar was in an earlier draft. We are for free speech, but that does not give a person the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater. We will have the same restriction, spamming the site will not be tolerated and will be dealt with in an appropriate manner.

      We had one user so far spamming comments for a day or so, but it stopped before we had a chance to make any decision on what to do. What we will need is a TOS to be created so that these types of events and what we do will be spelled out.

      --
      Team Leader for SN Development
      • (Score: 2) by Techwolf on Tuesday May 13 2014, @02:01AM

        by Techwolf (87) on Tuesday May 13 2014, @02:01AM (#42484)

        I think you was meaning free speech != free of responsibility. Meaning if you yell fire and someone gets hurt or killed, you can be charge with a crime, like manslaughter. One is still responsible for said speech.

        A while back, a weatherman recommended getting out of the area due to a incoming tornado. I-10 got jammed hard and said tornado came very close to I-10. Said weatherman almost got fired.

        • (Score: 2) by crutchy on Monday May 19 2014, @10:12PM

          by crutchy (179) on Monday May 19 2014, @10:12PM (#45399) Homepage Journal

          that is an unfortunate story

          sort of seems like blaming the power company if you get robbed during a power outage

          i wonder if anyone cared to look at why the I-10 got so jammed up? aren't there multiple escape routes in high tornado risk areas and predetermined recommended primary and secondary escape routes for various suburbs so that not everyone bails out using the same route? i guess it's always easy to think of these things in hindsight armchair thought exercise though, and most governing authorities are probably normally busy thinking up ways to increase their authority instead of serving their constituents

          seems like if weather reporters are threatened with firing in circumstances like that, they may instead intentionally/inadvertently understate the threat, and then who gets blamed when people get killed in their homes because they weren't advised to get out of the area?

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday May 13 2014, @07:32AM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Tuesday May 13 2014, @07:32AM (#42569) Journal

        We are for free speech, but that does not give a person the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

        Unless it's an actor, and yelling "FIRE" is part of his role, of course. In which case doing it in a crowded theater is actually preferred. ;-)

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Tuesday May 13 2014, @12:16AM

      by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Tuesday May 13 2014, @12:16AM (#42427) Homepage Journal

      Paul already said it, but I think this got removed by accident during one our the editing rounds, and I'll look at readding something to that effect for version 0.2

      --
      Still always moving
  • (Score: 2) by buswolley on Monday May 12 2014, @09:49PM

    by buswolley (848) on Monday May 12 2014, @09:49PM (#42358)

    Down modding is enough to stop criminal activity in it's tracks.
    Dont fuck with the unicorns though.

    --
    subicular junctures
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 12 2014, @10:04PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 12 2014, @10:04PM (#42363) Journal

    You know, the "no topic is off-limits" and the like seems great and all, but what about criminal activity?

    Speech should never be a crime. Actions, yes, go after them perps and catch them... but not for speech.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by Open4D on Monday May 12 2014, @10:31PM

      by Open4D (371) on Monday May 12 2014, @10:31PM (#42379) Journal

      You know, the "no topic is off-limits" and the like seems great and all, but what about criminal activity?

      Speech should never be a crime. Actions, yes, go after them perps and catch them... but not for speech

      "I'll pay you $20,000 to kill the person who insulted me last week." It wouldn't matter if I had no intention of paying up, as long as I managed to convince the assassin that I did intend to pay up. I'd still be a murderer, just as much as the assassin.

      I suppose you could define speech as "general ideas rather than specific details". But in that case, it is possible to go beyond speech on SN, so we may want to have a way of dealing with that, as Thexalon said.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 13 2014, @03:59AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 13 2014, @03:59AM (#42528) Journal

        "I'll pay you $20,000 to kill the person who insulted me last week." It wouldn't matter if I had no intention of paying up, as long as I managed to convince the assassin that I did intend to pay up. I'd still be a murderer, just as much as the assassin.

        I'd say you'll have to go to jail for the action of instigating to murder (with or without intent, doesn't matter), not for the fact the you've done it by speech.
        True, it may not be the view of the current legislators, but I do not find as sound the idea of convicting a "paper manufacturer" (SN) only because the paper can be used to ignite a criminal fire.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday May 19 2014, @02:45AM

          by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Monday May 19 2014, @02:45AM (#45071) Homepage Journal

          Actually, the DMCA more or less protects us in this case, under safe harbor laws; we aren't liable for what users post as long as we comply w/ the other requirements of the law (I did a writeup of this on the Incorporation wiki page, but there are still some lingering questions). This is something that will be very much "if/when we get to that bridge, we'll deal with it". I don't think /. ever had this issue in the 20(?) years it been online, nor have I heard about something similiar on reddit.

          While a lot of people hate the DMCA, aside from the DRM-related articles, it does a LOT to protect online hosts.

          --
          Still always moving
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday May 19 2014, @07:28AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 19 2014, @07:28AM (#45117) Journal

            Actually, the DMCA more or less protects us in this case, under safe harbor laws;

            While I see your post as relevant to the topic, my mind still find unsettling one need DCMA's "safe harbour" to be protected against "speech related legal offenses" - what's wrong with the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or US constitution that the extra protection of DCMA was needed?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2) by NCommander on Monday May 19 2014, @09:30PM

              by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Monday May 19 2014, @09:30PM (#45385) Homepage Journal

              The difference is who is liable. The DMCA protections prevent the site from being hurt from users content. That content however is still protected all-the-same; for copyright/takedown notices, once you post a counter-claim, the site itself is immune to liability, and it is the responsibility of the takedown issuer to prove their claims. Pre-DMCA, it was unclear if a site was or was not liable for what their users posted on it.

              I'm aware of the issues of this (specifically the cost of a legal defense), but the common carrier protections help allow sites like this to exist.

              --
              Still always moving
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NCommander on Tuesday May 13 2014, @12:11AM

    by NCommander (2) Subscriber Badge <michael@casadevall.pro> on Tuesday May 13 2014, @12:11AM (#42424) Homepage Journal

    Reddit summed up my position on this better than I could. To quote their CEO, "We stand for free speech. This means we are not going to ban distasteful subreddits. We will not ban legal content even if we find it odious or if we personally condemn it"

    Under United States law (and I touched on this on the initial incorporation post), the test is known as the "imminent lawless action" test, as defined by Brandenburg v. Ohio [wikipedia.org], and one of the few exceptions to protected speech in the United States.

    Under the safe harbour laws provided under the DCMA, the site isn't liable for content posted on it; i.e., we can't be prosecuted just because someone used it to plot something illegal. If we become aware that someone is plotting something via this site, we'll address it when that time comes, but I'd like to think criminals are not THAT stupid. Involving LEO is not something we should ever do lightly, but we need to prepare ourselves if and when we ever have to ...

    --
    Still always moving
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by dmc on Tuesday May 13 2014, @02:09AM

    by dmc (188) on Tuesday May 13 2014, @02:09AM (#42485)

    You know, the "no topic is off-limits" and the like seems great and all, but what about criminal activity?

    Theory 1: Add a CYA phrase to the ToS that is so vague, you can cite it when dealing however you want with any unknown event in the future. Unfortunately such vague CYA ToS IMO have a chilling effect.

    Theory 2 (my preferred): Let the legitimate authorities with the proper jurisdiction deal appropriately with criminal activity if and when it happens.