Netiquette. I seriously hate that word. BUT an issue of internet-based-etiquette (blogger etiquette, specifically) recently came to my attention, and I’m interested in others’ practices and thoughts.
As a blogger, I often analyze content from Facebook and Twitter. In doing so, I usually post images of actual tweets, comments, and status updates. These are forms of data, and are useful in delineating the public tenor with regard to a particular issue, the arguments on opposing sides of a debate, and the ‘voice’ with which people articulate their relevant thoughts and sentiments.
As a common practice, I black out all identifying information when reposting this content. Last week, I posted some tweets with the names and images redacted. A reader commented on my post to ask why I did so, given that the tweets were public. We had a quick discussion, but, as I mentioned in that discussion, this issue deserves independent treatment.
My rationale for blacking out names/handles/pictures, even when accounts and content are public, is that it is, in my opinion, the respectful thing to do. Privacy is confusing on the Internet, and I doubt those people intended for their content to reappear on my blog post. That is, just because something is public doesn’t mean others should publicize it. As a general rule, I rely on the ethic of “Don’t be a jerk.” To restate it positively, I believe in collective care and stewardship, in which we all act with each other’s best interest in mind.
To be sure, one might argue that I am doing a disservice by using content without giving name credit. This is a valid point. In some cases, people are not only aware that their content is public, but this publicity is intentional. That I use their ideas without proper citation is reasonable cause for people to get pretty cheezed off. Taken to its logical extreme, I could be accused of intellectual property violation. Taken at the level of my own personal ethics, idea use without citation is kind of a jerk move.
The trouble is that unless a person explicitly states otherwise—either publicly or through personal communication—that they wish for their name to appear or not appear, I have no way of knowing their intention. If I were a journalist for a well-funded publication, with all of the concomitant resources (i.e., time, money, and assistants), I could seek out individual content producers and ask their preference. This is a relatively laborious process, though, and of course people may or may not respond to direct inquires. As a safe short cut, I err on the side of privacy protection. The stakes are simply not even. To fail to give name credit is at worst a neutral outcome for the content creator. To attribute an idea to someone who did not realize their voice would spread so far, could potentially have dire consequences.
This is my deeply imperfect rationale. I’m interested in what others do, and their reasoning behind it.
Follow Jenny on Twitter (where she won’t reveal your true identity, unless you ask her to): @Jenny_L_Davis
Comments 18
Comradde PhysioProffe — September 23, 2014
Your approach seems pretty reasonable to me, although I tend to err closer to the other side.
Letta Page — September 23, 2014
I like this - sort of an "affirmative consent" policy re: Internet etiquette. It's why I make sure that, when using a Creative Commons licensed image, I still let the creator know where I'm using it and why (that is, what's the context); that I'll credit it to them by name in the captions and link back to the original; and whether it might also be used on the front page of TSP at some point. I want them to have the chance to let me know if they'd rather I use a URL instead of their name, use the photo anonymously, or even not use it at all. On the flip side, that courtesy is nearly always repaid in kind comments from those photographers and artists who've never read TSP before and who feel excited to see their work used in an open-access sphere.
Nathan Ferguson — September 23, 2014
This is anecdotal but one time I had a popular writer at a well known tech website retweet a critical tweet I wrote in response to an article he'd published. The comment was not particularly harsh (basically I disagreed with his framing) and I did not state his name or @-mention him in the criticism. I simply linked to the article. Because he had tens of thousands of followers, his retweet led to dozens of retweets/faves. In the end I apologized and he apologized for reteeeting it.
This retweeting of negative comments is pretty common and it is useful to turn the attention on actual jerks, I also regularly see it used to inflate the writer's credibility and dismiss meaningful criticism.
Francesco Carollo — September 23, 2014
Hi Jenny,
I understand your point but disagree and I am going to tell you why:
If someone publishes tweets it means he/she wants the world know what he thinks or posts.
Otherwise there is always the option to lock her/his stream. Some people do, and I still don't get it. if you're on Twitter it means you want to start a conversation with the world.
Let's talk about Facebook
On Facebook you can decide to share with friends, public (the world) or select a few recipients only.
I've seen a guy publishing a somebody else's post - that was meant for "friends only" - into his popular blog, and this triggered a big flame. The final consequence was for the editor who without permission published a private Facebook post - to publish as well a disclaimer, specifying that the content was originally wrote for a private audience.
When you publish someone else material into your blog you should also - as I do myself - notify the authors of the content you display in your posts. And this, especially if the blog provides you with a financial or other type of return.
As for netiquette purposes you black them out you should also notify them, imho.
I don't think it is a matter of privacy. I see this excuse of yours pretty weak. You are basically availing their public content to build your own cases, assumptions, rationales. They should be make aware of this, as they might not be happy or tackling the assumptions you are making by quoting their tweets or posts.
Anyway, interesting debate : )
Francesco
Cher — September 25, 2014
Fully agreeing to this. I think it's important to apply enthusiastic consent guidelines to content on the Internet, especially if we view the web not as a separate entity, but as a sphere that is another function of day-to-day life.
An Ethic of Prosumptive Sharing » Cyborgology — October 8, 2014
[…] while a magazine article is clearly public. Often, however, intention is murky. For instance, publicly available tweets and Facebook posts pose an ethical-sharing dilemma. Technically, they are already out there, and […]
Karla Carter (@professorkarla) — October 8, 2014
This is a fascinating conversation! I teach undergraduate and graduate IT Ethics and tweet frequently. In the ethics classes we discuss both privacy and intellectual property. Perhaps it's an occupational hazard of higher education but we hammer attribution into the students, to avoid plagiarism, and because I like to focus on the moral rights of copyright over the economic ones and attribution is a moral right. I feel awful if I can't make room in an individual's retweet for the identity of the retweeter but I will leave off the attribution if my retweet of the retweet would lose meaning by truncation. I have a loose rule that I don't feel it's necessary to RT a major magazine's tweet, like The Atlantic/Quartz or Forbes or Wired, because the link I'm tweeting goes directly to their site (I reserve the right to full RT if my Buffer is low and I'm rushed for time ;-) If an individual tweets something I RT, MT or HT him or her. But, that's all within Twitter itself. The only time a tweet of mine (and mine are public and written with the assumption anyone and everyone is reading them) appeared outside of Twitter was when a British site picked up a tweet I'd made about a shaming site. I can't even remember how I found out, but I wouldn't have known unless I'd gone hunting. For all I know there are other of tweets of mine out there. As long as someone either got a good laugh from what I said or it made him or her think, attribution to me wasn't necessary; it's more important to me that the ideas get out there than that I would receive any credit for them.
As far as privacy goes you make a good point about "just because something is public doesn’t mean others should publicize it" and "I think it’s publicity within that particular platform. The game changes when you move the content (and so context) to a new platform." It may very well be true that someone who shared content publicly on Twitter had not expected it might be shared in a blog or a news article; it's easy to fall into a security by obscurity mindset. As I indicated above, I post public with the assumption that the tweet is being read by anyone and everyone, but that's a practical assumption, not one based on ethics. I'd hate to be taken out of context and quoted, but if I were, it would be easier if @professorkarla were not associated with it ;-)
So, in the end, I can't disagree with how you've handled citing tweets. I can't wait to share this blog entry with my students!
Cyborgology Turns Four » Cyborgology — October 27, 2014
[…] on neoliberalism, Sarah’s gaming culture coverage, and Jenny’s insightful posts on her own rules for writing and researching. This has been a really productive year for me. My November essay Voting Reduces Diversity in […]