After hearing
Ana’s presentation, I became fascinated with the idea of an online memorial. I
had never thought that something like this website could exist, but with the
increase in technology, it makes total sense. What struck me most about the
website is how personal it is; our neighbors and fellow Americans can share
their stories with the rest of the world. Unlike other memorials, this website
isn’t just names carved into a wall—it consists of real people telling real
stories about their personal experiences with the tragedy.
I wanted to look
a little more into the ways in which the website is monitored. Since it can be
edited by nearly anybody, I was wondering what sort of guidelines the website
offered and how much opportunity there was for somebody to add every aspect of
their story. On the website’s Community Guidelines page, I found the following
rules:
WHAT TO DO
Be accurate and honest.
We are most
interested in what you personally experienced.
Be appropriate.
This event and
subject matter demand a certain dignity. Given the intensity of the event, some
strong language may be appropriate in certain stories. But consider that this
site will be used by people of all ages.
Be respectful of fellow community members.
Many stories on
this site come from people who lost someone on 9/11. Please treat other users
politely and respectfully.
WHAT NOT TO DO
Don’t lie.
Say what
matters, and we are trusting you to be honest. Don’t edit videos or images in a
misleading way.
Don’t rant.
9/11 is a
contentious subject, and we encourage people to participate in online and
offline conversations devoted to 9/11’s causes and ramifications. This
particular site, however, is not designed to support such conversations.
Don’t troll of harass.
Even if you disagree
with someone, abusive or threatening behavior will not be tolerated and will
result in banning.
These were some
of the more interesting guidelines, in my opinion. I was happy to see that the
site was taking some amount of action in keeping the site a respectful place.
However, I still wonder how monitored the site actually is. I wonder how easy
it would be for somebody malicious to post something—and not just something,
but something hateful.
I think that an
online memorial is a great idea; it’s an easy way for people to share their
feelings, and it gives people access to unlimited reflection on a tragedy.
However, I question the morality behind the site; I could see somebody abusing
the privilege to reach thousands or millions of people still in despair.
Additionally, I
wanted to ask the class: do you think there are any difficulties with the
guidelines provided? Do you think any should be removed? Added?
I think that the online memorial is a very interesting idea because unlike physical memorials the online memorial will always be there and it is so much more accessible to so many more people. All they have to do is get online. However, that creates more potential for someone to post an unsavory opinion about the 9/11 attacks. Some will always do something that they are not supposed to. Especially when there are potentially thousands of people visiting the site everyday. I think that the guidelines are a good start, but it seems like someone could bend them to justify posting something on the border of appropriate. They maybe should clarify some positions that they would see as lying, ranting, or trolling. Maybe they should create some borders for the conversation. Either way it is a lot of power to give people with a subject that is potentially tender for some people. It could be a great tool of healing, but it could be a subtle weapon of melancholia.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you both found my topic interesting!
ReplyDeleteBethany, I wanted to note that I also wonder about how often the website is monitored. I obviously didn't go through all the posts on the website because there are so many, but I can honestly say that I didn't see any that were offensive when I visited the site. I wouldn't be entirely surprised, however, if I found some posts that were just because there are so many submissions and responses to keep on eye on.
During my presentation, I noted that I also question how exactly the guidelines could be created because that could border on censorship. How do we know where to draw the line and which submissions to exclude? I think, David, that you bring up a good point in regards to including examples and such, but it's still a gray area because they can't possibly include all examples; however, I think that examples would help tremendously for clarification.
I neglected to even look for submission guidelines so thank you, Bethany, for posting this! That did make me start to wonder about the fact that I didn't even think to look for them. Does anyone think that, since it's a website that allows personal user submissions, draw more attention to the guidelines in some way (putting a link on the main page, for instance?)
David, I agree that there is potential for indirectly creating an environment for melancholia. I think it's a fine line, but I also believe it's an issue that can't be entirely avoided. For that reason, I'm more inclined to say that I still support the website and its mission since it has the potential for so much good, particularly because it is a reflective tool that goes beyond politics and the news media.
Online memorials are great and the easy access to them is even better. I simply think that if people have the freedom to post anything they like on this memorial website, they shouldn’t abuse their privileges. They should just follow the simple guidelines and know that there are always limits, especially on a topic like this one. Also, I think that the guidelines should be more detailed. It is very easy to go around them and someone will always try to be a rebel and post up something negative, but I’m pretty sure that the owners of the website have the power to remove it, or to let the person know that what they put up is inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteI think that the online memorial has its pros and cons. For starters, it is an incredibly easy way to pay tribute to a loved one or to remember the events of a particular day. With that being said, this can work in a positive and negative way. Because the website is extremely accessible, it can be posted on by more people- both good intentioned and bad intentioned. Unlike a physical memorial, people have the ability to leave lasting messages that can cause a lot of hurt among the other people on the website where as with physical memorials people may stand nearby and protest, but eventually they're going to leave. While this is the case, I feel that the website (and I can't be one hundred percent sure about this) is able to monitor the content that is posted on the site. Like a lot of sites that have the posting feature, there are regulations (like the ones posted by Bethany) and if the visitor to the site doesn't adhere to these guidelines in their post, then their post is generally removed. I would imagine with a site that contains a lot of sensitive and emotion provoking posts such as this, the monitoring of it has to be pretty high. I think that the guidelines and rules for posts are fair in what they are asking and I think that if you have something negative to post there are other outlets for you to do that. There's no need to sully the memorial website with political or emotional messages that cause problems with others posting on the site.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Will on how having a memorial website has its pros and cons. Just as in Wikipedia, a site that can be edited by anyone, when a post or correction is made there are people who's position is to monitor the accuracy of the post. I have to believe that with this site and the tenderness of the topic there are people that do monitor the posts credibility and acceptability. I like how the site is not just engraved names on a slab of stone, but more personal and lasting. The ones affected by 9/11 can post, as well as, read the experiences of others and possibly get in contact with them. This may be a way some cope with their loss. The guidelines are very clear and concise and don't ask to much or too little. I am interested in, if any, posts that were taken down from the site because of the validity or their intention and what was actually posted.
ReplyDeleteI think it's important for users to understand that the memorial website is more personal than traditional memorials because it's essentially user-created. My hope, I guess, would be that people restrict political commentary and such to appropriate websites. However, since it is unlikely that every user will limit themselves to only putting controversial statements on less personal websites, I think it's important that the posts be subjected to removal if they are inappropriate. I think online memorials are very valuable in many ways--for healing, expression, story sharing, etc.--so I hope regulations are enforced to maintain the website's credibility and value.
ReplyDelete