I’m here at the #ODR2014 conference. ODR2014 is the annual meeting of the Online Dispute Resolution Forum, an international assembly of lawyers, mediators, technologists, and others who care about technology and dispute resolution.
The livestream is here and embedded below:
Colin introduces Christina M. Gagnier, a partner at Gagnier Margossian LLP and a Board Member at WithoutMyConsent.org, who will be conversing with Sheila Purcell, Director of Center for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution at UC Hastings. Colin says that, if there is a consistent bias in the ODR community, it’s probably that bullying and harassment are bad, and he’s happy to have Christina talking about her work here today.
Christina describes WithoutMyConsent.org as an organization which assists victims of various forms of Internet-enabled exploitation, including cyberbullying, revenge porn, etc. They exist to provide strategic management and legal support.
Christina says that the sorts of harassment they fight at WithoutMyConsent is pervasive. She blogs for AboveTheLaw but never reads the comments. People don’t realize the reach of the harmful messages they broadcast. In the cottage industry of revenge porn, you see people who recorded intimate activities in a trusting relationship, and then find it suddenly posted online for everyone to see. The real breakdown occurs when platforms don’t have ways to help people resolve these disputes.
Sheila asks Christina to distinguish between cyberbullying and harassment. Christina says there isn’t much of a difference, except that the former is sometimes perpetrated by children who don’t know the scope of the damage they’re doing, whereas adults often do (and that’s the point). The perpetual debate of where the schoolyard ends and where the home begins extends to this domain of activity and Christina works with educators and administrators to try to think intelligently about policies.
Cyberbullying is bullying, Christina notes, and we have rules against bullying, but networked technologies overlay new complexities of jurisdiction and permanence over a familiar problem. Both cyberbullying and revenge porn are also often inflected by gender, sexuality, and other subcultural traits, and Christina tells several stories about women, including disabled and/or trans women, who have suffered through particularly brutal cyberbullying campaigns.
Christina says there is an attitudinal problem with taking revenge porn seriously. She mentions she was at a conference where a law enforcement officer who was supposed to talk about why revenge porn was bad opened his talk by saying he didn’t understand why people made the videos in the first place, shaming the victims he was supposed to be helping. Christina’s goal, and the goal of her aligned groups, is to make sure that victims of cyberbullying and revenge porn and other forms of online harassment have a “clear path to justice” for redress.
Sheila asks Christina how we might create technological environments that could help prevent this upstream. Christina says good moderation policies and teams are key: you need to have a well-paved process in order to deal with these problems when they arise. Most startups, however, are more focused on pushing product than creating the policies and the teams to support them. However, if your tool is social, and allows content, it’s going to have these conflicts, particularly if it allows teenagers. Christina points to the new craze for ‘secret’ or ‘ephemeral’ apps as a sector where these conflicts are particularly strong right now and, by design, not well-moderated.
Christina says we do an OK job of teaching kids civics as applies to ‘the real world,’ but don’t translate those ethics and obligations into the ‘digital world,’ which is where so much of this harassment takes place. Similarly, the pathways to justice are often clearer in ‘the real world’ than through private platforms, pathways WithoutMyConsent.org is trying to help pave. They don’t provide legal advice, but they do help point victims and survivors in the right place so they know where they can get the support they need. A big part of their message for survivors is that they shouldn’t be ashamed or embarrassed: this is happening to lots of people, and it’s not their fault.
Sheila asks Christina what tech companies can do to help. Christina says they could start by taking it seriously: they gave a talk on the subject at SXSW and 7 people came, while hundreds attended other talks. She asks, rhetorically, whether companies really care, and answers by saying they should, because real people are suffering under the current configuration of their systems. Don’t wait until it is a PR problem: it’s already a community problem, and you need to have a policy before you think it is a problem. Christina says that the inconsiderate attitude of Silicon Valley with respect to privacy is indicative of a larger gender problem in tech. Christina also urges legislators, particularly male legislators, to proactively talk about revenge porn and online harassment as public policy problems, and not shy clear of them because they are sensitive subjects.
An audience member asks Christina about developing technology which could help detect indecent photos by flesh tones and remind users not to post it. Christina says that, in true harassment cases, people are posting in order to cause pain, and such deterrents are unlikely to work. She does allow, however, that reminding teens that some types of photos might be more sensitive could possibly help in cases of good faith.
An audience member asks Christina whether revenge porn should be considered apart from harassment or as a subset of harassment. Christina’s view is that there should be a conversation around what the penalties should be and each state should decide for itself what the correct answer should be as to whether revenge porn is separate or not.
An audience member asks Christina about whether the distinction she draws between ‘real life civics’ and ‘digital civics’ is in part responsible for people not taking the latter seriously as real life. Christina say that generally we have an educational gap in understanding the consequences of behavior. She doesn’t like the term ‘digital natives’ because she doesn’t believe students necessarily understand the impact or consequences of technology. The goal should be to teach students general good civics and general good citizenship, on or offline.