Craigslist Caving Shows The Perils Of Self-Policing... Or The Perils Of Grandstanding Politicians?

from the i'd-argue-the-latter dept

Following Craigslist's decision to cave in to demands and start monitoring every "adult services" post on its platform, the Wall Street Journal is running a rather odd article suggesting that this somehow shows "the perils of self-policing" by a community, and suggesting that such crowdsourced reviews don't work. Except, that's a gross misreading of the actual situation. The crowdsourcing worked just fine. The issue was that members of the Craigslist community didn't have a problem with the ads in question. Those who did have problems were grandstanding politicians looking to get elected to higher office. If anything, it doesn't show the perils of self-policing, it shows the perils of getting caught in the sights of grandstanding politicians who need to whip up populist anger even if they have no legal basis to do so.

Filed Under: grandstanding, politicians
Companies: craigslist


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Mike (profile), 19 May 2009 @ 10:02am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Support your assertion with some examples.

    Linking to such ads would be a crime, based on your reasoning... But I assume you can use a search engine. Start there.

    There is a lot of support on this blog for the concept of CL being a neutral party but what is never discussed is if they or any other online publication should have those ads. The laws need to catch up with the technology; that's always the case. Call them "grandstanding" pols if you wish, but a little social responsibility on CL's part would make far more sense.

    The law is already quite caught up with technology. The person POSTING THE AD is liable for its content. Why do you not see that? CL has a system whereby the community can flag any objectionable content and if enough people do, it gets taken down.

    Either way, why don't you take it a step further. Why is it CL's responsibility instead of your ISPs? Why don't they have to review everything you do online to make sure it isn't involved in prostitution? After all, a little social responsibility on AT&T's part would make far more sense.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.