3 points on why government isn't ready for 2.0 yet

While listening to a congressional hearing on Enhancing the Relevance of Space, a quote from Miles O'Brien (54:39 minutes in on the webcast) carried a powerful message to NASA and similar government agencies:

Olson:"How do we communicate how beneficial NASA has been to our society from a technological, from a national security perspective, and from an inspirational perspective?

And y'all talked about what Congress and the government can do, but one thing I find when I meet with constituent groups, we just had a group up here yesterday from all the NASA centers, some employees. And they all asked what can I do? What can I do to help you or to help make sure that the American public understands how important this is for our future?

Ms. Myers and Mr. O'Brien, I'd like to give you the first crack at that. What can we tell our constituents? What can they do to make a difference?"

[Myers answers]

O'Brien:"You know I think the irony is that 40 years after the launch of Apollo 11 NASA suffers from a bit of timidity when it comes to unleashing the message. Now they have a natural legion of foot soldiers, evangelizers. Everyone I meet who is involved in space is deeply passionate about what they do; love what they do. They are committed to their jobs in ways most people are not. And unfortunately if they attempt to blog about it or tweet about it they get shut down. This happens all the time because the concern is that they'll be off message.

It's important to empower the agency and thus its foot soldiers to know that they can -- they can be a part of this. If -- if a flight controller wants to tweet and let her social network in on what's going on inside mission control, assuming we're not you know in some sort of mission critical situation that would cause danger to somebody, why not empower her to do that? But instead the message is you can't.

So I think what Congress can do is to the extent they can streamline the rules for NASA and make it easier for them to do marketing, but also to the extent that they can avoid the tendency to get on the phone every time something comes across the bow that might -- might offend somebody in somebody's constituency. Because what that does is it cows the agency. And they need to be empowered too because if you unleashed the power of that workforce and allowed them to spread the word we could just stand by and watch them win the country over."

Relearn the phrase "don't burn bridges"The quote above comes at a time where I still to this day receive emails from people inside NASA who tell me about how they were forced to shut down their personal blog for fear of being fired. Even worse, I still receive stories about people being forced by their managers to unblock people who are harassing them from their *personal* social networking accounts. The social web is a bridge between personal and professional lives and should be respected as such. Learning how to navigate this isn't easy. Scrambling to put together a "digital policy" for employees might sound like the right solution, however, digital policies are equally dangerous due to their inability to evolve as the digital environment does. Starting off with general guidelines like "play nice" that encourage the use of social networks and respect privacy is a better first step.Eliminate "the public"The mindset of people in government is deeply rooted in using the term "the public" when referring to anyone who doesn't also work in government. Not only does this term massively inhibit their ability to communicate effectively and connect with anyone, but it also frames their view for using the social web - something that "the public" uses and thus they should use as an extension of their job (instead of having a personal AND professional interest in it). This is a hard term to tackle, as I started saying it shortly after joining NASA as well. I recommend stepping down from using the term by saying things like "people will be able to better access this" or "this program allows people to get involved with XYZ".We need a "Freedom of Information, Except for Jerks" ActThe title of this section was joked about while conversing about this issue over dinner. The government has no standards or process in place for blocking abusive, harassing and/or all-around trolling people (see Tantek's Troll Taxonomy). In fact, the government is so terrified of being called out for denying conversational access to someone, that they often pander to the poisonous person over protecting their own employees. As a result, "super villains" are created to feed off of the fear culture - a term Heather Champ, the community manager at Flickr, uses to describe someone who keeps coming back to haunt you forever. As Heather stated in a talk about Shepherding Passionate Users, "Sometimes you have to make difficult decisions and take actions that won’t be appreciated". Recommended listening for everyone: How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People.

Twitter responds

Wow, totally did not expect today to be as overwhelming as it was. There are a lot of things being thrown around, some valid and others completely nonsensical, so I'd like to clear a few of them up (hoping to be less long-winded than my last post).

Twitter did respond, twice on Get Satisfaction, first here and then here. The general reaction seems mixed with some people satisfied by Twitter's response while others are not. A lot of the friction seems to be around how Twitter should be perceived. A decent portion of Twitter users see the service as a community (similar to Flickr), while Twitter chooses to view themselves as a "communication utility" (similar to AT&T). But ultimately, this is an issue of accountability. And Twitter's strategy of revising their Terms of Service rather than living up to the agreements they made with users is troubling.

To be clear, it wasn't my intention to bring a mob with pitchforks to Twitter's door. I don't believe in mob-rule and again, I like Twitter and the people who work there.It was my intention to speak out about a community management issue and to focus on the decisions a company made. I did not write this to "cry", "whine", or be "insecure" about being called a "c---". To put it bluntly, I'm not and I certainly don't let things like this ruin my day. I feel like it's a prerequisite for any blogger or person who puts themselves "out there" to have a thick skin. Yes, the reality of the internet is dealing with these issues - Violet Blue has a great post called "Every girl online is fat, ugly and unsexy. Here's how to get over it". If I didn't feel like I could "deal" with these issues, I wouldn't be involved in any of the things I am.

The issue *is* about the decisions that were made and answers I was given directly from Twitter. It didn't seem like they had a process or policy to their TOS and did not handle it as well as other services had. Overall, it came off as inexperience with community management issues.

Admittedly, a couple of Ev's tweets were off-putting, but this was a rough day and I don't think that anyone was very happy by the end of it. I feel that some of his frustration may be from the fact that a number of people (both publicly and privately) told me cases where Twitter had banned a user for more extreme violations. In my post, I outline that in my phone conversation with Jack:

I asked Jack if Twitter had ever dealt with stalkers or banning people before and he told me they never had.

It was pretty clear in conversation and I remember being shocked about that fact afterwards. Neither here nor there, it seems to be a miscommunication, and I'm glad people are sharing their different experiences with me.This has generated SO many opinions, and I very much appreciate the critical and supportive sides to this. It's extremely inspiring that people feel as passionately about these topics as I do, whether or not they agree with me or Twitter.

So, I'm not quite sure yet where this leaves everything. As stated earlier, it seems to come down to a disagreement over how some people view Twitter and how they view themselves.

(Note: I turned comments off on the last blog post, because after 276 comments and your own mother finally chiming in at the end, there's probably little else to say that hasn't already been said). (Comments are now closed on this post as well).

Update: Copying and pasting from my last post for those not wanting to click-through: This is already disclosed in the about section of this blog already, but I am stating it again here at the request of others: I am the community manager for Pownce, however, this issue started before I was working at Pownce. The opinions stated here do not reflect my clients/employers and I did *not* write this in the interest of them. It is well known that I am not a Twitter-hater (much the opposite).

Twitter refuses to uphold Terms of Service

Update 3: Please see my follow-up post about Twitter's response.

I started using Twitter in March 2007, just before their SXSW explosion. Not surprisingly, I instantly became addicted and since then have used the service for everything from personal to professional.

Overall, Twitter is a great platform to connect with friends and co-workers and it felt safe in an "everyone knows everyone" sort of way in the beginning. However, as with any social network that continues to grow (especially one that focuses on broadcasting messages to the masses), it opens itself up to the prospect of abuse, harassment, spam, and other types of typical Terms of Service violations. Considering the social network-sphere as it exists today, most people would assume that Twitter would be prepared to react and take action against TOS violations - their TOS page even states

"(These terms of service were inspired, with permission, by Flickr.)" - Flickr being well-known for taking action on TOS violations, even when the violations are debatable.

As I found out last month, the reality of Twitter is that they refuse to warn and/or ban people who use their service to "abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Twitter users" (to quote their fourth line item on their TOS page). What does this mean? In short, anyone can use Twitter to consistently harass you and ruin search results for your identity and Twitter won't execute any means of community management.In June 2007, I unfortunately found myself on the receiving end of multiple accounts of harassment from a user on Twitter. When the user started using my full name in their harassing tweets, I reported the harassment as a form of cyberbullying to Twitter's community manager and received a response that let me know they cared about the situation:

"[We] have decided, as a preemptive measure, to remove [the user's] updates from the public timeline. ... If you have anymore problems with [this user], please let us know right away, we're here to help :)"

The harassment continued throughout the course of 2007. Since Twitter and I had an open dialog started, I would periodically report cases of continuing harassment (some of which spread between Flickr and Twitter). Twitter would take no action while Flickr would immediately ban and remove all traces of the harassment.

Unfortunately, in 2008 it escalated to a level that could no longer be ignored. Tweets were being fired off directly calling me a "cunt" amongst other harassing language. On March 14, I wrote to Twitter, giving the example URLs of abuse and stated to them clearly:

"Since this is an ongoing case and due to the nature of the content, I think this person is clearly violating Twitter's TOS and I find it necessary for Twitter to uphold to this: "4. You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Twitter users." Honestly, I believe this harassment has gotten way out of hand for too long. I am writing to you and to Twitter to remove this user for consistent long-term harassment."

Twitter responded after 3 days:

"Unfortunately, although [this user's] behavior is admittedly mean, [s/he] isn't necessarily doing anything against our terms of service. I've been following [their] profile since your first complaint to monitor [them], as well. We can't remove [this user's] profile or ban [this user's] IP address; [they're] not doing anything illegal."

To which I replied (at which point, Jack, Twitter's CEO was copied):

"I don't believe this is a case of illegal activity - this is a clear case of harassment which is outlined in your TOS.To be blunt, I find that someone using your service to call me a "cunt" in a public forum is defined as harassment. Again, your TOS states:"4. You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Twitter users."It's Twitter's responsibility to uphold the TOS, otherwise the TOS has no meaning."

At this point, Jack responded requesting a phone discussion about the issue. My notes from the phone call on March 19:

I told Jack that it the harassment has escalated and that it was a very clear violation of their TOS and that I had had similar cases of harassment on Flickr in which Flickr took down all 3 of the harassing accounts. I asked Jack if Twitter had ever dealt with stalkers or banning people before and he told me they never had. Jack explained that they're scared to ban someone because they're scared if it turned into a lawsuit that they are too small of a company to handle it.

Jack additionally explained that their TOS was up for interpretation, to which I responded that it isn't. I explained that it clearly states "You must not harass other Twitter users" and that harassment is defined as continuous small attacks, which this is.

Jack then asked me about what other social networks had done. I said that Flickr deleted all the profiles and that services like Digg and Pownce don't think twice about banning abusive or harassing users because it's part of the TOS. (Note: Flickr is known for asking users to take down content and/or banning accounts that might even very loosely be *considered* as harassment, which, again, I find interesting, considering at the end of Twitter's TOS, it states: "(These terms of service were inspired, with permission, by Flickr.)").

Jack asked me what good it would do to ban my stalker since it seemed obvious that the stalker would continue to stalk me elsewhere. I told him that it was not his nor Twitter's responsibility nor business to stop my stalker, but that it was very much their responsibility to identify users violating their TOS on their own service and take action accordingly.

At the end of the conversation, Jack asked me "well, what would be a happy resolution for you?". I responded saying that seeing the user who is consistently harassing me banned. I told him that I totally support Twitter and want to see them do well and was trying to understand their fear of getting sued, so I said that at the "EXTREMELY least" that Twitter needed to send the user harassing me a warning, that Twitter didn't owe the user any information other than the fact that they had been reported as violating their TOS and to cease or be banned. I very much stressed that Twitter needs to send users violating TOS a warning at the very least if they don't ban. Jack then said he would need to talk to their lawyers about that and would get back to me by the end of the next week.

Jack didn't get back to me until I emailed him on April 9 with 8 new instances of abuse that included my full name and email address, attached to words like "crack-whore" and "lesbian porn", to which he emailed me back a response:

"Ariel,
Apologies for the delay here. We've reviewed the matter and decided it's not in our best interest to get involved. We've tasked our lawyers with a full review and update of our TOS.Thank you for your patience and understanding and good luck with resolving the problem.
Best,
Jack."

Thanks, Twitter. It's great to know that your Terms of Service that you force everyone to agree to don't mean anything.

Update: I've also started a topic on Get Satisfaction about the issue that also outlines how Twitter's excuse of being sued holds no ground under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Update 2: This is already disclosed in the about section of this blog already, but I am stating it again here at the request of others: I am the community manager for Pownce, however, this issue started before I was working at Pownce. The opinions stated here do not reflect my clients/employers and I did *not* write this in the interest of them. It is well known that I am not a Twitter-hater (much the opposite).