|
I barely know of the Goodreads website and that it allows users to comment about books. Prior to this notice I haven't visited the site.
But I have to say that regardless of how poorly users (reviewers and authors) were acting, the website did engage in what amounts to censorship by destroying comments without explicit notice of changes to their ToS and their enforcement of it.
Previously flagged content deemed to be questionable and/or offensive was (apparently) seldomly removed. So to start enforcing the ToS and removing this material without prior notice was disruptive to the users. Goodreads should have updated their ToS, announced the change - including mentioning previously flagged material was on the chopping block if not edited to comply with guidelines - and provided a deadline for when the rigorous enforcement of the ToS would begin.
That would have been fair.
If the user owns the copyright on the material and someone else comes by and destroys it, that isn't right. And while the user should have had a copy elsewhere we've all suffered catastrophic failures without back-ups.
Thus my statement that Goodreads has been censorious.
Yes it is Goodreads' website and yes, ultimately, things will be done Goodreads' way. Goodreads could have, and as a social media service it should have known that, anything but a graceful change was going to generate hostility, disruption and deserters.
|