8. Proposal: flagging of the users, by the users, for the users.

Democratizing a complex area such as the moderation of any social network is a “thorny terrain in which spontaneous cultural participation intersects with complicated corporate and legal interests.” (David, 2007, p.115) For not only is it their interest, it is also the company’s responsibility to uphold any legal and corporate interest. That is why I start with democratizing the part of the system that is depended on the community, the flagging aspect.

[Cara Mertes questions the promise to ‘democratize television’ of a new network format Current:] What are you talking about when you say ‘democratizing the media? Is it using the media to further democratic ends, to create an environment conducive to the democratic process through unity, empathy and civil discourse? Or does it mean handing over the means of production, which is the logic of public access? (Jenkins, 2006, p.252)

Not only do I see the latter as a necessary predecessor of the first statement. In that sense I must confess that I am a bit of a technological idealist. But, as Mertes says, you can create the environment, but whether the users are ready for this and will use it to this potential is a preferable, though unpredictable outcome. One cannot force users into a civil discourse, but can lead the way.

The starting point of my proposal, which consists of four main points, would be addressing the issues of free speech and censorship. Videos will no longer be removed without leaving a trace and all comments rated ‘-6’ or lower that are now hidden for the user community should offer the option to be temporarily unhidden in order to read them. This same logic of ‘unhiding’ could be applied to videos in addition to a banner stating the reason why the video was flagged.

The second point would be by taking away the negative connotation of flags, the ‘I don’t agree with this’ aspect, by extending it with an ‘I do agree with this’ option. This could be achieved by a technological convergence of the effects of flagging and rating.

The third point would be proposing a reputation system to form as a non-monetary incentive for users to participate in the discussions that take place at YouTube. A key difference with the existing system is that not only videos are rated and/ or flagged. The user’s account builds up a reputation through the means of receiving or handing in points. The amount of points determine the privileges a user has.

The final point is derived from the third point, because the reputation system would for the basis for my proposed system of meta-moderation by the users. Both of which, I shall discuss in detail in the proposed model that follows.