Web 2.0 = censur 2.0?

Kilde, en anmeldelse af en tilsyneladende lidt for ukritisk bog om Web 2.0-fænomenet:

Flickr recently deleted a picture by the Dutch photographer Maartin Dors that showed a Romanian street kid . Why? Because it violated a previously unknown, unpublished rule against depicting children smoking! What’s the rational of this rule? As a spokesperson explained, Flickr and Yahoo! ‘must craft and enforce guidelines that go beyond legal requirements to protect their brands and foster safe, enjoyable communities’. Jonathan Zittrain points out that the ‘ever-increasing usability [of Web 2.0]has been accompanied by the deliberalising of user rights’.² Of course, users can revolt against overt manipulation as they did when the aggregation site digg.com tried to suppress postings with the code to crack HD DVD encryption in May 2007. The management had to reverse its policy, though I wonder if they would have had they been a subsidiary of a large conglomerate.

Hvis virkeligheden ikke er “safe and enjoyable” har den ingen plads på en side som Flickr. Og efterhånden som alle lægger deres personlige data på Web 2.0-sider som Flickr, Facebook, Myspace og hvad har vi – kan alt, hvad der ikke er “safe and enjoyable” og appellerer til, hvordan aktionærerne og den juridiske afdeling synes, en præsentabel virkelighed skal se ud, let gå hen og forsvinde.

Keine hexerei – eller blot en nødvendig og uheldig konsekvens af den centralisering, der følger med Web 2.0?