Thank you all for your input! This topic is going to be closed soon, but you can read my proposal in this opening post as a digest. Links are included to other posts for detailed descriptions. Postcrossing’s response is in #264
Original thread title: “Suggestion: Profile feature showing one’s consent/preference for written message to be posted online”
Previous thread title: How to solve the issue of the translation thread being inconsistent with community guidelines? Banning posting of postcard writings and other suggestions.
Recommended measure
First of all, my argument is primarily framed as a trade-off between efficiency and fairness. The starting point is two principles I think are integral to the Postcrossing project:
- Senders are the most vulnerable party as far as the message part is concerned
- Presumption of privacy
- Transparency: Exceptions (at least significant ones) to be made explicit
I think the best way to resolve the issue of the translation thread being inconsistent with the community guidelines is:
Ban the posting of postcard writings publicly in the forum
This is not meant to stop the translation thread. The difference is that it is not allowed to publish postcard writings in a public thread in the forum. People can still describe the situation and ask for help. The translation part will take place in private (through DM). This won’t affect translation of printed texts/captions on postcards, which is a great mutual learning activity. Hope Postcrossing @admin will give it a thought.
Pros:
- Conforms to the community guidelines. No more exception within Postcrossing’s purview.
- Relieve workload of Postcrossing team to screen the content of postcard writings.
- Obviate the necessity to explain the official translation thread on the main site. Not all Postcrossers are forum members.
Cons:
- More troublesome to get a translation/transcription.
The burden falls on the person in need of a translation to actively look for a translator, which I think is fair. So here I seek understanding of those directly affected, as well as Postcrossers at large, to support my proposal.
Further to the 2nd pro and following the two principles, in case a postcard gets published against the sender’s will, Postcrossing team and moderators not only need to delete the post but also inform the affected of the exposure, which is the responsible thing to do. If the sender doesn’t care, fine; if he does, then he deserves to know. To minimize such hefty work, even just theoretically, a blanket ban would be beneficial.
If the recommended measure is implemented, then we may even think of better ways to coordinate translation activities. For example
- Introduce a mechanism to acknowledge someone’s translation effort (report to the admin, etc.)
- Appoint “official” translators (like moderators, but in another group dedicated to translation)
- Translate the community guidelines into multiple languages
- Gather educational materials on how cursive writing is taught in schools across the world (again, leaving out postcard writings whose privacy concerns are not cleared)
- Translators/Transcribers can also upload an alphabet written by themselves.
- See an excellent post which demonstrates how Chinese write numbers Postcards to and from China - #131 by zhangjianing
- Etc.
Alternative 1: Revise guidelines
Revise the community guidelines and specify in details what can or cannot be published. @catchycat has fleshed out this alternative in #117 and #112. My take on this alternative is as below:
Principles:
- Recipients to be prioritized over senders
- Presumption of publicity
- Significant exceptions to be made explicit
Pros:
- Community guidelines reflect current activities on the forum (applicable to entire Postcrossing community)
- Easy to get a translation/transcription (a few people)
Cons:
- Difficult to explain on the main site (entire Postcrossing)
- Difficult to moderate the content of postcard writings in English as well as non-English languages (than to ban posting since the latter doesn’t require knowing foreign languages) (moderators and volunteers)
Moreover, relaxing the privacy rule will jeopardize the core concept of Postcrossing. My understanding is that postcards sent through Postcrossing are private by default. See more on this point in #114 and #116.
Alternative 2: Keep status quo
Keep the status quo. Apparently the most popular or voluminous counter-argument. It is the opposite of my recommended measure (simply flipping the pros and cons). Basically it can be understood as prioritizing the use case of translation/transcription.
Principles:
- Recipients to be prioritized over senders
- Presumption of publicity
- Exceptions (at least some insignificant ones) to be kept implicit
Pros:
- Easy to get a translation/transcription
- Decrease questionable posts outside of Postcrossing
- Safer to publish postcard images temporarily in a moderated public thread than to store them permanently in private messages
Cons:
- None
The constraint of not being able to attach files to main site’s messages is cited as a reason #8. What this directly suggests can be either “attachment should be enabled on the main site” or “invite the sender to join the forum so that postcard image can be exchanged (in private message)”, but not publishing per se.
On the scale of such posting, @Cassisia calculated the proportion of official postcards affected (approx. 0.0001%). More details in #134 and further justification in #177 in support of keeping the status quo. See #252 for an exposition of this alternative (but with different reasoning) in response to my position reiterated in #251 and #253.
I have been questioned that if I think missing consent is a problem in a public post, then why am I not thinking it is a problem in a private message too (see #253 on what this statement implies). To clarify, I’m only taking issue with publishing postcard writings and private sharing is totally fine.
Data safety has been cited many times as justification for this alternative. A typical comparison is between “posting temporarily in a moderated public thread” and “storing permanently in a private message”. See #237. Whether or not this justifies the argument for keeping the status quo, two straightforward desirable improvements arose @paulo:
- Enable attachment in main site’s private messages
- Enable complete deletion in forum’s private messages
On the translation thread as “juridical discretion”, see #176. On presumption of privacy versus publicity, see #251.
The absorption effect (getting people to post here instead of elsewhere), being cited as justification for the status quo (see posts #48, #139 ). However, it is found to be irrelevant in a destructive dilemma courtesy of @S_Tuulia.
Other important concerns are raised such as the indefinite storage of private data on Postcrossing. See #191 #201. See #226 for elaboration and #230 for an interpretation.
In addition, as to why some issues are related yet separate and thus better to be addressed separately, see #211.
On the suitability of exceptions, @Frogglin brought up a compelling example of another forum in #160, which may be a good reference. Unfortunately, due to my word choice and timing, some points I raised in #163 remain to be clarified. I should’ve used the term expert opinion first, although now, from the description offered here, it remains an appeal to authority. The refusal seems to be directed to my character but I can understand it may also be due to privacy concerns. As long as Postcrossing team @admins learned about the cited forum (say, through DM), it serves the purpose.
Other suggestions
Here are some ideas gathered from the discussions on how the inconsistency may be reconciled. At least one of the three aspects should be fixed in some way:
- Community guidelines
- Update it to mention the exception (translation thread) in the forum, or
- Update it to mention the exception (translation thread) and warn of the possibility of being posted anyway, or
- Revise it to allow posting postcard writings as long as personal info is removed, or
- Remove the “don’t post postcard backside” guideline altogether.
- Official translation thread in the forum
- Take it down, or
- Change it to “vet before post” model where images are checked by moderators first (see #253 on how this may be subsumed under the 3 main alternatives), or
- Ban the posting of message images (people instead describe the card and seek help, the translation takes place in private).
- Mentioning of the translation thread on the website
- Explain the translation thread on the website, or
- Add a note to the “Send a postcard” page.
More on the inconsistency issue
To elaborate on the idea, although the practice is common, legally speaking, one’s handwriting per se would probably fall out of the scope of privacy, unlike names and addresses. However, in regard to the premise of Postcrossing, it is reasonable to know Postcrossing’s official stance on whether the writings on a postcard should be kept private or can simply be posted online. This has to do with the overall expectation and experience of Postcrossing. In fact, Postcrossing’s community guidelines clearly state that
Keep private information private.
The addresses given to you are private information and can only be used for Postcrossing purposes. Do not share them with anyone or make them public on the internet. This also applies to what is written on the postcards you have received, so please do not scan it.
But there is a notable exception, which is the translation thread: Need help translating a postcard you've received? More discussion on this exception can be found here: Publication of postcard backs - Poll in Post 45 - #45 by varn.
Is posting the message image necessary to get a translation? No. People can describe the postcard, seek help and wait for someone to respond. The translation process can and should happen in private. Posting it publicly, no matter how short the auto-deletion period is, is not only an ill-conceived exception to the community guidelines but also unfair to non-forum-members who are not properly informed of this thread.
As above, the focus is not on how to stop people from posting, but rather on how to reconcile the inconsistency between Postcrossing’s community guidelines and actual practice.
Previous suggestion of a consent feature
No longer the focus. Please skip this section.
In view of the common practice that the written side of postcards is posted online by the recipient (presumably without the sender’s knowledge), I was wondering if it’d be a good idea to add a feature that indicates the Postcrosser’s consent or preference of the publishing of their writings on the postcard.
The feature is similar to the existing feature showing whether one is interested in direct swaps or not. For example, something like this (wording tentative):
On the other hand, the poll there shows some are okay that others post their postcard writings without asking them while others are not. Given there different preferences, would it be a good idea to add the subject feature to the profile page? If the person doesn’t need to be consulted, then we can straight away post it online (of course, after redacting all personal information).
It is not legally binding in any sense. Just like the interest in direct swaps, people can still ask them even if they say they are not interested. And one can of course change it, though knowing that the change is not retrospective. Please let us know what you think in the comments as well.
- Yes
- No
0 voters
The wording in the poll above didn’t emphasize its being an option, so a rephrased version below just in case.
- Yes
- No
0 voters
Ideally, there may a per-postcard permission feature. Sometimes we write a personal message while other times we write a generic one or the focus is on decorations.
Related topics
Does knowing even Postcrossing team is not honoring the “do not publish postcard backside” rule to the fullest make one even less willing to write a personal message on a postcard? Apparently some are disappointed by one-liners. “One liner” generic postcards
Mock-up exercise
Imagine you are an admin of Postcrossing.
Let’s suppose Alpha joins the forum at some point and accidentally finds a postcard is published there with the ID and his message in full view, Alpha is upset and decides to complain. How would you handle Alpha’s complaint?
Let’s suppose Beta joins the forum at some point and accidentally finds a postcard is published there with only his message in full view, Beta is still upset because that’s not what he expected. Beta decides to complain. How would you handle Beta’s complaint?
(like if you’re harassed on private message, you’d probably report that to the admins, but for posting content online they’d have a lot of grief telling off senders for things they do on other sites. And probably other admin troubles that are not coming to mind at the moment).