Above the Law's David Lat Booted From Facebook
Everyone in the blawgosphere knows that David Lat is Above the Law. Everyone, that is, except Facebook, which apparently has its own laws that even a blogger of Lat's stature can't transcend. Facebook recently banished David Lat from its site, without explanation, according to Daniel Solove at Concurring Opinions. Fortunately, the suspension didn't last long -- as of this afternoon, Lat reports that Facebook responded to Lat's appeal and reinstated his account.
Lat's sudden suspension has triggered a discussion among legal bloggers over what type of process is due customers of Facebook prior to ejection from the site. This isn't the first time that a user's expulsion from a Web site has generated controversy. Last year, a Second Life user challenged the site's suspension of his account, with the judge invalidating the Terms of Service as an unconscionable contract of adhesion. But given Lat's status as an A-list law blogger, his experience has attracted more discussion from the legal blogosphere.
Dan Solove frames the issue this way:
As more of our lives become dependent on Web 2.0 technologies, should we have some sort of rights or consumer protection? Is Facebook the digital equivalent to the company town?
Solove notes that currently, Facebook does not have any obligation to even explain why it terminated Lat under its Terms of Use. On the one hand, Solove recognizes that Facebook owns the site, and it can set the rules. But on the other hand, he argues that people put "a lot of labor and work into their profiles on the site" and that it takes time and effort to build and maintain a network of friends. Moreover, Facebook encourages people to use its service in this manner and reaps the financial benefits of extensive use. Thus, Solove wonders whether Facebook users "should be granted any kind of rights or protections" when they use the site.
Professor Larry Ribstein says asking private businesses to act like public utilities is asking for trouble. Ribstein believes that contract law and the free market adequately protect Facebook users -- and that if Facebook wants to attract and retain customers, it will grant them rights "up to the point that they are profit-maximizing for Facebook." Ribstein also suggests that Facebook's knee-jerk expulsions may be the result of Facebook's increased liability exposure caused by the actions of its users.
As a David Lat fan, I hate the fact that Facebook kicked him out, albeit temporarily. And as a Facebook user myself, I don't relish the thought that my account and all of my contacts could be expunged without notice and for no apparent reason.
At the same time, what I hate more than any of this is the potential regulation of Web 2.0 applications that even in Internet years, are still in their infancy. Eventually, I think we'll see these services evolve, with the emergence of high-end sites geared exclusively for professionals, that will likely offer the kind of extensive procedural and privacy protections that more sophisticated users will demand. Like Professor Ribstein, I'm confident that the market will eventually address the issue of consumer protection if we give it a chance. It's just unfortunate that one of the growing pains had to be the suspension of David Lat.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted by Carolyn Elefant on March 3, 2008 at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Why Not Web 2.0 Reviews for Law Schools?
Avvo, once considered an upstart lawyer-ranking service, is gaining traction with more established law firms. Two weeks ago, Avvo announced that international law firm Davis Wright Tremaine had claimed Avvo profiles for its Washington attorneys. And in this week's Internet Law & Strategy, Joseph Campos, marketing partner and chair of the corporate/securities law group at mid-size Seattle firm, Stanislaw Ashbaugh takes a new look at client input systems like Avvo.
Campos writes that Web 2.0 business models have created a new paradigm: clients and lawyers rating lawyers for the benefits of clients and lawyers. While Campos sees risks in the paradigm, he also identifies opportunities that can come through embracing what clients have to say. (As an aside, not all lawyers are sold on Avvo. For example, today New York Personal Injury Lawyer Eric Turkewitz voiced an objection to what he characterizes as the service's onerous terms of use).
But leaving aside the controversies over Avvo, could the model of Web 2.0 evaluations work in other contexts... law school rankings, for example? I pondered that thought after reading this post by Nate Oman at Concurring Opinions which proposes an alternative to U.S. News law school rankings. Oman's post got me thinking about another alternative: a Web 2.0 ranking system for law schools. Each school and its respective professors would have a profile -- and students and alumni could register and offer rankings. Professors could also evaluate each other, thereby ensuring a good mix of expert peer review and student feedback. A Web 2.0 system would also force law schools to maintain good relations with alumni to prevent a disgruntled grad from trashing the school or a particular professor five or ten years down the road.
So, if any of you law professors or students are reading, what's your opinion of "Avvo for Law Schools?"
Sphere: Related ContentPosted by Carolyn Elefant on March 3, 2008 at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Rodrigo González Fernández
DIPLOMADO EN RSE DE LA ONU
www.Consultajuridicachile.blogspot.com
www.lobbyingchile.blogspot.com
www.el-observatorio-politico.blogspot.com
Renato Sánchez 3586
teléfono: 5839786
e-mail rogofe47@mi.cl
Santiago-Chile
No comments:
Post a Comment