Recently I gone through an ethical issue faced by one of my good friends from a mighty company. Deepa Praveen is a photography enthusiast who had been behind the lens for many amazing captures. I am a fan of her pictures. She used flickr to share her creations with the world with a paid account and one fine morning they removed her account with a lame vague reason.
The issue gained immediate attention due to the actual question, is the might right always? I have personally seen many people responding to the question in various forums and everyone were pointing out the need of a more dependable photo sharing platform.
It can be an improvement to the existing big shots or a complete new system
Obviously no one can replace the existing systems in a day. They have their own advantages to remain the big. So the first option is to appeal the giants in the field to modify their mode of operation. We can appeal but there is no guaranty that it will work out because corporate decision making is involved in the issue.
Alternatively we can develop a completely new system which can satisfy the needs of users and safeguard the profit aspect of the promoter. The huge issue is the migration of the existing users of the available systems to the new one. They already have a network and visitors there which cannot be sacrificed for a new system which is not foolproof. Secondly we have to face the issue of promoting the site to overcome the publicity of the existing sites. Surpassing them in the search engines will be a mammoth task
So the solution is a site with all the freedom allowed by the existing laws of the world which has a limited number of users. The limitation should be useful in providing better services and the limitation shall be reassessed on a later stage when we feel that more people are interested to join the service.
Permanent deletion of an account before any warning or intermediate action is not a good concept at all. A small thief will not be sentenced to death by any court of this world. If the offence is medium give a chance to the user to correct it and inform him the reason for the action. The account shall be suspended from the web( from the public domain) for a much serious offence with a notice to backup all his digital assets.
I have seen Thomas Hawk talking about the concept of allowing the viewers to decide what to see. Level of moderation cannot be same for every people. There are cultural differences and conceptual variations too. So instead of taking the burden of every screening let the viewers decide what to do, in addition if many people are screening a particular site it may be screened by the provider and evaluation shall be made.
I have decided to develop something in this direction and invite your valuable suggestions, especially in the terms of service and the expected facilities