Dass Inhalte auf Zoom bald stärker reguliert werden müssen, ist aufgrund der wachsenden Beliebtheit der Videokonferenz-Plattform unvermeidbar, sagen Martin Fertmann und PD Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann. In ihrem Beitrag auf dem Media Research Blog des HBI schreiben sie, warum es für den Plattformbetreiber Zoom keine kluge Idee ist, selbst bei der Inhaltemoderation mitzumischen.
Zum vollständigen Blogartikel
Auszug
It's everyone's favorite online video communication tool these days. We cannot count the times we attended Zoom-based workshops in the last months, organized Zoom-based lectures or spoke at Zoom-based events. Apart from latent data protection concerns (taken seriously in Berlin, less seriously in Baden-Württemberg), which is usually tries to allay by pointing to its GDPR compliance, Zoom has managed to weather the current discussion on (and growing dissatisfaction with) private content governance rather well – cases when it bowed to Chinese pressure to close down accounts of US-based Zoom meetings related to the Tiananmen massacre notwithstanding.
While Facebook and Twitter, and intermittently TikTok, have been heavily criticized for their approach to fighting online hate speech, Covid-19-related disinformation and untruth about elections, Zoom has escaped scrutiny. It is, after all, not a social network. This is true, but perhaps this honeymoon is over.
Fertmann, M.; Kettmann, M. C. (2020): Who is Zoom to Judge? In: Media Research Blog: https://leibniz-hbi.de/de/blog/who-is-zoom-to-judge (30.09.2020)
