In Part I of Information and Exclusion, Strahilevitz describes three sorts of exclusionary tactics: the bouncer’s right to exclude, exclusionary vibes that send a message, and exclusionary amenities that make entry not worthwhile. In Part II, he argues that the bouncer’s right will generally be used when information costs are low. But where private information is difficult to discover, resource owners are more likely to use the second and third mechanisms of exclusion.
Most of the examples in Information and Exclusion are about real property and housing, but it is interesting to think about how these principles apply in online communities. The mechanisms of exclusion that Strahilevitz describes in the real property context also exist in online message boards. (Strahilevitz discusses of online gaming on pages 52-53 and virtual worlds on page 71.)
Internet message boards are usually dedicated to a particular topic that will not appeal to everyone. The name of a website and even the design of the site can send messages about the sorts of users the owner wants to attract. As Strahilevitz mentions in his discussion of virtual worlds, a specialized language can send a message of inclusion or exclusion. These exclusionary vibes encourage users to self-select into or out of the online community. It makes sense that a busy message board might rely on these mechanisms, since it would be costly to approve users one at a time through an application process.
Some communities also use exclusionary amenities to regulate admission. When a message board offers premium content and reduced banner advertising for a registration fee, it offers a service that is probably only valuable to people who are very interested in the subject of the website. Casual users who stumbled on the site are likely to go to another site with free content.
The bouncer approach to exclusion could be used at the time of registration for a message board. In that case, a new user might need to apply for admission or demonstrate some sort of required credential, like a recommendation from a current user. The bouncer approach could also be used after admission to the community. Forum moderators might edit or delete posts that do not conform to community standards, or they might ban usernames or IP addresses from future participation in the community.
Which of these exclusionary methods are online communities likely to use? Applying Strahilevitz’s argument, communities are likely to use the bouncer approach where information costs are low and the other approaches where information costs are high.
In some ways, it seems like information costs are lower online, since it can be easy to look for (and find) information on the internet: Employment history is often visible on LinkedIn, a publicly visible friends list is available on Facebook, and many people leave an electronic paper trail as they are mentioned on websites for schools, businesses, local newspapers, and organizations. It is interesting that forum moderation seems to be the most common use of the bouncer mechanism in online communities, and information costs are extremely low in a moderator’s decision to delete a post or ban a user. No further research is necessary; there is zero information asymmetry when the decision to exclude is triggered by a post within the community.
But in other ways information costs may be higher online: Profiles on social networking sites are often well curated, so the only information that is publicly visible is information chosen by the user. This leaves significant room for deception and might mean that a diligent resource owner would face higher costs in verifying online information. In addition, some information is not necessarily readily available online, like a personal reference from a friend or subjective judgment of character after an in-person meeting. (Though LinkedIn recommendations or Skype chats might combat some of these information cost increases.)
Given the similarities between the exclusion mechanisms used in the contexts of real property and online communities, it will be interesting to think about whether the diversity-promoting strategies Strahilevitz discusses in Part III would be desirable and/or successful online.
Here you can play for free new online slot machines
http://igrovieavtomati.net
Posted by: Ferkilopa | May 25, 2012 at 05:34 AM