I’ve just read a really interesting article by Cllr Susan Hall from Harrow Council in this week’s  MJ.

Cllr Hall looks at regulation of the internet, citing examples of clips on YouTube.  While the first example (a clip from the Council’s CCTV footage) is a clear legal violation and got removed quickly, her second example was less certain.  She talks of a clip in which a person made “highly personal and untrue” allegations against a local headteacher via YouTube.

As a former council PR officer and a teacher this brings up many worries straight away.  I feel for the communications team struggling to get a video removed from YouTube and worry about how easily false accusations can be made.  I worry about how reputation management can easily mean regulation of access to the web.  That said, as a Web 2.0 user and consumer, I remember the case of Patrick Atkins, the BT Shareholder who took on BT and won, using a video posted on YouTube.  As someone who had a longstanding complaint with BT I admired how he took action this way and cited this a great example of Web 2.0 empowerment.

So the questions I take from Cllr Hall’s article is this:  Can we regulate the false and untrue allegations apparently made by the Harrow parent, while allowing the amazing success of Patrick Atkins? Does community web empowerment mean that we will have disreputable complaints that spread like viral video?  Who is responsible for this?  The person who puts up the disreputable complaint?  YouTube for hosting it?  The ISP for allowing access?  The problem with web regulation is where to start….and, indeed, where it stops.

Cllr Hall calls getting the videos removed a “full time job”.  How many councils can afford to employ someone full time to manage that kind of thing?  That said, with social media spreading a tool of empowerment, how many council’s can affor NOT to?