(keitai-l) Re: Communities not allowed

Thoughts to ponder.

Docomo is part of NTT. Docomo has this strong social responsibility  -
according to your understanding. Can we presume that NTT also has a strong
social responsibility?

It may not be fair but let's draw a comparison between NTT's customers
running terekura (telephone clubs used for eliciting paid dating services)
and Docomo's control over allowing *potentially* "offensive" community
sites. Why are these two examples so divergent? I believe NTT sees their
social responsibility to keep the networks up and running. While Docomo sees
their responsibility in upholding their brand as being "fun and good" - and
oh, workable for business applications too!

To enable this, Docomo has taken a public standpoint of having a
responsibility to be our moral overseers of what content is right for
everyone.  By controling the content they control the brand. If they were
not as concerned about brand as myself and some others have mentioned in the
last coupele of posts believe they could have implemented a simple access
scheme for which personal device (phone) can access what site. At least
national censorship services offer a rating to movies instead of outrightly
saying "no" due to something being potentially "offensive".

Who does the current system protect? Us or Docomo?

-stuart
p.s. does anyone know of any mottos Docomo/i-mode as a group/brand might
follow? Just curious........

----- Original Message -----
From: "Beau Buck" <beau@modezilla.com>
To: <keitai-l@appelsiini.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 7:23 AM
Subject: (keitai-l) Re: Communities not allowed


> Here is my understanding.  DoCoMo's perception of their responsibility and
> obligation to their customers is such that they must control content for
the
> masses to make sure they steer way clear of anything remotely offensive.
> They have longstanding relationships with many of their customers don't
> forget.  Since the character of 'communities' draw from their community
> members, they are inherently not controllable, and DoCoMo has no incentive
> to assume the risk that that content could present (sex, gambling,
violence,
> who knows what!!!???).  Keep in mind many subscribers are 40-ish, but they
> are subscribing on behalf of their children, the users (who cannot
subscribe
> due to their age).  Upholding a strict standard is DoCoMo's social
> obligation and the Japanese populace reacts favorably to that..
>
> Beau
> Modezilla
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Stuart MacDonald <stuart@fs.catv.ne.jp>
> To: <keitai-l@appelsiini.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:20 AM
> Subject: (keitai-l) Re: Communities not allowed
>
>
> > I agree with Juergen. I have heard the same arguments in regards to
> Docomo's
> > provisions to deal with potential problems with enjokosai use in
> > community-based sites. BUT - Is ruling out community sites the answer to
> > this? I don't think so. It probably wasn't their main objective.
> >
> > I hate to be presumptuous but I think Docomo initially have been
> protective
> > over sharing a community power-base for other reaons. What if the
> community
> > formed was strong and edged towards a lot of non-official sites? Or for
> > other reasons did not support the business model? What if the community
> came
> > to have true influence in their own right? What if these communities
> > destroyed or tainted i-mode's brand.



[ Did you check the archives?   http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]