When a service is provided for free, should the provider have absolute authority over the terms of use, or should the person patronizing the service have a say, large or small, in the terms of use also? The Warbis camp declares complete control in the digital display of words inside its owned-and-operated medium because the patronizing person is nonpaying and because technological considerations demand certain restrictions that override the participant?s concerns or grievances. This control, it is stated quite clearly, is discretionary and absolute. The participant camp, unsatisfied with policy and disempowered by its nonpaying status, proclaims that it has a right to affect or alter the terms of use democratically.
One either argues for control by ownership or consensus through participation. But does ownership really trump the rights of the participant when setting down the terms of use? After all, once the terms of use are defined, is not the owner then responsible for the outcome of those terms and how it affects participants in any number of ways? This is a basic principle in all civic interaction, regardless of ownership. It is the principle of responsibility towards each other that really trumps the zero-sum game of ownership. And when a forum is called open, its civic nature is implicit.
