Once upon a time, Snapchat was a simple app. You took
a picture, you sent it to a friend, and it disappeared shortly after.
Nowadays, it's a
messaging app, a video sharing app and a news app. A face-swapping, dog-masking
revolution in online communications.
But is it
indecent? And are children being put at risk?
That's what's at
the centre of an intriguing lawsuit made public on Thursday.
It focuses on the
Discover function of Snapchat, a section in which publishers are falling over
themselves to be seen.
It's here where
content made exclusively for Snapchat (in portrait orientation) comes from the
likes of the Daily Mail, Vice, Buzzfeed and others*, and users are highly
encouraged to read through stories and watch videos from those publications.
Stories such as
"10 things he thinks when he can't make you orgasm" from Cosmopolitan
magazine.
Blimey!
That's just one
example given in the lawsuit. There are others that are too rude to be
published here - which I guess speaks to the complaint. If it's unsuitable for
the BBC website, should minors be able to see it on Snapchat?
The class-action
complaint argues Snapchat is routinely pushing content like this without
warning or consideration over the age of the user.
"Millions of
parents in the United States today are unaware that Snapchat is curating and
publishing this profoundly sexual and offensive content to their
children," reads the lawsuit, filed by "John Doe", a 14-year-old
from Los Angeles.
State law means he
has been made anonymous, although we know he apparently has "good
grades".
In US law, a
class-action lawsuit allows one party - in this case "John Doe" - to
represent a potentially much larger group of people who could be compensated if
Snapchat was to lose or settle the case.
Publisher or platform?
Snapchat on
Thursday came straight out with a brief statement.
"We are sorry
if people were offended," a spokesman wrote in an email.
"Our Discover
partners have editorial independence, which is something that we support."
When it comes to
controversy for social networks, this is very much familiar territory, the old
publisher/platform debate that all sites must face at some point.
It's normally wise
for social networks to argue, as they often do, that they are a platform. Doing
so offers a highly effective defence in cases where users of any kind post
material that upsets people for whatever reason.
It's a defence
that basically says what publications on Snapchat do is up to them.
Phrases like
"editorial independence" emphasise that, much like having a free
press, allowing publishers complete control is a tried and tested Good Thing.
If something is
amiss or offensive - don't come knocking on Snapchat's door. It's just the
platform, not the publisher. Complain to the magazine instead.
But that shouldn't
be the case here, argued Ben Meiselas, an attorney with Geragos and Geragos,
the law firm taking on the suit.
"Snapchat's
tentacles are all over this content," he told me in a phone call on
Thursday.
"The layout,
its format, what's presented on a day-to-day basis - Snapchat is not a passive
observer of this content."
'Not about censorship'
"It's the result
of collaboration with world-class leaders in media to build a storytelling
format that puts the narrative first," the company said.
"This is not
social media."
"The layout,
its format, what's presented on a day-to-day basis - Snapchat is not a passive
observer of this content."
'Not about
censorship'
"It's the
result of collaboration with world-class leaders in media to build a
storytelling format that puts the narrative first," the company said.
"This is not
social media."
It's that
collaboration that makes Snapchat responsible, Mr Meiselas argued. Furthermore,
the Discover tab on the app is highly curated and controlled by Snapchat,
unlike, say, a newspaper's tweet on Twitter.
He said he
believed Snapchat has been falling foul of the US Communications Decency Act of
1996. It enforces a number of key obligations, one of which is offering prior
warning if potentially offensive content is about to be delivered.
"It's not
about censorship." Mr Meiselas said.
"When you
target minors the way Snapchat does, you have certain obligations to children
and parents when you open the door to this exclusive club that's curated by
Snapchat.
"It's not an
attack that could be enjoyed by an adult audience. This isn't attacking content
providers, it's not attacking the freedom of the press."
I put Mr Meiselas'
view to Snapchat, but a spokesman said the company wouldn't be expanding on its
short statement.
Growing pains
Snapchat is only
four years old. It has around 150 million users, and it's fair to say it's the
app of choice for young people.
In its short
history, the company has gone through the kind of motions all significant
start-ups seem to face.
They've had a lawsuit
about whose idea it was - the firm settled with forced-out co-founder Reggie
Brown in 2014.
They've had a big
money offer - chief executive Evan Speigel said he turned down a multi-billion
dollar bid from Facebook.
They've had a
couple of security threats and probes into their policies over privacy.
And so this
lawsuit is somewhat of a rite of passage - the inevitable reaction to a network
that has become so pervasive and influential over young people… and in doing
so, has achieved millions of dollars in revenue.
The lawsuit is
asking for $50,000 per violation.
As I mentioned,
it's class-action, and so a win for 14-year-old John Doe could pave the way for
many Snapchat users to be compensated. A big cost to Snapchat, to both its
pocket and reputation, should they lose.
*BBC News is on
Snapchat, though not on the Discover page. It simply has an account that is
commandeered by certain reporters during big stories that warrant the kind of
treatment Snapchat enables.
No part of this content should be copied without a written approval from the author
