Translation and Ethics

I have nothing against Proz.com. Quite the contrary, I’m overall happy with most site features and recommend the site to anyone looking to make great new clients and meeting interesting translation professionals. I’ve had the chance to meet many site staff members in person, and know they work really hard to try to provide a great service to site users.

However, what I do have a serious problem with is censorship. Although I’ve been told the site had resorted to censorship many times in the past, as far as I know, the main problem began when the site’s new service (turn-key translations) raised serious ethical questions, which have yet to be answered. As far as I can tell, after the turn-key translations thread was censored and some very valuable members were either kicked out of or left the site, Proz moderators have been systematically resorting to censorship any time they are unable to effectively handle a discussion.

I have no problem with site moderators either, I’m sure despite the questionable way in which they go about censoring people, they mean no harm. I’m guessing they are either simply following orders, or just are really unaware of the bad customer service and negative impact censorship is having on the site’s overall image.

A new thread, questioning whether such a harsh level of moderation/intervention was necessary, was opened, censored, closed and removed from the site yesterday. I guess the philosophy behind it is what the eyes don’t see, the heart doesn’t grieve. As a paying member, I would have loved to be able to participate and have a chance to voice my opinion on an issue that is seriously making me wonder whether or not I’ll be renewing my membership, but the Thought Police beat me to it. Now instead of engaging in a productive conversation on the site with fellow site members, I am left with no choice but to discuss it elsewhere on my blog or Facebook group.

As a Law student, I obviously have a problem with censorship: it violates basic human rights and breaks international law. Every time a Proz moderator resorts to censorship they let you know the reason they are doing it is because something in the thread broke a site rule. Yes, the site does reserve the right to impose its own rules in its user agreement. Yes, our user agreement is a legally binding contract that creates rights and obligations for both parties. Yes, the principle of autonomy of the individual will is a guiding principle in most contracts, but no, the principle does not constitute a green light for violating the right to freedom of speech.

What does all this mean? It means Proz has the right to pretty much stick anything they want in the site rules, as long as it does not conflict with superior interests. The site rules are part of a contract, and that contract is subject to a principle by which that contract becomes “law of the parties” (i.e. only applicable to the parties in the contract) but that principle has a limit: the law (i.e. general laws that apply to everyone). They can write whatever they want in their rules, and enforce these rules however they deem fit, provided neither the rules nor the measures they take to enforce them violate the laws by which the agreement is bound. As I have mentioned before in certain censored threads, our user agreements are subject to “all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations.” This of course includes article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that ensures that “everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference” and by “without interference” they mean censorship, moderation, intervention, etc. So, are the actions of the Thought Police simply bad customer service? No, they are not just bad for business, they are also violations of members’ rights to express themselves on the site –and this is very serious.

After turn-key translations I was sure that given the negative image said censorship was creating for Proz, the number of people that were thinking of canceling their memberships, the way site moderators were mocked online, etc. site authorities would smarten up and find more productive ways of handling customer dissatisfaction (after all, let’s be honest, censored threads all happen to be the ones in which users complain about something). I was wrong. Like dictators on power trips, site moderators and authorities have been abusing the rights they reserved in our user agreements and have turned the site into Big Brother’s wet dream.

What does that say about Proz? To me, it reads insecurity. In the words of Potter Steward, “Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” A lesson I honestly hope Proz learns in time is that “censorship always defeats its own purpose.” Much smarter people than Proz staff and moderators learned a long time ago that censorship will turn on you: they wrote constitutions around that lesson and drew out international laws protecting freedom of speech. Let’s hope H et al. learn their lesson while there are still members left on the site.