There is a great article on the structure of Internet Communities and the people to moderate them.
From ars-technica:
<< There's an excellent new article up on Forbes, about how someone is filing a class action suit against AOL on behalf of AOL's legion of volunteers. The suit alleges that the volunteers, who must go through training, work a minimum number of hours per week, obtain permission to miss shifts, get compensated in the form of free service, etc., fit the legal definition of employees under existing labor laws.
_________________ [ars-technica quotes from the Forbes article in this section]
In his class action lawsuit with thousands of former and present volunteers as potential plaintiffs, Greenberg makes a simple argument: Existing labor laws, some more than 70 years old, also apply to New Economy companies. Those laws, he contends, make it illegal for volunteers to work for for-profit companies. "AOL was taking the labor of a volunteer and selling it as a product," he says. "That's enough of an analysis to say that the volunteers are covered by the minimum wage [law]."
_________________
This could potentially be really, really huge, and could have implications for other online communities that use volunteers as moderators. On the one hand, after reading the article it really does look like AOL has been sticking it to these people, but on the other hand one worries about the implications for other member-supported online communities. - Hannibal >>
The article is at http://www.forbes.com/asap/2001/0219/060.html .
Like what was said, all for-profit organizations (including Anandtech, with revenues of over $1 million/year) that use volunteers (moderators) to increase profits directly or indirectly (in the case of Anandtech, by cleaning up content and thus attracting more uses, which then inturn click more ad banners) are illegal because they are not paid the minimum wage. However, mods and other volunteers are what makes the internet what it is.
What's your take on this
From ars-technica:
<< There's an excellent new article up on Forbes, about how someone is filing a class action suit against AOL on behalf of AOL's legion of volunteers. The suit alleges that the volunteers, who must go through training, work a minimum number of hours per week, obtain permission to miss shifts, get compensated in the form of free service, etc., fit the legal definition of employees under existing labor laws.
_________________ [ars-technica quotes from the Forbes article in this section]
In his class action lawsuit with thousands of former and present volunteers as potential plaintiffs, Greenberg makes a simple argument: Existing labor laws, some more than 70 years old, also apply to New Economy companies. Those laws, he contends, make it illegal for volunteers to work for for-profit companies. "AOL was taking the labor of a volunteer and selling it as a product," he says. "That's enough of an analysis to say that the volunteers are covered by the minimum wage [law]."
_________________
This could potentially be really, really huge, and could have implications for other online communities that use volunteers as moderators. On the one hand, after reading the article it really does look like AOL has been sticking it to these people, but on the other hand one worries about the implications for other member-supported online communities. - Hannibal >>
The article is at http://www.forbes.com/asap/2001/0219/060.html .
Like what was said, all for-profit organizations (including Anandtech, with revenues of over $1 million/year) that use volunteers (moderators) to increase profits directly or indirectly (in the case of Anandtech, by cleaning up content and thus attracting more uses, which then inturn click more ad banners) are illegal because they are not paid the minimum wage. However, mods and other volunteers are what makes the internet what it is.
What's your take on this
Facebook
Twitter