Many cases have proven that the delete policy of 2ch is not adequate to its current situation, and does not fit the law. Examining past cases, I believe there are some factors that need to be taken into consideration when making a removal policy, which 2ch should have thought about.
First, 2ch should consider the new law that has taken effect. The law clearly shows that owners of internet forums have to be more responsible for what happens on each website. Although the current 2ch owner has shown some effort, he must work harder to show the users that posts on the internet have sustainable influence, both within the 2ch community, and in the real world. Furthermore, there needs to be rules which reflect this philosophy.
Second, 2ch may need to find a better way to cope with the fact that the people who are actually running the website are volunteers. Although the current owner had made it clear that he will take responsibility for all activity taken by the volunteers, in effect, there is no way a single person can take responsibility of what happens on all of the board. A major characteristic of 2ch is that it is run completely by an individual, instead of a for-profit group, as seen in some English internet forums (such as “College Confidential” and “AutoAdmit”). Currently, because the forum is run by a group of volunteers, there are no concrete standards as to how a janitor should deal with a case, and the judgment made by each individual may greatly vary. Furthermore, there are different rules in different boards, which may be necessary for fostering healthy discussion online (posts on “philosophical discussion” shouldn’t be judged by that same standard as the posts on the “celebrity” board), but also has dangerous implications.
Third, 2ch needs to make the delete policy clear and present it as a strict policy. Currently, the policy is hard to understand for people who are unfamiliar to 2ch, and these people tend to be the people who are targeted in defamatory posts. Furthermore, the current delete policy shows aspects that are dependant on moral values; the owners states that “in the end, everything is up to how the users can act.”