Maintenance
Part of Lookalike user submissions: what we keep and what we drop
User submissions submission rules, clause by clause
The user submissions submission rules for lookalike faces, clause by clause, with the reason beside it: no pairings, deletion on refusal, removal on request.
The user submissions submission rules below only work if the reasoning behind each clause sits next to it. A rule with no reason attached gets waived by whoever is on the desk at eleven at night with forty messages in the queue.
These are the rules the desk works from for lookalike face submissions — the messages people send in proposing that somebody resembles a celebrity — clause by clause, with the argument for each one rather than a reference number.
What to take away
- The refusal to publish lookalike pairings is a rule about the format, not a judgment about any particular submission.
- Deletion on refusal is the clause that does the most work, because it removes the question of what happens to material later.
- Removal requests are honored without requiring a reason, since asking for a reason is itself a cost imposed on the person asking.
- Every clause is written so that it can be applied without weighing one person's fame against another person's privacy.
Clause one: no pairing of named people is published
The reason is that a claim that two named people look alike cannot be checked. There is no unit, no procedure and no way to settle a disagreement, so the entry would be an opinion about a stranger's body presented as a finding. It would also be permanent, and it would attach to a name that had no part in it.
This is written as an absolute because the exceptions people propose all take the same form: this particular pair is obvious, or both people are famous, or it is affectionate. None of those changes whether the claim can be checked. The account of how such a claim behaves once published is the argument in full.
Clause two: material that is refused is deleted
Not archived, not filed, not kept as a record of the decision. A folder of refused submissions is a collection of names and faces gathered from strangers about people who were never asked, and the fact that it was assembled by refusing things does not change what it is.
The clause also removes a whole category of later trouble: nobody can be asked to hand over a file that does not exist.
Clause three: removal on request, no reason required
Anyone who asks for material about themselves to be removed gets it removed. Requiring a reason means the person has to explain a discomfort to a stranger and have it evaluated, which is a cost, and there is nothing on this site worth imposing that cost to keep.
Clause four: nothing that is defamatory, and nothing that dresses a factual claim as an impression
Saying two people look alike is presented as an impression. Saying that someone is a particular person, or was somewhere, or did something, is a statement of fact, and a false statement of fact about a person is actionable as defamation under state law in the United States. Submissions frequently mix the two, and the mixture is refused as a whole rather than edited down.
Clause five: no identification of anybody from a photograph
The desk does not identify people. It will not attempt it or point at services that do. This holds whatever stated reason the sender gives, since that reason cannot be verified.
The harm from getting it wrong falls entirely on somebody not in the conversation. The same order of questions appears in international lookalikes submission rules, where public standing does not travel.
Clause six: the private individual line, and where it is drawn
A person who has entered public life — a working actor, for instance — has a platform to answer with. A person who has not does not, and no amount of visibility online creates one. The line is drawn at that platform, not at fame or follower counts: the interest a person retains in the use of their own likeness does not depend on how many followers they have.
Public vs Private Individual
Public individual
- Platform to answer
- Has one
- Online visibility
- Creates platform
- Likeness interest
- Retained
- Rule outcome
- May be covered
Private individual
- Platform to answer
- Has none
- Online visibility
- Does not create platform
- Likeness interest
- Retained
- Rule outcome
- The line: protected
Clause six: the private individual line
| Clause | Reason in one line |
|---|---|
| No pairings published | The claim cannot be checked and never expires |
| Delete on refusal | A refused file is still a file about a person |
| Removal without a reason | Asking for a reason is a cost with nothing on the other side |
| No factual claims dressed as impressions | An impression and an assertion are different objects |
| No identification from photographs | The cost of an error falls on someone not present |
| Private individuals are the line | Having no platform is the thing that matters, not obscurity |
What the rules do not cover, on purpose
They say nothing about how good a submission is, how striking a resemblance seems, or how well known the people are. Those are the judgments that get made badly under pressure, and the clauses are written so none of them is ever needed.
The standing account of what this inbox is for explains why an answer-only desk was chosen, and why the images themselves could not support an entry is the second, independent reason. The same reasoning applies to scored formats: putting a number beside a resemblance changes how a claim looks without changing whether it can be checked.
Common questions
Are these rules unusually strict?
They are strict about publication and relaxed about everything else. Questions get long answers; entries get none.
What happens if a rule turns out to be wrong?
It gets rewritten in public, with the new reasoning attached. That is why the reasoning is published rather than a numbered policy.
Can I appeal a refusal?
You can argue with the reasoning, which is public. There is no separate process, because the refusals are categorical rather than case-by-case.
