How antisocial should social media be ?

There have been a number of cases in the last few days that have started to ask "Web 2.0" style social media businesses an interesting question - are they a community service or are they a communication platform - in other words are they responsible if some members of the community are beastly to each other., in this case on Twitter*

Nonetheless, it is an interesting question - is Twitter a Comms platform or a community? Is Facebook? Is there a difference?

If its a pure Comms platform, then its job is to deliver 5 x 9 and allow the members to fully exercise their freedom of speech.

If its a Community, then there is usually some form of moderation and control exercised.

By its actions, Facebook clearly sees itself as a community. Twitter has clarified its position that sees itself as a Comms platform. Both have every right to do so, their risk is commercial, there is no universal service obligation here.

In the paid-service world, even comms players moderate network user behaviour, however. The point that will now be battled out is what powers and rights users who are essentially consuming a free service have. The cost of moderating a service are higher than not doing so, and no service provider wansts to be dragged into higher costs - especially for a free service - so it will be an interesting case study.

If previous history is any guide, the service providers are most likely to gauge the temperature of the user base as a whole before making any decision that deviates far from "do nothing, just follow the policy" - though as Facebook found when it kicked well known bloggers off for infringement, the PR damage soon persuaded them to let those people back on (they still kicked off lessser known people for the same sins of course)

(* Old hands will recognise the above case as a Good Olde Flame War, now blog flavoured, and know that once the C word has been used and The Moderator involved, Godwin's Law is not far from being invoked