Should social-networking sites consider themselves a communication utility or content provider?

Seems like a legal question best left to lawyers, but the answer carries important implications for us, the users of social-networking sites. A case involving Twitter illustrates the importance. In March, Twitter and Flickr user Ariel Waldman reported several incidents of ongoing harassment to the two companies, pointing out that the activity violated the sites’ Terms of Service (the harasser disclosed Waldman’s full name and email add). Flickr removed the content, and Twitter didn’t, saying in separate responses to Waldman that "Unfortunately, although [this user’s] behavior is admittedly mean, [s/he] isn’t necessarily doing anything against our terms of service...." and "Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content."

In cases like this, the courts typically agree, blogs ConnectSafely co-director Anne Collier: "Courts actually have put social-networking sites in the same category as phone companies in their interpretations of the Communications Decency Act… only the people involved can fully resolve an argument between them, regardless of whether it happens on the phone or in a social-networking site."

What do you think? Was Twitter wrong in not getting involved in Ariel Waldman’s dispute? Should social-networking sites be held to a different standard than phone companies?

Thanks,

Maureen

~
Maureen Kochan
ConnectSafely forum manager