How two (three?) wrongs may have big issues on rights

I read two interesting articles today, both on companies adjudicating the content of messaging:

Firstly, this story on Search Engine Land about Google maybe interdicting false linkbait stories, Matt Cutts saying:

My quick take is that Google's webmaster guidelines allow for cases such as this: "Google may respond negatively to other misleading practices not listed here (e.g. tricking users by registering misspellings of well-known websites). It's not safe to assume that just because a specific deceptive technique isn't included on this page, Google approves of it."

There's not much more deceptive or misleading than a fake story without any disclosure that the story is hoax.

Secondly, Facebook looking at censoring user messaging:

If you ever get the itch to use the word "yuwie" or perhaps make reference to "wadja.com" - don't bother. "Some of the content you included in this message is not allowed by Facebook," is the message you'll get in response. Both of the above are small social networks, but you can't even send a message about how something disgusting (like yuwie.com's site design) made you say "yuwie, that smells bad!" On principle, the whole thing stinks.

Obscenity isn't blocked by Facebook, I was able to send a message that said "John McCain is a f*cking Nazi" (asterisk free) with no problem.

(Wadja etc are Facebook competitors - f*cking Nazis are not)

Google is trying to be helpful, though it may be in real danger of getting the law of unintended consequences applying. Facebook is just being Facebook - Umair Haque would argue their DNA just started evil, no doubt.

The thing that interests me more about these happy groovy "Web 2.0" players is that they are even considering message interdiction - the "Web 0" usenet, and Web 1.0 tools (email, IM) by and large did not. Clearly though, there is something now in the Zeitgeist and that is concerning to anyone interested in user privacy and other rights

Update - here is another interdiction call - a woman who has been called nasty names and had identity details "outed" on Twitter wants to get her "stalker" banned from the service. Twitter had a look at the person's behaviour and its terms of service, and decided this was not its problem.

I think Twitter are right - this is another case where doing the politically correct / expedient / nice thing - interdicting the nasty-person - is probably the wrong thing to do big picture as it sets a dangerous precedent for the rights of all users. There have always been a**holes on the internet, and the "social net" means that most people - inadvisably in our view - have put more data about themselves on it than they should. I suspect we will see more and more of this on Social Networks as opponents, jilted lovers etc trawl the archives to expose your digital detritus. (Incidentally I see that the complainant also works for a Twitter competitor - hmmmmm )