Comment by mthoms

Right. Which is why I think Twitter has chosen the best (of nothing but bad) options in handling this. That is, carry the message (since it is newsworthy) but annotate it.

>What you are saying about Twitter could be applied to TV networks, radio stations, and just about any other medium or platform that people use.

To a degree. But those businesses don't have positive social interaction as their core value proposition (reason to exist). People don't go to CNN.com for the purpose of being social. Thus anti-social behaviour on CNN doesn't affect their core value proposition in the same way.

>A web host like AWS, for instance, could conceivably receive enough flack

True, but groups organizing to lobby for a political/social purpose is a bit of a different beast altogether than one users actions directly affecting other users. In other words, there's no way (absent a bug/failure/poor design) that one users' usage of AWS should directly affect my usage of AWS.

All I'm saying is that social networks are very different from the other examples because they are, well, social.