chickens playing scrabbleLast week there was an interesting article on CNET about Why Facebook left ‘Scrabulous’ alone that comments on Hasbro filing a copyright and trademark infringement claim against the creators of Facebook’s Scrabulous.

The CNET article points out that “Facebook’s insistence on being a ‘neutral platform provider’ in the situation” is a little odd, “because, to state the matter bluntly, it isn’t.”

“[Facebook] has a history of tightly policing activity on its developer platform, banning “Secret Crush” over a spyware claim, locking down applications believed to be spamming users, and occasionally raising developer ire with some of its more stringent regulations. The site even temporarily blocked Top Friends, a creation of widget powerhouse Slide, when a security hole was discovered…

“Facebook wanted to keep Scrabulous around. In claiming a ‘neutral’ stance, the company was actually taking the activist route.”

So it makes me wonder, is it possible for a community site or social network site to remain neutral about its content? When you build a site, and especially when you are also studying the behavior of the users of the site, you do not want to be the police, monitoring and deleting content deemed inappropriate. But, as this situation on Facebook reveals, by doing nothing, you can’t claim neutrality because you are implicitly endorsing the content. It could be argued that it is only because Facebook removed some content that they can’t claim neutrality. But what if they did nothing about illegal content such as child pornography? Do they need to comply with laws? Copyright laws? If yes, then that means they have to be the police, a role no web2.0 community developer wants. It is a tough situation.