All the buzz for the last little while has been on social networking technology, and how enterprises can exploit it.

My challenge is usually to look at an ambitious idea and determine where risks lie in terms of getting in trouble; and then to determine either how far one can go, or how to skirt the risk.

One of the questions I’ve been looking into is how a standard legal risk manifests itself in this new domain of Facebook, blogs, YouTube, etc.:  Vicarious or Third-Party Liability.  (Speaking of liability, don’t forget to read the disclaimer at the end of this article – I am not a lawyer.)  Just how closely do you have to monitor those who, through your adoption of Web 2.0 technologies and paradigms, may appear to act in your name?

Let’s look at an ideal, though potentially very risky, example.  Ideal yet very risky?  Follow me…

This blog entry.  I’m a member of Tazzu, along with hundreds of others.  I’m not a part of the Tazzu corporate structure, however.  Usually, in my own blog, when I talk about content platforms, I put the owners/developers on one side.  These are the people to whom you would pay subscription fees if there are any, and who “own” the site, servers, code, etc.  On the other side, I stick the users.  These are the people who pay subscription fees, use the service, play the game, view the content, etc.

Within the Tazzu big picture – Tazzuland as we sometimes call it – I am a user.  When I post in the forum, even if I am obnoxious, offensive, or just a boring bandwidth waster (I am never any of these, of course ;-} ), other users see it as coming from me, and not from Tazzu.  Whether that behaviour is good or bad for business, or whether it is congruent with the owners’ vision for the forum is opinion and policy.  This is because anyone can post there.  There is no exclusivity, or so little as to be insignificant.

This blog is different.  Only a very small group of people have access to write here.  The combination of that exclusivity and the nature of an organization’s blog leads to the perception that what appears here is more closely aligned with the voice of Tazzu as a business.

Such is not the case, of course.  What I write here is my own; I don’t write on behalf of Tazzu, but rather I provide content for them.  How is that different from a magazine or other organization employing content creators?  I am not employed or contracted by Tazzu.

To bring us back to my original statement, this is both ideal and risky.

It is risky in that there is a more substantial connection, in the perception of readers, between Tazzu and me here on the blog than there is in the forum.

That risk is mitigated, however, by the very thing that makes it a risk.  The risk is created by the perception that if only a few people are given the keys to the blog, then they must be chosen because the directors want them to help hoist the Tazzu banner.  While it increases the legal risk of liability, if done correctly, it mitigates the actual risk.  The Tazzu directors personally know the writers, and chose them based on an already existing trust relationship.

We are looking at two sides of one coin.  The token that ostensibly makes us trustworthy is the same one that creates a risk.

But that coin is nothing new.  You bring someone in close because you trust them.  If they mess things up, you could be in more trouble than if the mess were created by someone more distant.  The lesson is to grant access to the right to use your brand – to associate oneself with you – in a social network carefully.

You don’t let just anyone write or speak on behalf of your company.  And those who do so with little or no permission are generally unlikely to be misinterpreted to be speaking on your behalf.

Social networking platforms, including those that enable user-created content, are no different.

But because of the casual facility with which social networks grow, and the simplistic social models used, social networking platforms encourage you to share without caution, leading to risks of misinterpretation and potential vicarious liability.  Are all four-hundred of your Facebook friends really friends of yours, with all the trust rights one assumes friends to have?

Without tiers or strata of trust and access, misinterpretation looms.  Facebook uses a reversed model, employing access tiers for readers.  If someone is on your limited list, they can’t see the picture from that party that you don’t want your business associates to see.  However, most people don’t even use the limited list.  Even so, aren’t most of your Facebook friends on your regular list?  Meaning most of them can write to your wall.  Your only option is to turn off the right to write on the wall completely.  The potential for problems with this shows up regularly with the Wall for corporate fan pages, leading them to be politically or otherwise hijacked and smeared.  There are already countless examples that demonstrate how companies using social network platforms must exercise caution.

The caution I am writing here is a general one, and I am not differentiating between the risks to goodwill and reputation on one hand, and legal liability for misinformation or torts that could follow allowing your good name to be misused by others.  For more on that difference, see my piece on weblawg.net.

The disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I hold degrees in English and in Law, but have not been called to the bar (yet). What I write is academic legal opinion, but not professional legal advice.  Always seek the advice of a licensed lawyer before making a decision with legal ramifications.