[Sitting in for Anthony Caruana]

The evolution of the newest and hottest social media phenomenon continued recently with Twitter users sent an email pointing to the microblogging tool's new Terms of Service.

The first change is the possibility of commercialising Twitter on a mass scale. Peppered throughout the new terms are sentences marked with a big yellow arrow that reads 'TIP'.

For example, after this paragraph;

'The Services may include advertisements, which may be targeted to the Content or information on the Services, queries made through the Services, or other information. The types and extent of advertising by Twitter on the Services are subject to change. In consideration for Twitter granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Twitter and its third party providers and partners may place such advertising on the Services or in connection with the display of Content or information from the Services whether submitted by you or others.'

The first tip is a get out of jail free card that warns us Twitter can do anything it wants for ad dollars; 'We're leaving the door open for exploration in this area but we don't have anything to announce'.

It got me wondering what sort of model might work. Maybe a Pay per Click style of service where the system automatically attaches ads to certain words in tweets at random? Or something more obtuse, such as an ad link or text to precede any tweets you receive.

It can be argued that Twitter's success across devices and software will be its own biggest hurdle. Just putting ads on the Twitter website won't do much because of the sheer variety of tweet clients people use to stay connected. Presumably any advertising will have to be stitched to the content so the delivery platform doesn't matter.

With estimates of over six million users, it's no wonder Twitter's owners (and the business probably desperate to throw money at them) are dreaming dollar signs.

Another tip however reminded me of a hallmark legal case that set the first major precedent in online content a few years back. A subhead on Twitter's new terms called 'Content on the Services' reads thus;

'All Content, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services and, we cannot take responsibility for such Content. Any use or reliance on any Content or materials posted via the Services or obtained by you through the Services is at your own risk.'

Remember Dow Jones versus Melbourne businessman Joe Gutnick in 2002, when the Australian High Court ruled in favour of defamation brought against Dow Jones by Gutnick over an article published in the US and on the web? Dow Jones' defense argued that Gutnick had no right to sue in Australia because it was outside the jurisdiction where the article had been published and uploaded (New Jersey). The court unanimously disagreed.

The precedent was scary for Internet users the world over. The most accurate legal term for uploading content we had was 'published', and the precedent meant that no matter where your audience was in the world, you were responsible for content you hosted on the web no matter who'd produced it and put it there. It underscored the whole argument about whether the web is a global publishing effort or a global pub chat, whether every opinion or offhand comment is published in a public forum that you can be held liable for.

The ramifications still haven't been thrashed out, but with similar court actions famously ruling Napster and Kazaa responsible for the (mostly pirated) content on their systems, saying 'it's not ours, we just host it' looks flimsy.

Can Twitter deflect any such legal action before it happens with one little disclaimer? It might not settle the argument of whether web content is what you say or what you publish, but it's a question society as a whole will have to face some time.