I’m not sure I buy Netscape’s explanation that editorial control of user submitted content is the “next logical step,” as Jason Calacanis (Netscape GM) says. It’s one way to manage and control your content, which any site has the absolute right to do, but it’s a fair sight different than “social news.” If step #1 was content produced by a staff specifically for publication on a given site (CNN, NYTimes, etc.), and step #2 is Digg’s model of mostly unfettered user submitted and promoted content, I’m not sure that I see how it could be argued that the next step is to place editorial control on that content. Certainly not the next step in the same direction.

Also, for Netscape to call Digg a “social bookmarking site” is being a bit disingenuous. I’d call it a “social news” site with bookmarking capabilities, which is really quite different. Not at all the same as Delicio.us or Furl. This seems to show a fundamental lack of understanding (or dishonestly) of what those differences are.

It will be interesting to see how Netscape works out the kinks.

It’s an interesting dilemma for a company to start soliciting user-submitted content and then start having to cope with content taking a negative perspective toward that same company. It’s always scary when you turn over the reigns to your audience (read: constituency, or membership for a non-profit take on it) and ultimately up to the company or organization to make the call whether they feel that the initiative is going to help either them or their audience.

It’s strange to look at Netscape as the “old guard” but I guess that’s what they are now. Web 2.0 isn’t for everyone.