When fashion icon and marketing provocateur Kenneth Cole unleashed this infamous tweet earlier this month on the heels of the uprisings in Cairo, all hell broke loose in the digerati. The digital equivalent of “off with his head!” could be heard for days as people on Twitter, in blog posts and Tumblr updates, and — perhaps most embarrassingly to Cole — on his company’s Facebook page, expressed their grievances over his ill-timed remark.

But, in retrospect, was he really to blame? Or do social networks themselves share responsibility for such shameless online marketing and advertising? At the very least, one has to question whether some social networks actively encourage this type of provocative brand messaging, all in the name of increasing ad revenue and driving coveted “buzz” for a brand.

Alexandra Samuel recently explored the marketing lessons of the Cole tweet on her blog. She noted that,

Marketers need to recognize that a social media presence is not a billboard: it’s not an empty space that you can buy and slap your message on.

But in reality, the advertising platforms of today’s hottest social networks — Facebook and Twitter — are built around this type of brand messaging. As pressure from investors, the media, and users have mounted, both Facebook and Twitter have introduced sponsored ad platforms that essentially usurp the natural rhythm of conversations on their networks in favor of ad revenue.

In other words, the very social networks that help perpetuate consumer uproar when brands get out of line are actively inviting those same brands and marketers to incite conversations they know will cause a stir — all in the name of ad revenue.

A veritable “If you build it, they will come” moment for social advertising.

Think of it in terms of Twitter’s promoted trends and tweets program (the former has been so successful that it now costs advertisers $100,000 per day), or Facebook’s new wall posts-turned-ads offering. In that light, was Cole’s tweet all that different from the type of one-way, purely promotional “conversations” many social networks publicly eschew, but privately, want brands to engage in?

Neither Twitter nor Facebook is at a loss for ad revenue or attention. eMarketer recently predicted Twitter’s 2011 ad revenue will reach $150 million, a 200-percent increase over last year. Promoted tweets are garnering interaction rates of five percent, significantly higher than the less-than-one-percent standard for display ads. Meanwhile, eWeek pegs Facebook’s 2011 ad revenue at $4 billion, with users spending an average of 20 minutes per day on the site.

As social ads continue influencing consumers’ online interactions, there are significant ethical implications to consider. In an era where many companies favor a vibrant online presence over traditional brick-and-mortar interactions, greater consideration needs to be given to the tone and type of brand communications on social networks during times of tragedy or national concern.

What I am advocating for, however, is a drastic increase in the level of sensitivity displayed by marketers, even those known to be provocative. Twitter, Facebook, and other social networks could also better educate brands on the implicit and explicit implications of their messages. Each knows the tolerance of its users best, and should do more to ensure the messages and advertising that go across its network align with its users’ — and broader societal — norms and expectations.

Today’s communications and marketing challenges call for more than merely rolling out a new ad platform that quells investors’ ire and advertisers’ concerns. We need to ensure online marketing messages reflect the type of society America and its foreign commercial partners aspire to, rather than reaching for the lowest common denominator — all in the name of increased ad revenue.