Half of my feeds is about Facebook and their privacy policy. A complete case of propaganda built up by the blogo-journalistic cartel. Few thousands of top self proclaimed internet right activists are trying to convince 300 Million users that their life is ‘exposed’ by Facebook voluntary exploitation of public data.

Facebook offers a wide selection of options to protect your info and we will go through those steps a bit later. But let’s not be hypocrite here, if you want to keep your life private you need to stay away from social networks. Permanently.

Those attacks are becoming more targeted against Mark Zuckerberg like an attempt to stop the ascension of a giant. The worst is to come after I read the upcoming release of a movie describing Facebook’s founder as a drunk billionaire geek who is a sex-mad “borderline-autistic” conniver.

Mike Arrington wrote an excellent note on the subject but personally I think Zuck will have to face the same hatred Jobs and Gates faced decades ago. Hopefully genius will prevail.

—

Now here is how you can simply protect some level of privacy on Facebook.

Simply login to your account and head to ‘Privacy Settings’

Once you get there click on ‘Personal Information and Posts’

This will give you access to a set of customizable features. For best protection chose ’only friends’ to all options.

I personally do not accept wall posts. If a friend has something to say he can:

-       send me a message or – comment one of my entries.

Finally you can opt-out from public searches meaning search engines will not display your Facebook profile

One last recommendation – be sure to set privacy settings on applications and games. You surely don’t want to share your recent activity across the board:

Be curious and explore those pages. You will find lots of useful information.

The only valid reproach we can aim at Facebook is the lack of universal control of privacy [windows way for security] where user can set level of data sharing from None to Public in one click.

Back in August I predicted Facebook will take #1 rank away from Google in traffic before the end of the year. December results are not out yet but there is a high probability I am right. As I was looking for data on the subject – a new question arise.

Is traffic a sign of popularity?

So I went on writing down numbers on a scrapbook. My primary goal was to search brand names and the number of search associated with that brand. To do so I used the Top 100 brand by Millward Brown [PDF].
Surprisingly Facebook, Twitter, iPhone, My Space are not listed by the research institute. Even in a brick and mortar world, Facebook should be in top 5 most known brands.

Below are results found using Google.com [US English page as of December 30, 2009].

Few basic observations: Google and Facebook together are more popular than Web. US takes the lead with over 23 billions search results. USA and War all together are less popular than Yahoo!

Behind those figures I see two conclusions. First, top brands -as described in the study published by Millward Brown- are yet far behind in terms of web image. Their online presence is a failure for 95% of them. This should give hope to all online viral social media jungle marketing agencies out there. The second conclusion is sadder: traffic doesn’t mean revenue. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, MySpace and Hotmail generating over 5.3 billion of search results have an estimated global revenue of $1.3 billion for 2009 representing 0,003% of Wal-Mart’s 2009 revenue.

It brings us back to valuation calculation- should we continue to use online popularity or traffic to rate online businesses?

What do you think?

Difficult to read online news and not bump into one of those anti-carriers posts regarding the Google Voice vs. AT&T case.

Being involved in Telecom I’m often asked to give my opinion on the matter. After long and boring passionate discussions with friends it became clear no one as a clue of what’s going on. The need for an explanatory post came naturally after a brainstorming session with my friend and partner Pat Phelan.

What is Google Voice?

The service provisions a U.S. phone number, chosen by the user from available numbers in selected area codes, free of charge to each user account. Inbound calls to this number are forwarded to other phone numbers of the subscriber. Outbound calls may be placed to domestic and international destinations from any of a user’s configured telephones, or from a web-based application. Inbound and domestic outbound calls (including calls to Canada) are free of charge, while international calls are billed according to a schedule posted on the Google Voice website. [wikipedia definition].
In simple words, Google Voice is an alternative telecom carrier offering a FREE US number, unlimited free calls within US and Canada and unlimited inbound calls.

Google Voice strong “selling” feature in the Gmail like dashboard offering call logs, SMS history, sync with contact book, visual voicemail.

Ok but how does it work?

Until recently Google Voice was a web application. You needed to go to your web browser in order to place a call. Last summer Google released mobile applications to run on Android, BlackBerry and iPhone.
Simply install the application, pop up the virtual dialer and start making free calls using your mobile carrier a termination point only. Google Voice in an application layer on top of your current service.

iPhone version was removed from App store on july 27, 2009.

If it’s the same as my phone service why would I use Google Voice?

That’s the most interesting question. You still need a host carrier to run Google Voice, minutes you are using on Google Voice are accounted on your plan, so here are benefits:

-       Your Google Voice number is yours for life. No fear to lose your number ever.
-       you can call Canada at no extra cost
-       some carriers plan restrict out-of-state calls. You won’t have this problem with GV.
-       you get advanced voicemail for free (carriers usually charge $5/mo)
-       you get unconditional call forwarding free. You can decide to forward GV calls to your office, country house
-       Advanced call forwarding (simultaneous rings e.g. office, cell and home)
-       Cheap international calls
-       Unlimited free SMS, send and receive
-       Visual Voicemail
-       Call screening, call recording, etc.

Most important is your independence to carrier. You can change operator and never loose a voicemail, or sms or call log. Forget long term commitment to AT&T.

Why did Apple and ATT rejected the iPhone application?

Michael Arrington was prompt to trash Apple thinking they are the bad guys. He even gave his iPhone up and moved to an Android powered device to protest against Cupertino firm [I also dumped iPhone for an HTC Hero but for different motivations].

It was obvious Apple had little to do in the decision to block Google Voice application. It’s a direct order coming from AT&T saying to Google: No, you won’t pimp us!

As much as I hate carrier, their mafia cartels and market domination I disagree with Mike argument that we live in a free world and AT&T should not block Google.

Let’s put it this way – can Mashable post their articles on Techcrunch comments because comments are a backdoor to posting on TechCrunch?

Arrington will be the first one to take those posts out and call for an embargo on Mashable.

Can you publish an ad with a Bing search box on Google sponsored links? I won’t live long enough to see Microsoft trying to do this.

But no you can’t.

You shouldn’t be able to use carriers pipes to steal their traffic, take away their subscribers and build a business just because you can afford to dump prices.

This is the second underlying problem of Google Voice. They are dumping prices. Obviously Google is paying to purchase numbers from CLEC, paying for US and Canada termination, paying for their online management and giving it all for free is unfair trading.

I’m surprised AT&T, Verizon, Sprint didn’t file an antidumping petition under the regulations determined by the United States Department of Commerce, which determines “less than fair value” and the International Trade Commission, which determines “injury”. True dumping is generally used in International Trading. But if Google isn’t international then who is?

I didn’t include TMobile in list of potential plaintiffs against Google as Google and Tmobile are working together on promoting a line of devices, Android OS and other services.

I know the Google Voice team quite well and have lots of respect for Craig Walker co-founder of GrandCentral and Group Product Manager for the Real Time Communications group at Google.

But Google can’t have it both ways. You want to become a Telco carrier then break your piggy bank and invest in infrastructure, build your network, acquire your HLRs and switches, start offering customer support, sign roaming agreements…and play fair competition.

If your offer is good I will be the first customer to sign up.

I’d like to start this post with a statement: I’m not a journalist, I’m not a professional blogger, I don’t get paid – directly or indirectly – to write, I don’t have any ads on my Posterous or my blog. I’m just a nobody with a big mouth. Finally English is not my native language.

Yesterday a debate started on Twitter after I shared an article taken from Yahoo! Finance and posted in extenso on my Posterous page.

For those – like Charles Arthur- who do not know the way Posterous works, here is a small tutorial.

You surf the web – find an interesting post and want to SHARE it.

Then once you press the Share on Posterous button you have :

Et voila – content is shared and all credits are given to the original source here:

Basically Posterous sharing ie Digg, Techmeme, Google Reader is identical as a ReTweet of valuable content.

Now back to yesterday’s incident.

I shared the following: http://florianseroussi.posterous.com/ten-big-companies-that-are-veering-toward-ban reproducing EXACTLY what was posted on Yahoo! Finance page. Exactly. Giving credit to Yahoo! and Business Insider as per the original post.

You will note that Yahoo! has a generic link to Business Insider but not to the original BI article.

Charles Arthur then asked why didn’t I link the original Business Insider post. Tried to explain how I used Posterous add-on to share content but Charles didn’t know anything about Posterous.

Mike Butcher – Techcrunch UK editor- jumped on the bandwagon without checking the facts thinking I simply reproduced a paid content without giving any credits. Once Mike understood his mistake he blamed me for not finding the original post and manually adding a link to the Yahoo! re-post.  It was simply a ridiculous claim but I searched the internet, found the link and added it to my shared content credit to appease boiling journo blood. As someone mentioned to me via DM – Mike Butcher was much more eloquent to defend the right to publish stolen documents on Techcrunch aka Twittergate. Journalist bullshit duty I guess.

Charles Arthur lost the plot, comparing cars, free content, source code and who knows what all together. Within hours- Charles tone went from arrogant to sarcastic to insulting.

Ilicco Elias tried to minimize the incident but Guardian editor was not ready to give up so easily.

My buddy Paul Walsh came to the rescue with a fair statement:

Charles still on a roll threatens to sue me and foresees a class action against Posterous starting soon (ahem)…

At last in a final act of bravery Arthur decided to block me and called me stupid after I mentioned The Guardian.co.uk had lost over £24M.

Mr Arthur – as the tech editor of The Guardian who do not have a clue what Posterous is – you should have a much more humble attitude.

Journalists – your current business model is SINKING. You are dying slowly with 20^th century principles. Wake up! Look around. You do not have the monopole of information and sharing. We – your readers- have the ability to share, produce and rate content the same way you do. The only value added you can provide is by doing a better job – not by shutting us down.

Note: I didn’t want to go on the legal approach of copyright et al on this post. I’m not an attorney and IP laws (international laws should I say) are too complicated for a blog post. Yahoo! quickly replied to my email and stated they are not involved as no logo or Yahoo! material has been shared.

Hopefully Charles Arthur will use last pence of The Guardian to start a worldwide class action against Google and Posterous to prove his point and whatever the outcome shall be – we will burn in golden letters on The Guardian’s headstone : The Death Of Arrogance.

UPDATE Sept 24 : After an email exchange with Charles Arthur I have modified the Posterous post to an excerpt only – adding another link to Business Insider [there are now 2 links, one on header and one on footer]. It would be interesting to know the conversation rate between hits on my Posterous to links onto BI but my guess is we will never know.

Few pics taken during TechCrunch50 2009.

TechCrunch50 just ended last night in San Francisco. What is it all about? Mostly a good chance to monitor the industry pulse. To meet new people, to share experience and learn to listen.

First edition of TechCrunch50 (actually it was 40) gathered a lot of attention. Too much for an unprepared team of bloggers/entrepeneurs but certainly not event planner. We were all bitching about the lack of internet, mobile network, seats, drinks, audio, timing. Everything was bad or wrong, but the audience was there, internet rock stars came and talentuous Mike Arrington and Jason Calacanis saved the show. Most terrible choice was certainly on the selection of potential candidates to go on stage. Even though looking at it a couple of years later we see they didn’t miss by selecting Mint.com as the winner.

Second edition of the most hyped Web 2.0 event was better organized – not hard to do so- selection was obviously more professional and panelists still sharp on their analysis. We were at the early stage of the recession, full of hope but extremely careful on the outcome. I felt this second edition as a global euphoria in a great time of uncertainty.  Last year winner was also a good but safe choice : yammer.com. Nothing could go wrong with a company surfing on Twitter vibes.

Last 2 days were definitely better than past editions. Lesson learned for Arrington and Calacanis. Everything was perfect. I must give them huge credit for providing top notch internet service, excellent real-time video streaming and perfect timing during the event. When food was insufficient Calacanis ordered 60 pizzas – I can only imagine the happiness of pizzaiolo receiving a 60 pizzas order…

I was first surprised by the low number of attendees. From a non scientific count my guess is 35% less then last year. But it was quality people. It made untouchable people reachable. I was able to chat with Marissa Mayer, Marc Andreessen, Ron Conway, Don Dodge and Reid Hoffman in a very open way. There was a true community around entrepreneurship with no voyeurs or curious peeps. Upsetting glitch when Paul Carr wrote a stupid post about the American flag being on stage. If you have no talent you must hide it with something. Carr found provocation to be the solution. Anyway too much ink on this low life douchbag journalist. Back to TechCrunch50 and the 2009 list of nominees. There was a shift from 2007 smoke and mirrors start-ups to 2009 small businesses with a valid model. All competitors had a plan to make money not just to bring traction and wait for a strategy. Economy is certainly the real reason behind the change of mentality. RedBeacon – the big winner- aims to help consumers find local service providers such as plumbers, bakers, and contractors. A basic service to fill basic needs. I want to give a thumb-up to Rackup launched by my friend Marc Rochman. Marc did a great job on stage. 5 min to describe 18 months of research and hard work is not an easy task. Kudos to the Rackup team.

Arrington called a surprise panelist to comment presentations – Chamillionaire. Not the everyday geek you see at tech conventions…but I must recognize the guy had a good analysis on most start-ups. For future editions Arrington should have more street-smart experts – it does make a difference.

In conclusion TechCrunch50 minus the hype and plus the maturity was a great show. Looking forward attending 2010 edition.