If you’re interested in knowing why the writers are on strike in Hollywood *and* try to understand why music sales continue to slump, head over to this interesting graph over at Compete.com which basically suggests we are all spending more and more time in front of our PC’s.

(or Macs.  Come on, you know what I mean).

How much more time?

Like 25% more.  That means if you spend 2 hours, last year, you’re spending an extra 30 minutes this year checking your email, reading Digg, and otherwise, perhaps blogging.

Or, perhaps you’re watching rich media, and giving every reason for studio executives to believe that the online frontier is in fact, worth billions.

Or maybe, you’re spending that time listening to music that may or may not have been purchased online — but certainly not enjoying it *off*line.

The incredible thing is that the curve on that graph doesn’t look like its letting up.  And if that’s the case, its gives all the more reason for the writers to continue to pursue an equitable deal — and music executives to hang their heads in shame.  This is a trend that’s just not going to quit, folks.

But if you’re reading this blog, you probably already knew that, didn’t you? :)

Well, its official. Through a variety of efforts, it looks like Facebook has buckled to the perception that folks don’t like their activities being broadcast across the Facebook network. Mr. O’Neill has the details, but it sounds like that rather than automatically publishing stuff I bought, say that Dancing With The Stars Cardio DVD (did anyone else feel bad for Mel B?) — which I *swear* is for my wife — in the news feeds of my “friends”, it will now appear in my own profile for me authorize *first* before it gets sent out.

Better yet? If a Facebook user “forgets” to do anything about the notification (i.e. authorize or delete it), then the notification will actually go away. Furthermore, it sounds like this authorize / delete option will appear with every commercial transaction between Facebook’s social “partners” and any given Facebook user.

Clearly to privacy fans, this is a time to feel triumphant.

On the other hand, I can only wonder what this is going to do to Facebook’s bottom line. To go from default opted-in, to now, default opted-out, with the choice to opt-in actually *disappearing* if you forget to do anything about the notice? I could see the adoption of the service going from a rankled (and hoodwinked) 70% of Facebook users to a “happy-to-share-my-purchases” 10% or less.

In addition to wondering what this will do to Facebook’s evaluation, I also wonder if all of this will mean a restructuring of the deals Facebook cut with its partners? Of course the actual details of these deals are unknown to many / most / all of us, but if there was some lump sum paid out initially, will any of them ask for a portion of it back?

While the users who are left will clearly be “happier”, and a better representation of users who want to actually share their purchases, and therefore, hopefully a better “quality” of traffic that ultimately converts for these advertisers as the percentage of people clicking on any ads in the past has been utterly abysmal.

I guess the question remains is if these changes, from a marketing point of view, will make using Social Ads any more effective by weaning out folks who are uninterested — and more importantly, if the subsequent volume of traffic that remains is *enough* to justify what Facebook partners are paying Facebook.

Or, perhaps, is that “had” paid Facebook?

Looks like the movement by MoveOn and other privacy groups have really struck a chord with Facebook (Addendum: it looks like a few other organizations, such as Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Center for Digital Democracy are filing motions with the Federal Trade Commission on the basis of privacy violations, which probably has some teeth to it as well) . According to Businessweek they are in fact re-thinking their “once-in-a-hundred-years” advertising revolution as a privacy blunder.

This is good news for everyone, of course, except for Facebook, who has yet to really monetize itself in earnest, and more importantly was really betting the farm on this play. Rather, they were using the hype *from* Facebook Beacon and its social ads to pump up its theoretical evaluation to score a huge infusion of cash from Microsoft, and huge deals with Fortune 500 companies as well.

What will be interesting *now* of course, is if Facebook Beacon does crumble, how *will* it affect the deals it cut? Will any of them expect a (partial) refund? (perhaps a “restructuring” of their initial deal) And if it does affect the perception of this “advertising revolution”, will it in turn affect Facebook’s theoretical evaluation?

I think the answer the latter is “almost certainly”, because while everyone will acknowledge how fast its growing, clearly much of the overage that Microsoft paid for a foot-hold (a 1.6% foot-hold) onto Mount Facebook is *because* of the social ads platform and the hype-therein (which, I think, shows what kind of showman Mark Zuckerburg really is).

What’s also kind of interesting, of course, is looking in retrospect how much of its new evaluation will $240M buy.

(Methinks the answer is “probably much more than 1%”).

On a lighter note, does anyone else know when Twitter’s invite-through-Gmail process is actually going to get updated?  I understand that Gmail 2.0 (or whatever they’re calling it) with its updated contact management has broken things for Twitter, but jeez — I think its been a few weeks now that I’ve been getting an error when I try an “import” my Gmail contacts.

Anyway, many thanks who have added me, and many apologies if I haven’t gotten around to adding you in return.  (You see, the gmail importing thing seems to be broken … ;) )

I’m at http://www.twitter.com/tonyhung if you’re interested in future twitter updates, so please drop a line to say hello!

Looks like the A-lister brigade is out in force against the opt-in lunacy that is Facebook Beacon. Or, so it would seem, anyway, with Doc Searls, Dave Winer, and Jason Calacanis (and a few others) making some good ol’ impassioned pleas To Do The Right Thing, as this kind of default opt-in status is deceptive, and as Mr. Calacanis eloquently puts it (and I suggest this without a hint of sarcasm) they are Data Hogs as they are “amassing tons of information, selling it under false pretense, and not sharing it with the folks who gave it to them”.

It all makes sense to me, of course.

Will it make sense — as well as the real essence of their cri de coeur — to … say, for instance my *brother*? Or my wife? Or, my non-tech friends? How about *your* non-tech friends?

I mean, will average Facebookers care?

Will they care that Facebook isn’t making available in an easy XML format a copy of all of their data and transactions, available for download at a push of a button? That Facebook is actively scouring the transactions of their life so that it might be monetized now — or later, for that matter?

Let’s phrase it another way.

Do average Facebookers know or care that almost everything they upload *TO* Facebook is then *owned* by Facebook? That everything could be used / potentially abused / sold off in all kinds of ways that makes Facebook Beacon sound like of kindergardenish?

Let’s boil it down even more.

Do you think most Facebook users have even *thought* about reading the Terms of Service?

In an age where we *still* — and will *continue* to until our children our teenagers — read about how an individual’s silly exploits become public knowledge unbeknownst to them, and that news about potentially indiscrete activities could jeopardize your current and future job prospects are still very much News …

The answer to all of the above questions is “Average Facebook users neither know, nor care about the intricacies and *importance* of owning, tending, and guarding, one’s personal data, information, and relationships — unless it directly and overtly impacts their own personal sense of privacy today.”

And Facebook knows it.

In fact, its billion dollar valuation hinges on it.

It hinges on the fact that somewhere deep inside Facebook, I am sure that marketers and venture capitalists are cooking up ways to milk the herd of all its worth without actually alerting the herd to what its doing.

You know, like that privacy thing about the news feed about a year ago.

And that’s all that it really boils down to.

As long as enough people don’t notice or complain about these issues around Facebook nothing will be done. Its in Facebook’s best interests, in fact, that nothing be done.

Getting back to the point at hand, though. Will the cries of the blogging intelligentia be *enough* to galvanize forces within and throughout Facebook? Maybe. Perhaps if there are enough slow news days in the upcoming days and weeks, this could get enough publicity in the mainstream media — via MoveOn.org, for example — for it to catalyze change through public pressure.

But methinks that best way it *could* be done is through a grassroots means *within* Facebook. Someone has to start a group — someone with thousands of friends (like, the limit — 5000) who knows thousands of other connectors — to spread the word.

Because it has to be an attitudinal change, really. And that’s hard to do when its coming from an outside force — it really has to come from within.

You know what I mean.

Getting people curious about what Facebook is really about and what they’re really doing.

Get people interested about what they’re giving up in exchange so that they don’t have to go through the onerous task of actually *emailing* people, but messaging them through Facebook.

Because only if we’re able to do that *first*, will we able to get people to care about Facebook handing over all their data.

Without caring about what Facebook can or can do, and what it does and doesn’t own, nobody will ever want to know or care about these other shenannigans, which make sense to you and I.

But not, say, people like my brother.

And perhaps your brother too.

Allen Stern at CenterNetworks queries how good Propeller (previously “Netscape.com”) is and will be, and crunches some publicly available traffic data to suggest, perhaps, in time it will be a legitimate #2 to Digg as the social news king.

I have to admit that I don’t follow Digg and its clones other social news brethren all that closely; neither do I know if Propeller has anything in particular “cooking”, as it were behind the scenes.

However, what I think _is_ clear to me is that Propeller needs to continue growing.  Depending on the graph you look at, they’re either plateauing or growing; I’d like to think that they’re doing a little of the latter.

However, they need to continue doing this in spades if they are going to play “second fiddle” to *anyone* (keeping in mind that Propeller is probably trying to be the best Propeller it can be ;) — and that means, not just resting on the strength of its community, or the strength of its anchors, or propeller-heads, or what have you.

Its clear that to grow, they’ll need to pull out some strategic and tactical marketing maneuvers to continue to win over new and older fans of social news, whether it means contests, free swag, off-line advertising, or joint ventures with AOL’s partners  or cross-marketing across the variety of AOL properties.

I mean, in some ways, Propeller is excellently positioned for the latter of those two options given how deep AOL’s roots *do* go.

I suppose the question is if in 2008 we’ll continue to think of Propeller as a “formerly of Netscape” and “that place where people are paid to moderate”, or if it will, in the immortal words of Paula Abdul, take that piece and “really make it your own!”

In what must be the softest headlining story of the month, Mike Arrington’s story of how Digg users are having a look at a Digg clone called Mixx has made it to the top of Techmeme.

I have nothing to say about this story around Digg / Mixx, except that as a community grows in size, the number of assholes who populate it will, of course grow in number as well; what was tight knit and collegial gives way to anonymous ass-hat-ery, and that’s just the nature of the web.

Now, this isn’t really saying anything against the Techmeme algorithm, and why it should choose *this* story to headline itself, and not say, the seemingly more “important” story by the San Francisco Chronicle detailing how iTunes is launching the careers of some would-be-unlikely musicians.

Nor, for example, is about Mike Arrington wanting to write this piece.

Its about how at the beginning of the day, there were, maybe two bloggers who had wrote about it, like new media law dude Rob Hyndman and Bloggers Blog.

Now, at the end of the day, we have quadrupled that number.

Why? Well, if there was something intrinsically interesting or newsworthy about Mike’s piece I might say “its because its intrinsically interesting or newsworthy”. But because it really *isn’t*, I am led to believe the *only* a big reason they’re writing about it is because it *is* the headlining news story.

That is, they want to comment on the most “newsiest” story of the day, or there’s a desire (subconscious or no), to have your blog attached to the headlining story.

[I now speak from personal experience on both feelings which can be oddly profound at times]

Irrespective of the actual reason, I think it shows in a funny way, how powerful Techmeme is. Sure, we all read it, and yes, this is a weekend, but depending on what the headlining story is, it can really influence what bloggers write about.

I mean, let’s move this story down to the bottom and let’s see how many of them — “us”, really — write about this non-event. I would probably say “not a lot” and that’s being charitable.

As an aside, and I don’t know if there’s any way to prove this, but this also proves to be an interesting case example of how powerful Techmeme is relative to other aggregators. This fairly soft story is *also* headlining Megite, for example, *and* the Tech section of Blogrunner. Not having followed on the other aggregators, I do wonder if what happened was this story being fairly innocuous, hitting the Top of Techmeme, having other bloggers link to it, and then propelling the story to the top of other news aggregators.

Bottom line? Techmeme is our beloved aggregator, but for tech bloggers anyway, I think perhaps, that it has an inordinate amount of power. Or, rather, if its merely natural (as the most beloved of tech aggregators), then perhaps I never really appreciated how much power it had over us to begin with.