Facebook Inc., the world’s largest social-networking site, said more than 3 million members registered user names by yesterday morning after it offered people the chance to claim a personalized Web address.

Facebook began accepting registrations at midnight New York time on June 13 on a first-come, first-served basis. Within the first 15 minutes, more than 500,000 user names were assigned and about 1 million in the first hour, said Larry Yu, a spokesman for Palo Alto, California-based Facebook.

While that sounds like a huge number, I wonder if it really is.  Later in the article, they add a denominator on to that fact — there are about 200 million people registered on Facebook.  So, a little more than 1% of people “rushed” to nab their own vanity URL this weekend.

Its in alignment with some of the friends / family on Facebook, actually, where most people had no idea that it was Friday, but most, really having no idea, and a substantial proportion of them asking “but why does it matter?”

I think it begs the larger question of the importance and awareness of reputation management on the Internet — specifically realizing how important it is to own your own Google Search results (particularly if you have a reputation and profession you care about), how Facebook ranks in all of that (can rank quite high), and how a Facebook vanity URL containing keywords might in turn rank (again, theoretically high).  But that’s really a post for another time.

Not just in terms of the kind of reach Nokia has in Europe (and beyond), but I think its a pretty wise move overall, and something that they’d do well with in terms of reaching deals with *other* phone (and carrier) companies.  Why is this?  Oh, nothing profound here other than the fact that a new generation of digital natives will be doing more and more with their cell phones, and less and less with old fashioned desk tops.

While the digital milieu is clearly different in North America (and in Canada, than say, the United States), if places like Japan are a harbinger of this kind of future, where cell phone novels are clearly the Next Big Thing (as a means to get discovered, cut a book deal, fame, fortune, and so on), creating partnerships to make your functionality available on the go is a good thing.

I have to admit that I don’t actually use Facebook much; however, when it was still fresh and new to me, there was an appeal about checking the mobile site via Blackberry — and in a very Twitterish kind of way, update my “what am I doing” portion as I go.

Sure there are issues about how a monetary partnership might affect Facebook’s bottom line, but I think that getting your brand onto cell phones — no matter how you do it, through important partnership deals to expand “distribution” — is forward thinking, and is clearly where the future is going.

Facebook’s in decent company, I suppose, as its hard to question Google’s own moves, as they are making a billion dollar play with the 700Mhz spectrum auction (complementing their push with Android, of course).

Anyway, it sounds like a lot has been said about Facebook’s Beacon doing The Seemingly Right Thing by making Beacon 100% opt out, with a surprising amount being said by some of the larger mainstream media organizations.

Its late, but I think its worth mentioning that Mark Zuckerburg’s mea culpa doesn’t directly address the troubling evidence that Beacon transmits data to Facebook, irrespective of whether you’re logged in.  Which leads one to wonder even if you’ve opted out of Beacon, whether Facebook is still harvesting your data, as data is *still* sent to Facebook.

“You can dismiss whiny “pundits” all you want, but when major advertisers you touted as being charter members of the program decide you jerked them around, you had better start apologizing in a hurry”

I wondered if Facebook’s privacy issues around its Social Ads and Beacon would hit the bottom line yesterday.  Well, it turns out its already beginning, not because, perhaps, less people are using it, but perhaps an even *worse* reason.

Example?  Coke, one of the major blue-chip advertisers doesn’t want to stain their brand by being associated with another brand that has contentious privacy issues, which is really geek-speak for “trust issues”.

I guess the bigger question is if there are other blue-chip companies who are going to follow Coke’s suit around these severe “trust issues”, and moreover, how long this “probationary period” will take particularly since it is saying one thing, and doing something very different — right now — and right to our faces.

In the ongoing Privacy Boondogle that is Facebook, it seems some hard work by Stefan Berteau at Computer Associates has shown that with respect to Facebook’s Beacon, it really doesn’t matter what your opt in status means with respect to your data.

Om Malik queried some weeks ago when Social Ads was delivered about the possibility of personal data *still* being exchanged, even in the absence of the broadcast of such an exchange via your news feed, for example. That is, was data still being given to Facebook even if you switched off the notification that it be made public?

Did opting out of Facebook’s Beacon (even in its initial incarnation) actually mean opting out of Facebook *telling* everyone what you just did — or actually preventing the information being exchanged in the first place, and therefore not actually *not knowing* what you just did?

Well it looks like there’s a reason why he got such a mealy-mouthed answer, because it turns out that even if you’re *not* logged into Facebook, Facebook’s Beacon Affiliates / Partners / Minions will *STILL* send back information to Facebook!

Why does this matter?

Above and beyond the fact that opting out of “publishing the information to newsfeed” gives the impression that Facebook won’t actually be storing the information of the transaction (not just literally preventing the information being published), or even beyond the technical issue of it being sent to Facebook when you’re not even logged in, its the issue of behavioural profiling on a scale that would make Orson Wells have a heart attack. And yes, I’m quite aware he’s dead.

To wit:

“Facebook just received enough information to tie the activity I took on their affiliate to my individual account, which combined with the social data they already have, such as circles of friends, level of education, communication patterns, and geographic locations, would allow them to profile individual consumer behavior on a nearly unprecedented level of detail.“

Yes, its obviously a marketer’s wet dream, and we could go on to the nth degree and speculate what Facebook might do with said information. Perhaps in the future, for example, with Facebook being “opt out”, and its current Social Ads partnerships potentially being threatened by that, it might end up selling said information in desperation to boost its bottom line.

Outrageous, you might say? Facebook would never do that? It would be a violation of its own TOS?

Well, I’ve got to say that such possibilities aren’t out of the impossible to *me* anymore, because I guess its pretty much in line with the answer that Stefan Berteau got from Facebook with respect to his own findings on the capture of its user data.

You know. A bald-faced lie.

And I don’t know about you, but I have a hard time trusting people who lie to me.

(and with Mark Zuckerburg throwing the (face)book at 02138 for an alleged privacy violation, would this make him a hypocrite?)

{more from IdeaShower as well, who catches a Facebook executive either not actually knowing what’s going on, or inadvertently lying to a blogger}

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?

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%”).