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}

So, in contemplating the latest tech issues that are floating around the blogosphere, a thought came to me during my morning constitutional. Disclosure is a Big Thing amongst bloggers, and perhaps even so amongst bloggers with influence. Witness the hubaloo over the weekend where Federated Media’s attempts at “Conversational Marketing” (and rather old attempts at that — Valleywag needs to improve the quality of its bird-dogs, methinks) created a giant stink … and some of that had to do with disclosure.

And I think the issue of bias, truth, and disclosure is going to be one of those perennial topics that bloggers love to get riled over. Probably because there is a perception that blogging is somehow, or ought to be, more truthful, more honest, more sincere, and have more integrity than other publishing mediums. When a blogger says something or does something contrary to that, there’s a conflict in perception, and the bigger / more beloved / more hated the blogger, the bigger reaction.

But how about this angle on things.

I blog about technology, web startups, social media and all manner of things. I’d like to think that my opinion has a certain amount of currency amongst the people who read this site, or who subscribe to my feeds.

But do you ever wonder if I have a vested interest in blogging about what I do blog about? And, no, I’m not talking about advertising, like Federated Media.

Rather, have you ever wondered whether I actually hold a position in any publicly (or even, let’s say, privately owned) companies that I may have blogged about? Do you think that might affect what I write about? What I “cover”? What I don’t? What I write positively about? What I write negatively about?

It should. And, maybe it should get you to start thinking about what your other favourite bloggers own.

For example, would it shock you if I told you that I hold shares in AOL, which owns Netscape, a direct competitor to Digg, of whom I have criticized endlessly?

(I don’t, so don’t worry).

Disclosure on this kind of level, as far as I know, happens when its convenient for bloggers, or when its topical. For example, Mike Arrington has told us on loads of occasions that he is involved with the startup, DayLife. That is a clear potential bias for his coverage, but he tells you right off the bat.How about the ones he doesn’t tell you about? And, not to single out Mike, but what about your other favourite bloggers?

And let’s be really clear and “transparent” about this argument. How about the biggest players in the business who we all love to blog about? Who owns shares in Microsoft? Google? AOL?

How about Apple?

Could anyone who owns shares in Apple — and let’s crank up the hyperbole for a second, and say, “what if your IRA is counting on it?” [or, if you live in Canada, RRSP] — really and truthfully write an honest review about its chances pre and post iPhone? Isn’t it in their best interests … even on a subconscious level — to either not write about it, or generally agree with the reviews at large that its going to be the next biggest thing since Jeebus?

So, here’s where I come in.

“What does Tony own?” … you might ask.

Well, I’ll be completely honest. I *do* own shares of Apple. Not a lot. And I mean, *really* not a lot. But, that’s an investment that I made because I believe in Apple’s long term growth, and more importantly, the svengali powers of Steve Jobs.

My own take on the iPhone is that it doesn’t really matter what it *doesn’t* have. The magic was in the marketing that lead up to this point, and more importantly, everything it *does* have. And from a company point of view? Apple is going to keep up making more and more of these things. And by “Things” yes, I mean newer, better, versions of the iPhone — just like the iPod (and therefore, it really doesn’t matter what it doesn’t have). But also other things that people are going to fall in love with.

Steve Jobs — I swear, you better not have a heart attack any time in the next 10-15 years! ;)

But that’s it.

I don’t own shares in Microsoft, or Google or anything else. Maybe I should.

But in thinking about things, it really got me thinking.

“There is absolutely no way I can write anything honest about the iPhone. I mean *really* honest.” Because I’d love for it to do well. Gangbusters well. So Apple stores can increase their revenue per square foot even MORE (did you know that Apple stores have the highest revenue per square foot in all of retailing?) Part of me wants it to fail, because I love schaedenfreude much as the next man — heck, possibly more. But I can’t revel in it fully — or even be myself — because of what I own.

So there you go. Its out there. I own a few shares of Apple.

But, what do your favourite tech bloggers own? And do you think its going to bias their coverage of tech companies now — and in the future?

Valleywag has decided to initiate a “conversation” about a marketing vehicle that’s been going on for months, that involves many, many, A-listers, such as Om Malik and Mike Arrington, who use Federated Media to help serve ads. I’ll be honest — I noticed it months ago, but until Valleywag’s recent piece, I didn’t really put some of the dots together.

In a pinch, Federated Media has gotten their A-list roster to talk about, or participate in a “conversation” around topics that their advertisers sponsor. Case in point: Microsoft sponsoring a “conversation” around how “People Ready”, or Cisco sponsoring a “conversation” around “Human Network”. So, whats’s the “conversation” now?

• Valleywag alleges that this is no different than getting high paid actors to shill for companies or their products — and in this case, Big Bad Micro$oft.
• Neil Chase, of Federated Media, simply calls this the “birth” of Conversational Marketing, and congratulates himself (and Federated Media) in the smuggest way possible, by saying outright that “marketers to want to join the conversation … It can be done in ethical, responsible ways, and FM’s authors are among the first to figure out how to do it.”
• Om Malik finds that the questioning of his integrity is too sensitive an issue to be bandied about, and has simply dropped Federated Media advertising, and has apologized.
• Mike Arrington on the other hand, isn’t focusing on the conversational site, but how banner ads have now been served up with his quotes about the conversation. What’s wrong with banner ads, he asks — and chides Om Malik for backing down to Valleywag’s bullying.
• Fred Wilson (whose site also uses Federated Media), feels like this is a new world, and that he’s just happy to be participating in something new. Which somehow absolves him of any ethical actions (or inactions) he’s making. Right.

Well, this is all well and good.

I think none of them are getting the point, however.

At the heart of the matter isn’t the nuts and bolts of clicking, *nor* the fact, that, for example, any the A-listers are doing any outright shilling. You will not find, for example, Mike Arrington saying that “I love Microsoft”, or that “I made TechCrunch a Microsoft business”. Or, even, how their blogs will probably cover Microsoft.

(probably not consciously anyway).

And so, Valleywag is wrong in this way.

But its as Dave Winer has gotten out of John Batelle — Conversational Marketing … “its more nuanced” — and in fact, more insidious, I think.

Here’s why.

The conversations that Federated Marketing wants to host? Those are conversations around certain, specific, terms. In another time and place we’d call them “slogans”. What’s important, however, is that the companies which are sponsoring these A-listers to do off-blog “conversations”, are trying to “own” these slogans.

You can think of it as a branding exercise.

Microsoft wants to “own” the phrase, “People Powered”.

When you think of “People Powered”, Microsoft wants you to think of … well, Microsoft.

Its the same story with Cisco. It wants to own the phrase “The Human Network”, because it wants to associate it with all those feel-good qualities. When you hear “The Human Network”, it wants *you* to think of Cisco.

“Top of mind” qualities and all that.

The insidious part comes in next — that is, what Fred Wilson doesn’t seem to get, what Om Malik seems to be worried about implicitly without perhaps understanding why, and what Mike Arrington doesn’t seem to be focusing on.

(and perhaps what Neil Chase is so damn smug about).

Can I digress for a second?

Blogs are extensions of their blog owners and the bloggers who write there. I’ve often been asked about what I think about the buying and selling of blogs. Well, its an interesting business, but I think its terribly hard to separate the blog owner from the blog itself. When you buy a blog, unless the original author is coming with it, its hard to tell if the audience will continue because they were only reading for the blog author in the first place. Sure content is important, but so is his or her voice. Their style of doing things. Stuff only that they might know. And in that way, blogs are intimately related to their blog authors.

Back to the conversation at hand.

What’s insidious about things is that Federated Media feels good about hosting a “conversation” about a topic that is trying to be owned by a company. Bloggers might feel that since they’re not actually talking about it on their blogs, it somehow removes them from the connection. But it doesn’t. Especially if you talk about your blogging company as part of the conversation.

Yes, conversational marketing is ‘new’, but it has its roots in exactly what Nick Denton is clumsily alluding to.

Bloggers are not shilling outright for General Wallington’s Tincture of Rattlesnake (good for all of your ills), but what they are doing is indirectly lending their persona’s and their brands towards a concept — an idea and *phrase* — that another company is *trying* to own.

What’s the problem in that?

Only that if that these bloggers weren’t somehow compensated to do so, none of these bloggers would have initiated, or willingly participated in such an artificial conversation.

So, its almost like a company has come along and sponsored a conversation, right?

In principle, this is nothing different than PayPerPost.

Of course, the nuts and bolts are totally different. With PayPerPost, you are supposed to write an article *on* your site, and yes, there’s the whole bugaboo of having the article be positive, in-post disclosure and all of that.

Needless details.

At the end of the day, PayPerPost sells itself to its advertisers as being able to generate Buzz. All of the paid posting sites do. The fact you also get inbound links is a bit of a “secondary” benefit (that isn’t directly or primarily) sold [although its a great one from an SEO point of view]. With PayPerPost, or ReviewMe, advertisers can, essentially, buy blogs to try and initiate buzz.

Which is really what conversations are.

At its heart, the advertiser here is Microsoft. The want to create a conversation, not around its site, or around a product, but around a more nebulous concept. A phrase. A term. The Microsoft brand. So, it hosts a conversation, and pays, in a round about way, bloggers to write about that concept.

And in so doing, those bloggers are lending a part of themselves, a little bit of their authority, which is implicitly manifested in what they know, how they’ve gotten to be successful — but explicitly manifested by their blogs — to that idea.

Its more nuanced, for sure.

But its also more insidious.

Because I’ll wager that *none* of those bloggers even know what their contribution to a sponsored conversation even *means* (although I suspect that Om Malik might know): that A-list bloggers have a price. It is possible to pay for them to not only serve your ad, but to start a conversation *around* an idea. An idea that you’re trying to own.

They might not be explicitly endorsing that idea, but that very fact — that you can, in fact, purchase a conversation with the biggest players in the industry around an idea that you are trying to own — is the whole point. That they’re not doing it on their own blogs is immaterial, because they *are* their blogs, and when they lend their name and their idea to the conversation, its only bolstering that fact when they mention their experiences WITH their own blogs.
John Batelle’s right. Its not black and white. And for Federated Media, this is smart. Look at how much Buzz they’re getting.

On the other hand, I do think that, in principle, this is really no different than PayPerPost — as a purchasable tool to promote buzz. I’ve said for a long time that I’ve felt ambivalent about the issue, except where the future is for this kind of phenomenon.

Mike Arrington and now, Fred Wilson, and in the past, vapidly, by Amanda Congdon — they all agree on one thing. Blogging is “new”, and they feel that bloggers are not accountable to the same kind of standards that normal journalists are because its a different medium. Perhaps a self correcting one. One where the conversation is important, and not, perhaps, the connections *behind* the conversation. Or that they’re more important, but that as long as you’re willing disclose all should be forgiven.

Well, the funny thing is that it is exactly the spirit of being different is exactly what’s driving the paid posting phenomenon. And paid buzz to another degree. Mashable asked me what my 5 predictions for 2007 were? Its that the paid posting phenomonon was only going to go on the increase. And I stick to that position half way into the year, but I’ll broaden it to mean “paid posting as a means to generate buzz”. Paid buzz is something that is clearly expanding, and its something that’s so insidious that the folks who are involved with it, I think, don’t even know what they’re actually doing.

And as a parting shot, do *I* think there’s anything wrong with it?

Not really.

But if you’re going to do it, you should know about the association, the connection, that’s made in your readers mind about what you’re doing. When you are compensated, in a round about way, to participate in a conversation about a topic that another company is trying to own — in a conversation that you would never otherwise participate in? There’s a connection there. Its not as flagrantly obvious as you shilling for their products or services. John Batelle is right that way.

But there is a connection nonetheless.

And a judgement.

That your opinions — at least your ability to *start* a conversation (and what are blogs, but conversations) have a price. And that’s not such a bad thing, necessarily.

Just don’t castigate other bloggers or other industries when they try and do the same thing, but in a different way.