Webware

Reports that Google is considering an acquisition of Yelp fit right in with an increased focus on local search.

(Credit: Screenshot by Tom Krazit/CNET)

Online reviews powerhouse Yelp might just be what Google needs to help rid the world of 40-pound tomes with yellow pages.

Throughout the second half of 2009, Google has had its eyes squarely on one of the last remaining online advertising markets it does not dominate: local. With a series of moves, Google has shown a clear interest in combining Google Maps, search results, and its small-business-oriented advertising technology into its next big source of revenue growth as offline local businesses come online.

However, Google management seems to have decided to step up the pace. TechCrunch and the New York Times reported overnight that Google is in discussions to acquire Yelp for $500 million or more. Yelp has grown into a huge destination for those looking for new places to have fun, turning it into one of the more pervasive brands among the digerati.

And it's not just bars and restaurants anymore: dentists, churches, and top-notch local golf instructors can be found on Yelp. That makes the site a huge repository of locally sorted data on how people are spending money, and that's the kind of thing that gets Google and its advertisers excited.

"We want to make search a way to discover things that are interesting about a place. A big interest of ours is helping you get to a place and also helping you identify what is interesting about the place when you're choosing one," said Carter Maslan, director of product management at Google and overseer of all things local. Maslan declined to comment on the reports about Yelp (as did Yelp itself) but he was more than happy to talk about the huge opportunity that Google sees in local search.

Local business listings have been available on Google since 2005 through the Local Business Center, which allows business owners to essentially claim their establishment on Google and add basic information such as their phone number, hours of operation, and a link to their Web site.

That operation has been expanded in 2009. Over the summer Google asked a list of celebrities to name their "favorite places" as part of a promotion for a Google Maps feature that lets users identify local businesses they enjoy. For instance, Kerri Walsh, the gold-medal winning volleyball player, added her thoughts to listing pages for Lake Tahoe's Lone Eagle Grill and the Pump Room at Chicago's Ambassador East Hotel, spotlighting two local businesses that aren't necessarily on the national radar.

Google followed that up by launching Place Pages, which the company described as "a web page for every place in the world" when launching the service. Place Pages are very Yelp-like in their design. They feature reviews, photos, and, of course, ads--far more than could be crammed into a simple listing.

Location, location, location
Just last week Google unveiled plans to send local businesses decals declaring "We're a Favorite Place on Google!" That's a clear nod to Yelp's strategy of handing out similar decals to business owners, although Google took it a step further by adding unique codes that could be scanned by mobile phones to bring up additional information about the business.

The motivation behind Google's recent moves and its possible acquisition of Yelp is simple. The number is squishy, but Google estimates that anywhere from 15 percent of 40 percent of all search queries have some sort of local intent. A large number of those searches are also done from mobile phones, a number that will only grow larger as sales of the devices themselves continue to grow. And, of course, maps are required to find local businesses.

That gives Google three ways to target someone looking for local information. They'll see an ad on the search results page for a local query. They'll see an ad on the Place Page for that business, which might soon be more attractive with Yelp content. And they'll see listings and ads on Google Maps when they try to find directions to that business, which might alert them to nearby businesse--which starts the cycle anew.

And to top it all off, there are still a ton of small businesses that have yet to build out a presence on the Web, giving Google an opportunity to capture that content itself by providing listings and Place Pages for small-business owners that don't want to deal with maintaining their own Web site. This is true "long tail" content, in that demand for any one search result is relatively small but it's almost impossible to estimate how many results will exist over time.

Yelp's unique brand of user-generated content would fit very nicely into that equation. However, owning Yelp would also expose Google to some of the more controversial aspects of Yelp's strong local presence, such as allegations of intimidation and pay-for-play reviews. Yelp has denied the charges, but given Google's position under the antitrust microscope, any sort of extra scrutiny will not be appreciated.

At around $500 million, Yelp would be one of Google's largest acquisitions to date and its second major deal since CEO Eric Schmidt announced the company was once again in shopping mode. Even if the deal falls through, it's a clear sign of the company's interest in expanding its online advertising empire to the local market.

But it's perhaps also a sign that Google realized it needed a little help in getting there. After all, every decision about expanding a business comes down to build versus buy. Sometimes it's just easier to write a check.

Looks like Facebook will be throwing another big "F8" developer conference in the spring, after taking 2009 off. According to a sparse post on the company's developer blog, the event will be held April 21 and 22 in San Francisco. No more details are currently available.

"F8 has always been about empowering a community of developers to hack, to build and to delight users," the post reads. "We're looking forward to continuing this tradition at our third F8 in San Francisco on April 21-22, 2010. Please save the date!"

This is a big deal because Facebook's past two F8 conferences have marked the debut of some of its biggest products: in 2007, the groundbreaking Facebook developer platform, and in 2008, Facebook Connect. It's likely that the 2010 version will involve some kind of high-profile launch, too.

What could it be? The obvious possibility is Facebook's long-rumored payment platform or virtual currency system, which currently only powers the internal "gift shop" feature along with a few test developer apps and nonprofit partners. This is more or less Facebook's worst-kept secret: it's been in development for quite some time, but appears to have been repeatedly modified internally. Once said to be a straight-up PayPal competitor called "Facebook Wallet," the project has evolved to fall more in line with the meteoric rise in virtual goods-based social gaming, one of the biggest and most profitable runaway hits on Facebook's platform. It could also mean that Facebook starts to make some serious money from transaction fees and become a real power player in the e-commerce space.

Still, we don't know for sure. We'll keep you updated as more details become available about F8 2010 over the coming months.

This post was updated at 11:42 a.m. PST with a link to the post on Facebook's developer blog.

If Google's rumored $500m acquisition of Yelp goes through, the search giant may finally get a solid lock on the "hyperlocal" Web. But it'll also be acquiring a big community site--and those are notoriously hard to wrangle.

Restaurant industry blog Eater might have put it best: "One can only assume that with Google's muscle behind the site, the millions of users who log on to complain about restaurants would be able to say stupid stuff faster, and with more efficiency," editor Amanda Kludt wrote on Friday.

All snark aside, it's the same sort of issue that arose a few years ago amid persistent rumors that Google was going to acquire Digg, another site reliant on heavy participation from a loyal and extremely vocal community. The questions are more or less similar: What would Google change, and how much would they change it? Does Google's massive scope make it untrustworthy?

Yelp's official word: "Yelp is approached frequently by numerous entities to discuss partnerships, investments and more, and the company does not comment on private discussions that may occur."

Truth be told, the state of Yelp's forums on Friday indicated that many were more interested in talking about "Why are NYC apartment brokers such d-bags?" and "The official 'Jersey Shore' on MTV thread" than about whether Yelp might get sucked up by the Google monster. But a few threads did emerge, and the gist seems to be pretty much the same: They better not change too much. And please keep throwing parties.

"I wonder how this will effect Elite parties as well as Yelp Talk?" one Yelper asked in a Bay Area-centric thread about the acquisition. Another said, "So long as it's not Rupert Murdoch buying it." Some Yelpers were optimistic, suggesting that maybe there would be better integration with Google maps or additional technical improvements.

But others were concerned about quality control. "It means more trolls and fake reviews," one Yelper griped.

"Anyone ever look at the comments on YouTube videos?" another asked. "That is what is gonna happen here."

There were a few threats of account deletion, like "If this happens, I'm deleting my profile" and "Yelp is big because of us. Let's demand money or delete our accounts en masse." Generally, those aren't any real indicator of community revolt, but they're a reminder that it's extremely possible for a big buyer of a community site to mess things up big-time. LiveJournal users weren't thrilled about its Six Apart ownership, which ultimately failed. Likewise, when News Corp. acquired social network MySpace, mismanagement and a lack of innovation were likely what led to a drop in traffic and the eventual dominance of Facebook.

Worth a read: Yelpers' reviews of Google HQ in Mountain View, Calif. Choice bits range from "Google has lots of yummy, organic snacks and drinks" to "They have way too many skunks after 7 p.m. nightly and raccoons living on the Google campus."

This post was updated at 10:48 a.m. PT with comment from Yelp.

Sex, porn, and Michael Jackson were among the most popular items kids searched for online in 2009, as tracked by Symantec's OnlineFamily.Norton.

Symantec on Thursday revealed the top 100 favorite search terms among children 18 and under found by its free OnlineFamily.Norton service, which helps parents monitor their kids' online searches. Though innocuous terms like Sesame Street and "New Moon"--a popular movie in the Twilight vampire series--made the cut, sex showed up fourth on the list for boys and fifth for girls, following YouTube, Google, and Facebook as the three top terms.

Top 10 search terms by boys and girls for 2009

(Credit: Symantec)

For boys, the top 25 search terms focused on social-networking sites, shopping sites, and certain adult terms. Girls seemed to favor subjects related to music, TV shows and movies, and celebrities.

Speaking of celebrities, to no one's surprise, the late Michael Jackson was the most searched for celebrity, coming in at number 12, followed by pop singer Taylor Swift at No. 13. Other hot stars that made the list included Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, Beyonce, the Black Eyed Peas, the Jonas Brothers, Eminem, Rihanna, and Chris Brown (who was in the news this year after admitting that he assaulted ex-girlfriend Rihanna).

Searching for celebrities online, however, may be hazardous to your PC's health. Symantec has found found that these searches sometimes draw people to dangerous Web sites, which spew out viruses, spam, and other malware.

Kids seven and under searched for items related to video games, while older kids were heavy into music, with 34 percent of teens and 27 percent of tweens searching for music-related topics. The Miley Cyrus song "Party in the USA" was the most-searched for tune among kids, while "Boom Boom Pow" by the Black Eye Peas took the No. 2 spot.

Top 10 searches by age group for 2009

(Credit: Symantec)

Tech terms that popped up on the list included MySpace at No. 8, MSN at No. 33, the iPod Touch at No. 98, and Bing last at No. 100.

To compile its top 100 list, Symantec tracked 14.6 million searches run by users of its OnlineFamily.Norton service and ranked the terms according to ones submitted most frequently to those submitted the least. The terms were collected anonymously, so none could be associated with any specific children or families.

What Twitter's homepage looked like before it went down on Thursday night.

(Credit: CC u07ch/Flickr)

Twitter stumbled again overnight on Thursday. But this time, it wasn't the work of the "fail whale," the cuddly cartoon personification of the site's excessive technical baggage. Rather, the site was replaced with a foreboding message from "Iranian Cyber Army" before crashing entirely, indicating that it had been the victim of a malicious attack that targeted its internal servers.

Co-founder Biz Stone posted a brief clarification on the issue late on Thursday night. "Twitter's DNS records were temporarily compromised tonight but have now been fixed," he explained. "As some noticed, Twitter.com was redirected for a while but API and platform applications were working. We will update with more information and details once we've investigated more fully."

At the risk of sounding like an evening-news anchor calling attention to exactly how dangerous your treadmill is or how many diseases you can get from the ball pit at Chuck E. Cheese, I think it's time to explore the question: Is it safe to use Twitter?

For one, Twitter's track record with security has been shaky at best. A security flaw this spring exposed the data of a number of employees and allowed a hacker to pilfer some internal documents. Several high-profile accounts, like those of Britney Spears, Ashton Kutcher, and CNN anchor Rick Sanchez, have been targeted individually. Twitter has been the victim of phishing attacks. Other hackers have proved that Twitter accounts can be set up specifically to corral botnets of infected PCs. And in perhaps the biggest incident of all, a politically motivated denial-of-service attack in August that targeted multiple social-media sites managed to cripple Twitter entirely.

Think of it this way: if Facebook, a far bigger and more mainstream site that's had concerns about user privacy splashed all over the news recently, saw its homepage replaced with a nefarious political message, there would probably be a fresh round of calls for CEO Mark Zuckerberg's resignation. Twitter's heavy users are, for better or for worse, accustomed to sporadic downtime and glitches. They're also less likely to ever visit the Twitter.com homepage, considering the service has so many points of entry--text message, as well as third-party apps for mobile, Web, and desktop. Users have become accustomed to logging into third-party applications with their Twitter credentials.

That, perhaps, makes the overnight hack a bigger concern. Even though it's unlikely that user accounts were compromised in this DNS redirect, it's yet another sign that Twitter's security operations have time and again proven weak enough that the service doesn't exactly seem watertight.

A political message, or just plain obnoxious?
On the other hand, we still don't know much about this attack and it may have been less sophisticated than some may fear. One, nobody's exactly sure yet who the hackers were. "Of course, just because a message saying 'This site has been hacked by Iranian Cyber Army' has been posted on a Web page does not necessarily mean that hackers from Iran are responsible for the defacement," Sophos security consultant Graham Cluley wrote on his blog Friday.

Additionally, Cluley said, the aim seems to have been to either get a political message through or to simply be obnoxious. "Fortunately there is no indication at this point that the page was carrying malicious code, and this attack appears to have had political motivations rather than being designed to steal confidential information from users," he wrote.

"It really looks like it was people were redirected to a 'hactivism' site," weighed in fellow Sophos analyst Beth Jones via e-mail. "There was no malicious code on the site claiming to be the 'Iranian Cyber Army' either. It looks like they just hacked the registrar to redirect traffic. So it's quite probable that none of Twitter's own servers were touched."

Another reassurance is the fact that Twitter simply doesn't have the kind of sensitive data that a Facebook or Google does. While it does have millions of mobile phone numbers stored to power its text-message app, not to mention archived private "direct messages" between users, Twitter does not index a whole lot more that isn't otherwise public. Facebook, for example, has many members' credit card numbers on hand (if they've ever used its "gift shop" feature), not to mention extensive personal data in profiles like addresses, birthdays, and family connections. Members who are still concerned about the security of their Twitter accounts can take the obvious step of changing their Twitter passwords to something that they don't use on their e-mail, Facebook accounts, or elsewhere--just in case.

Beth Jones says she has confidence in Twitter. "I wouldn't say their security is second-rate by any means," Jones said via e-mail. "As it stands, they weren't actually compromised, but I can see from a user point of view the questions and concerns. At Sophos we see a new site compromised every 3.6 seconds. That's easily close to 24,000 sites a day, and of those, the vast majority are legitimate sites that get hacked."

That doesn't mean that Twitter shouldn't start making it more clear that it takes security seriously. If the company, which is now beta-testing a "Contributors" feature that may pave the way to paid corporate accounts, begins storing financial information, we can only hope that their security operations are turned up a few notches. Or, ideally, an order of magnitude.

This post was expanded at 6:23 a.m. PT with comment from Sophos' Beth Jones.

Either side of this fight would be fun for Google's Dana Wagner.

After nearly a decade of slumber, the U.S. government went into 2009 turning over rocks for potential antitrust violations inside the technology industry. Perhaps no company has been affected by this move toward legal activism more than Google, and perhaps no one within Google has the unique perspective on antitrust law and corporate rights of Wagner, senior competition counsel at Google.

Dana Wagner, senior competition counsel at Google

(Credit: Google)

A former prosecutor in the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for San Francisco, Wagner's first job in the private sector arrived almost three years ago as he sought new challenges following a stint with a Justice Department that had grown boring: regulators like to regulate and litigate, and when that's not happening, the job is less fun.

While at the U.S. Attorney's Office for San Francisco in 2007, Wagner was approached about becoming Google's first full-time competition counsel, part of the company's decision to aggressively hire attorneys and lobbyists as it anticipated the pending clash with federal regulators. It sounded more interesting than other private sector gigs he had contemplated, and the money certainly didn't hurt: although Wagner pointed out you can make a boatload more with a private law firm if you're willing to sacrifice a bit of your mental health.

Since then, however, life for both antitrust regulators and lawyers at the world's most important Internet company has accelerated amid the intense scrutiny paid to Google's intentions during the last year. He's certainly not bored anymore.

"It's fun," Wagner said, speaking of his "intellectually challenging" role at Google over the last three years. Since arriving in Mountain View, Calif., Wagner has sought to improve Google's image among antitrust regulators and opinion makers by what he describes as directly engaging opponents, seeking out debate, and "trying to get ahead of the curve."

That involved reaching out to his former colleagues in government for a quick lesson on how AdWords works. It included lining up allies friendly to the cause, such as when Google assembled a roster of disability advocates to stump for approval of its Google Books settlement with authors and publishers. And it required a deft hand with the media, hoping to paint a picture of Google as a company that comes in peace, rather than one bent on destruction.

Google needed to do a better job explaining itself to those in government in particular, Wagner said. "Particularly as a west coast engineering company that still very much views itself as a start-up in a lot of ways, striking out against some Goliaths."

Google has long been a trendsetter in the Bay Area, but it found itself a little off guard in the nation's capital, probably because of how quickly the company rose to prominence. In 2006, the year before Wagner was hired, Google spent just $750,000 on political lobbying in Washington. Its current foes on the antitrust front--AT&T and Microsoft--spent a combined $35 million that year in political contributions.

That has changed. However, Google has certainly had its setbacks with the government: its proposal to strike a search deal with Yahoo was clearly not going to fly, CEO Eric Schmidt had to step down from Apple's board due in part to scrutiny regarding his overlapping roles, and Google was forced to amend its book search settlement at the last second after the Justice Department raised an eyebrow at several provisions. That included agreeing to limit the scope of the agreement and backing off some business models for book search.

Yet Google continues to introduce new products such as Chrome OS and expand existing ones like Android while keeping its gravy train--search advertising--intact from regulators. For now, at least: Google's increasing power over the Internet is troubling in many corners of the country, and although the company has not been accused of any wrongdoings it's safe to say that as the decade closes, a lot of people are starting to get freaked out by Google.

Despite that external perception, many people inside Google still think of the company as a unique force for good in the world. Wagner is a card-carrying member of the Google creed, with perhaps a lawyer's intuition of what "don't be evil" means.

"It's really important to people here; I can say something is perfectly legal but it's not good for users, and that would be taken seriously," he said. Earlier in the year, during a meeting with the tech press in San Francisco, Wagner blurted out "there's a lot of companies for which I wouldn't do this job. I would not be doing this at Halliburton."

Wagner, 34, has spent his whole adult life in government service before taking his current gig at Google, coming out of the University of California at Berkeley and Yale Law School. "As soon as he arrived here, you could tell he was destined for big things," Mark Siegel, Wagner's former supervisor at the Justice Department, said in an interview with Law.com earlier this year. "He was always the youngest guy in the room."

While those in the top jobs at government organizations change offices with the political winds, the people inside those organizations doing the brunt of the work--former colleagues now on the opposite side of the conference room table from Wagner--are for the most part career professionals.

"There is more consistency than people think. Ninety-five percent of the organization is the same people with the same values," he said, referring to the fact that despite the clear increase in antitrust activity inside the Obama administration--which Wagner concedes--the lawyers that are actually doing the work are the same people they were five years ago when the pace of antitrust scrutiny slowed during the Bush administration.

So will Wagner end up inside a courtroom in Washington, D.C. sometime in the next several years, defending Google's business practices against some of the same antitrust lawyers he once called friends?

While there's a part of Wagner that would likely relish the challenge, he has too keen a sense of antitrust history as it pertains to the tech sector to hope the situation gets that far.

"We don't want to repeat the mistakes of past companies," Wagner said. "Even when you are doing good things, you can end up suffering."

Mozilla, racing to release Firefox 3.6 by the end of the year, issued a fifth, and likely final, beta version of the new browser.

The open-source browser backer announced the new Firefox beta (download for Windows and Mac OS X) in a blog announcement Thursday.

Firefox 3.6 builds in a feature called Personas for customizing the browser's appearance, adds the File interface for better file management such as selecting what to upload, and, my personal favorite, placement of new tabs next to the ones that spawned them.

A total of 127 bugs were fixed since the fourth beta, but this time Mozilla didn't announce any new features. The first Firefox 3.6 beta arrived in October.

Mozilla had considered issuing its first Firefox 3.6 release candidate this week: "If we can go to build today or tomorrow, QA [quality assurance] will scrap Beta 5 and we'll release RC to the beta audience ASAP," the Mozilla meeting notes said.

A look at the Zune HD Twitter app in action.

(Credit: Screenshot by Donald Bell/CNET)

It has only been available for a day, but already the Zune HD's Twitter app is being updated after it was criticized by users for automatically abbreviating explicit words in users' tweets. It doesn't even give them the option of determining when or which words should be censored.

As you might expect, the Web is overflowing with unhappy users. Commenters on the Slashdot entry discussing the censors were up in arms over the feature. Quite a few of those folks echoed "rocket97's" comments, who said that the "[censors] should be an option, not a requirement." Others took the opportunity to (you guessed it) censor curse words within the comments to voice their protest.

They might have a point. Twitter itself doesn't censor any tweets that contain curse words. Even Twitter clients like TweetDeck don't censor tweets or direct messages from Twitter users.

It didn't take long for Microsoft to respond. After seeing that users were having issues with the application, Microsoft admitted that the app does indeed censor explicit tweets. It also said in an e-mailed statement to CNET News that it plans to rectify the situation soon.

"The recently released Twitter for Zune HD application has been abbreviating some explicit words in tweets when viewed on the device," a Microsoft spokesperson admitted to CNET News. "However, these explicit words do appear in their full text on the Twitter site or on any other Twitter client. We have identified the issue and are taking steps to update the application as soon as possible to ensure Twitter for Zune HD users are able to view tweets in their original state."

If you're interested in learning more about the Zune HD Twitter app, you can check out our hands-on by clicking here.

Privacy advocates opposed to new privacy regulations at Facebook are attempting to get the attention of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, according to a complaint filed Thursday on behalf of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and several allied groups.

"These changes violate user expectations, diminish user privacy, and contradict Facebook's own representations," the complaint says of Facebook's new regulations, which push more content public, and make even more data available to third-party applications and advertisers. EPIC's goal is to force Facebook to restore the old settings and add additional controls for members.

"We've had productive discussions with dozens of organizations around the world about the recent changes, and we're disappointed that EPIC has chosen to share their concerns with the FTC while refusing to talk to us about them," a retaliatory statement from Facebook read. "We're pleased that so many users have already gone through the process of reviewing and updating their privacy settings, and are impressed that so many have chosen to customize their settings, demonstrating the effectiveness of Facebook's user empowerment and transparency efforts. Of course, the new tools offer users the opportunity to decide on privacy with every photo, link, or status update they wish to post, so the process of personalizing privacy on Facebook will continue."

It's one thing when Facebook users start complaining about new features that they deem excessively creepy--just look at the outrage that surrounded the News Feed, now a mainstay of the site, when it launched in 2006.

It's a bigger fish entirely when government regulatory bodies get involved, particularly the FTC, which has major sway over the advertising and marketing industries. It was only when privacy groups flagged concerns about Facebook's Beacon advertising program two years ago that participating advertisers started to pull out amid bad publicity. A class action settlement over the Beacon program was resolved recently.

Since then, Facebook hasn't had a privacy-related debacle on the same scale. Much of the philosophy behind Beacon was baked into its Facebook Connect universal log-in tool, which shares information from third-party sites on Facebook profiles and lets users log into other sites with their Facebook credentials. But with the public-relations pitch geared toward making the entire online experience easier for users (fewer passwords to remember, no more registration headaches) rather than helping advertisers exploit social-networking channels, the debut of Facebook Connect wasn't subject to the same scrutiny.

The controversial new privacy standards at Facebook have been a long time coming, considering the fact that the social network started to publicly set the groundwork nearly six months ago with a series of announcements about modified privacy controls. It's clear that the company was trying to avoid the sort of press bloodbath that came after the debut of Beacon.

That didn't happen. Facebook has already backtracked on one component of its new privacy regulations, one which made users' friends lists publicly available. It's unclear as to how much EPIC's coalition, not to mention the FTC, will prioritize this most recent controversy.

Behind Facebook's traditional willingness to make tweaks and modifications to new features and products, if they spark some kind of concern among government regulatory bodies or marketers, is a fight that the company will not give up easily. What it all comes down to is that Facebook's once-watertight log-in wall--remember the time that representatives mulled banning a blogger who'd posted Facebook-hosted photos publicly?--is getting in the way of the social network's potentially central role in one of the digital world's crazes du jour, searchable real-time information.

Search companies have been announcing big deals to pull Facebook status messages and Twitter tweets into results, and the media business has gone nuts over the potential to harness the "real-time Web."

Facebook, dependent on advertising revenues and still looking to expand its base of more than 350 million users, obviously wants in on this. But if it doesn't have enough status messages, shared links, and other information pulled into search results, it stands a chance at losing ground to the much-smaller Twitter--already the top name, in terms of a massive, searchable clearinghouse for up-to-the-minute information.

Plus, there are marketers and advertisers for Facebook to consider: more search results equals more page views and more ad revenue, and more public information on users' profiles means more ways for the advertising industry to reach them. But if those same marketers and advertisers are the ones pressuring Facebook to change course, in terms of user privacy, it could cause some friction between the social network and the businesses that have finally begun to accept it as a choice destination for their ad dollars.

Now EPIC is alleging to the FTC that Facebook's new regulations can be outright dangerous: "Dozens of American Facebook users, who posted political messages critical of Iran, have reported that Iranian authorities subsequently questioned and detained their relatives," an item in the complaint reads. "Under the revised privacy settings, Facebook makes such users' friends lists publicly available."

That's not good PR for Facebook, which has repeatedly pitched itself as a destination for open dialogue and grassroots organization across zones of political and ethnic conflict.