This weekend on Twitter, someone paid BoomTown a compliment of a sort: “I read you because you are a solid fact-based reporter with a Miss Cleo intuition :)”

Yipes, because of being fact-based, I had to point out that the well-known-via-infomercials Psychic Friends Network shaman turned out to be a bit of a fraud, although she’s always entertaining, with her jaunty Jamaican accent (she was not, of course, from there).

Nonetheless, it got me thinking about how I would predict what would result from all the deal-making that is suddenly in the air, after six months of ennui from the current economic downturn.

While Silicon Valley has been less impacted than, say, New York, things have certainly been tightening up here, with layoffs at big companies and small ones and less frenetic activity than one had come to expect from Web 2.0.

But last week, the pulse seemed to quicken a little with the various rumors that have swirled around Twitter, the variety of controversies around Facebook and the nascent chit-chatting now taking place between Yahoo (YHOO) and Microsoft (MSFT).

Thus, with a third eye to the future, here’s my take on what could happen. Big caveat, though: Much of what follows is all my speculation and analysis and not based on any psychic feelings.

TWITTER TWADDLE

Last week, I did a rather long reported post on what was going on after rumors broke out that Twitter was in “late-stage” acquisition negotiations with Google (GOOG).

While an imminent deal was not pending two weeks ago, I wrote that Twitter was indeed the apple of Google’s eye at the moment–specifically and now more so than ever, many sources tell me, of its Search Product VP Marissa Mayer–for some kind of search deal that could eventually lead to an acquisition.

But I also noted that Microsoft was also in the picture, vying for Twitter’s affections, and I doubted that Microsoft and Google would be the only ones interested in the hot-as-July-in-Alabama microblogging start-up.

Here’s the plus for Twitter: It’s on a hype rocket ship, its growth is also accelerating and it does not need money, since it just got a big slug of venture funding.

And that’s also a minus and why I also predict that there are only two outcomes: a sale very soon or a major investment by one of its suitors.

While I would love for its founders, including Biz Stone and CEO Evan Williams, to stick to their claims of remaining a “strong, profitable, independent company,” a cash offer of over $500 million or a cash-and-stock offer of slightly more will probably be enough to take them off the table, mostly because the getting might never get this good again.

That offer is most likely to come from Google, if I had to make a bet, which is well known for moving quickly when it sees a tasty treat it desires.

That’s a shame, since once the start-up actually does enter these kinds of “late-stage” talks for real, some deserved shine will come right off Twitter’s cute little MINI convertible of a company.

Instead, Twitter might want to take a page from Facebook and let itself grow its own as it explores revenue options, while perhaps taking a large investment and striking a significant commercial deal with a strategic partner like Google or Microsoft.

Then, with a modicum of independence and the possibility of acquisition if it turned out it needed help, Twitter could forge its own destiny.

And wouldn’t that be nice if Google or Microsoft didn’t just gobble up every innovative thing they cannot seem to think of on their own?

FACEBOOK FOLLIES

I will be reporting more very soon on what’s been going on as the powerful social-networking site deals with its fast-growing pains–up to 200 million users now, which is about as impressive at it gets in the Internet space.

Not so impressive is the variety of high-profile management mishaps that have plagued the company of late–from its Terms of Service debacle to its redesign rough road to the way Facebook recently parted with CFO GIdeon Yu.

To say Facebook treated Yu–a well-regarded figure in the tech sector, who had also raised an awful lot of funding for the start-up–with very little of the kind of grace he deserved and that it should have displayed is an understatement.

In the creation of a significant start-up, tensions inevitably flare and there is typically a lot of management turnover, which is natural, for a variety of reasons on all sides.

Why Facebook had to insecurely tout its stable financial state while backhandedly slapping Yu by saying it was in a search for a CFO with “public company experience”–Yu had enough public company experience to make that deeply insulting–was unclear, when it simply could have said he was moving on in the way most such partings are done.

The conflict between its public statement and an internal memo I obtained on Yu’s departure underscored the problem.

Insecure and way too focused on optics is probably an issue Facebook will have to deal with as it moves toward what the company hopes will be in IPO in 2010 or 2011. Rather than all the noise, its only goal should be shaping up its revenue and profit performance and, hopefully, building a cohesive management.

But does that mean current CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg will have to eventually step aside before a public offering and make way for a more experienced CEO type, as Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page did for Eric Schmidt, as some have suggested?

I predict not. Because, for all his careening from crisis to crisis of late, I have no question that Zuckerberg–who has fended off big-money acquisition attempts by big players with a cool-cucumberness that Twitter’s execs should study carefully–has every intention of riding Facebook to the very top–or even bottom.

Clearly modeling himself as a modern-day Steve Jobs (who was fired before triumphantly returning) or Bill Gates (a better comparison), Zuckerberg is a visionary techie who wants to style himself as a crack businessman too.

And with a lot of control over the fate of Facebook, he’s going to see his vision of Facebook and himself out.

THE ODD COUPLE

Can two divorced men share an apartment without driving each other crazy?

Oops, I mean can two once-bickering-over-a-hostile-takeover companies start talking without driving each other crazy?

Last week, the news, first reported here Friday, that Yahoo was involved in preliminary talks with Microsoft about an extensive commercial advertising and search partnership–should have come as no surprise.

After all, Yahoo and Microsoft are laggards in the lucrative search space, especially compared to the dominant Google, and they must somehow find a way to get along to get some traction in the marketplace.

But will they or will it be all Felix Unger and Oscar Madison battling until the end of time? While I loved that television show, and movie too, the Yahoo-Microsoft version is not riveting anymore to some.

“I am so bored with their not-coming-to-a-deal,” said one prominent exec, who was involved in the first go-round between the companies. “They need to make a deal, and if they don’t make a deal now, I will be both bored and in shock.”

That made me laugh out loud when I heard it. But it’s not funny, I know, because this is serious stuff!

Okay, then, seriously, this pair needs to come to some sort of partnership agreement like Miss Cleo needs a new reputation.

And, because I am a hopeful psychic, I predict they finally will, dropping all the emotion and history and realizing that they are wasting time and opportunity.

After all, while the future isn’t written, it can–a lot of the time–be both inevitable and utterly obvious.

Speaking of obviously (bogus), here is a video of Miss Cleo’s famous commercial:

Please see this disclosure related to me and Google.

Facebook CFO Gideon Yu (pictured here) is leaving Facebook, as the company announced internally today that it was replacing him and searching for a new CFO on the path to an eventual IPO.

The Wall Street Journal also reported the news, noting that the huge social-networking start-up was looking for a CFO with “public company experience.”

But several sources within the company said the departure was more due to an increasingly strained relationship between Yu and Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg over strategic disagreements about a wide range of issues, from increasing advertising revenue to fund-raising discussions with investors.

“At Facebook, you’re either with Mark or you’re not,” said one source at the 800-person company, located in Palo Alto, Calif., and founded five years ago. “And, if you’re not, you leave.”

As a sign of that, Yu was out of the company HQ immediately today after a meeting, said several sources.

Facebook confirmed the move in a statement, focusing instead on its hope for an IPO sometime in the future:

“Facebook confirms that CFO Gideon Yu will be leaving the company. Gideon has played an important role in helping us achieve our financial success, building a strong finance team and establishing the core financial operations of our company. We are grateful to Gideon for his contributions to Facebook and what we are trying to accomplish. Despite the poor economic climate, we are pleased that our financial performance is strong and we are well positioned for the next stage of our growth. We have retained Spencer Stuart to lead our search for a new CFO and will be looking for someone with public company experience.”

In addition, trying to stanch the rumors of its financial weakness and need to raise more funds, Facebook said in its internal memo to staff that it was on the path toward a public offering soon, with revenue growth up 70 percent in 2009 and EBITDA profitability this year, and that it would be cash-flow positive in 2010.

The memo also painted Yu’s departure as another step toward its much anticipated IPO, although it is clearly an ouster of much more complex internal reasons about how Facebook is run.

Facebook has had a lot of those in its short history.

From come-and-then-gone Google tech exec Ben Ling to former COO Owen Van Natta to the pair who started Facebook with Zuckerberg, the fast-growing start-up has seen more executive turnover and turmoil than most big companies.

In fact, Yu–who was an exec at both Yahoo (YHOO) and YouTube and integral to its sale to Google–replaced former CFO Mike Sheridan in 2007, in another case of a key exec being replaced.

Some inside and outside the company were quick to blame COO Sheryl Sandberg for Yu’s departure–probably due to the fact that the pair’s relationship was initially tense when the well-known Google exec arrived a year ago. That has been much less so of late, sources said.

And while Facebook can be a highly political place, with an unusual level of passive-aggressive infighting among execs, it is also a place where Zuckerberg and his wishes firmly hold sway.

And those wishes included the fact that Zuckerberg has long and publicly maintained that Facebook’s growth was paramount over a focus on monetization of the service.

Yu is known internally to be more conservative fiscally, pushing on Zuckerberg to ramp ad revenue more quickly and to consider a range of options outside of IPO, including selling the company.

Many current and former execs had hoped the company would IPO, a process that has been dragged out due to the weaker economy. But–barring that–many had also hoped it would sell to a larger company like Google (GOOG) or Microsoft (MSFT).

In fact, Microsoft has expressed interest in buying Facebook many times, and it was Yu and Van Natta who were key to getting the software giant to outbid Google to invest in the company at an astounding $15 billion valuation.

After raising more than $500 million previously, Yu has more recently been busy working with top execs on the best way to raise more funds for Facebook, in order to allow it grow faster and give it a deeper financial cushion.

High user growth has blown past Facebook’s internal projections, which is both an audience blessing and a cost curse.

But that fund raising has been at a much lower valuation and in a very weak economic climate, adding to stress internally at Facebook, many said.

Yu has held a number of meetings with investors, many of whom have told me they have asked him consistently about the monetization issues at Facebook and exactly when Zuckerberg would turn on the ad spigot at the service.

Yu has also has been involved in some recent debt financing of equipment, which is not as unusual for a fast-growing company as some recent reports have portrayed it, although that might also have been a source of tensions.

How to answer prospective new investors has probably been at the heart of his problems with Zuckerberg, who has been known to run hot and cold on top managers, especially with those who disagree with him too much.

That was clearly the case with Yu.

But, said many execs at the company, Zuckerberg’s conviction that growth is key over all other concerns–about which the company today is taking the edge off by noting sunnier financial results in the internal document–has been the correct one.

Currently, Facebook is veering in on 200 million users, which represents an astounding accomplishment.

But how it is going to take those numbers and make Facebook into a revenue-rich company on par with its increasing power on the Web is the question it will face until, of course, it does.

Besides the current drama over Yu today, Facebook has also recently been embroiled in unhappiness about its recent redesign and separately, about onerous changes to its Terms of Service.

Facebook has since backtracked on both issues, likely adding to the level of pressure on Zuckerberg and top execs.

And that is not even mentioning the curse of the Winklevii–it seems the fun never stops at Facebook HQ!

On an actually more amusing note, I once nicknamed Yu “Death Cat.”

As I wrote in mid-2007:

“Like that cat named Oscar who can detect death, Yu seems to have an amazing ability to get a sweet job at the hot Web company of the moment at just the right time. Case in point: He left Yahoo as its treasurer and went to YouTube as its CFO just a month before it sold to Google for $1.6 billion, a deal in which Yu apparently played a key role. Then, on his way to a spot as a junior partner at also-hot VC firm Sequoia Capital, he grabbed the Facebook CFO job in July. I say we watch where Yu goes and follow stealthily behind so as not to be detected.”

It’s more than likely Yu will pop up again soon in Silicon Valley in another prominent CFO job or as a venture investor. Although, after today’s events, this digital cat has definitely lost one life.

Last week, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg was all about regret when talking about the umpteenth stubbed toe that he got when the social-networking site changed its Terms of Service and accidentally laid claim to every piece of intellectual property in the world.

Okay, maybe not all, but it was enough of a goof to cause him to have to address the issue and correct it quickly by introducing a complex new system of user-approval and notification.

The new standards have been dubbed by Facebook, obviously in a United Nations kind of mood: “The Facebook Principles, a set of values that will guide the development of the service, and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that governs Facebook’s operations. Users will have the opportunity to review, comment and vote on these documents over the coming weeks and, if they are approved, other future policy changes.”

Cue the soaring anthem! (In Facebook’s case, it would sound like Buckcherry’s “Sorry” video below.)

In any case, BoomTown talked to Zuckerberg right after his press conference last Thursday on the new set-up and got his main takeaway from the controversy: “Whenever users speak in a loud voice, it shows how much people care [about Facebook].”

Awwwww, that’s sweet. But, actually, whenever users speak in a loud voice, it is because they are pissed off at you.

But, water under the bridge!

And to get more of an idea of what’s coming, here are some various and sundry thoughts on the issue from the man whose minions have nicknamed the Wizard (all are direct quotes):

“I think it is important for all of us to understand the idea that this is a service that is really important to people…unlike a lot of services they’ve used in the past, it’s made up with their own information and a lot of it is very sensitive.

“That’s why we think it’s important to make Facebook’s world more open and transparent…it has been become more and more apparent that we have to set up a foundation of what we are doing and have a dialog with the community about how we do it.

“What’s important is the foundation and policy and that it should be subject to public discourse and feedback…Within that framework, Facebook is then free to build products quickly.

“Because Facebook has become an important daily part of people’s lives, it deserves good governance process…we need to explain the reasons why we do things in the same way governments should explain the reasons they do.

“There will be a lot a lot of changes people care about and some they do not and not all of them will rise to the level that the whole community needs to weigh in on.

“This has been a learning experience, and sometimes we don’t do as well we as could in communicating what we are doing. Obviously, we can always communicate better. But another interpretation you could have is that Facebook is way more important than anyone thought it was.

“Since we’re in new territory, we want to have a system to communicate with users, which makes it clear how we are going to communicate and clear what the policy is.

“So any amendments we make, for example, we will notify everyone and they are free to offer comments on any topic. There has to be a threshold of 7,000 people commenting…because we really want to reflect the will of the community and get a critical mass, instead of just hearing from a small vocal minority.

“I am excited and a lot of people have questions about what happened, and they should have them. We wanted to make sure that users understand that we want them to ask questions. I think that, [even with the controversy], we are building toward end goal that’s awesome.”

BoomTown is impatiently cooling heels, waiting for a press conference to begin about “new steps Facebook is taking to improve user understanding and ownership of the Facebook terms of service and, more generally, the policies of the Facebook service.”

The Yahoo (YHOO) reorg finally announced this morning is positively thrilling in comparison!

But we’re liveblogging it anyway!

Here’s what I got in the morning mail:

Hi Kara–

For more and future updates we encourage you to join the Facebook Group called the Official Group for Media & Analysts Following Facebook.

Also this:

Subject: Facebook Opens Governance of Service and Policy Process to Users

Thanks,
The Facebook Team

11:11 am:

Facebook PR honcho Elliot Schrage opens up the conference, but I am honestly only hear: “Blah, blah, blah.”

Then, Facebook Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg comes on.

“Openness and transparency is not just an end state,” he said. “It’s also a process.”

Say what, Willis?

Soon Zuckerberg is explaining how he wants to craft Facebook’s rules of the road going forward. It’s like being at the Constitutional Convention, except for geeks.

Alert! Comment! Notify! Transparency! Oversharing!

11:17 am:

“We want to be as clear as possible that we do not own user data,” said Zuckerberg. “We feel really bad about that.”

Us too!

11:21 am:

I get to ask the first question, which is about how this whole mess happened.

Zuckerberg said Facebook had made previous changes all the time to its Terms of Service to complex legal documents. This time, in trying to make them simpler, “we made a few mistakes,” which in turn set off a firestorm.

Ah, the mistakes-were-made defense!

“A lot of the feedback was fair,” acknowledged Zuckerberg, who then talked about the new notification and feedback and comments options, so it will not happen ever again. Except next month.

Also, there will be a vote. Well, only on some issues that get people all hot and bothered, presumably. But who decides what gets voted on and who wins the vote?

Unclear. But vote early and often.

But, said Schrage: “We underestimated the sense of ownership” that Facebook users have for the service.

11:25 am:

A question about whether or not Facebook should have known better after its Beacon advertising debacle.

Not the same thing, said Zuckerberg. But point taken!

11:27 am:

More legal stuff. Zzzzzz.

Then a question on phishing scams. Off topic! Schrage cuts it off tout de suite. Sorry, fella, but this is about one screw-up at a time.

Another shouldn’t-you-have-known-better related question, referring back to the News Feed debacle of 2007. That was before the Beacon debacle of 2008. Which was before the ToS debacle of 2009. (Is anyone noticing a pattern here?)

In other words, Facebook should have known better.

Radical transparency, said Zuckerberg: “This is all about us trusting our users.”

He might start that ball rolling by not sneaking up on us all the time.

11:33 am:

More about rules of the road. More about the transparent community.

Zuckerberg is now fully channelling Casper the Friendly Ghost.

Call ends.

Boo!

Last night, well-known Internet entrepreneur Marc Andreessen appeared on the “Charlie Rose” television interview show, talking about the digital sector and unveiling the news that he is creating a new venture fund.

I had heard rumblings about Andreessen’s funding efforts earlier this week, with sources I talked to nicknaming it “Project A.”

Actually, Andreessen said the new firm is called Andreessen Horowitz (zzzz), because he is doing it with longtime investing partner Ben Horowitz.

“For the first time in my life, I am crossing over into the dark side,” said Andreessen.

Although he gave few specific details about the fund, Andreessen essentially said he was simply putting a structure around his own active angel investing, which has included start-ups like Twitter, Digg, LinkedIn and many more.

His new effort will focus on early-stage investments, he said, noting that “our claim to fame is, we’ve actually, you know, by entrepreneurs for entrepreneurs, we’ve done it, we’ve been on that side of the table for a long time; we know what it’s like.”

Adding that he and Horowitz had made 36 investments over the last three years of up to $200,000, Andreessen said his new firm will make up to $1 million bets on start-ups.

Of course, for most of the interview, Rose zeroed in on hot topics like Facebook, the social-networking site on whose board Andreessen serves.

The voluble tech star did his job, talking about how Facebook could turn on the spigot and make all sorts of money anytime it wants and about the recent controversy around its Terms of Service kerfuffle.

He also talked about the Andreessen-backed Ning social network service, the Apple (AAPL) iPhone, Twitter, why the New York Times irks him, Google (GOOG), the Amazon (AMZN) Kindle e-book reader and gaming.

Ironically, the Netscape co-founder and his Xbox from Microsoft (MSFT)–eek–“have a very close personal relationship.”

But Andreessen also told Rose a little bit about the new fund he is raising money for, for example, while discussing the economic meltdown.

Talking about the fact that innovation will survive, Andreessen said: “Like with our new fund, if we fund a company today, we’re thinking about a return in seven to 10 years, so we can go through three or four or even five years of economic downturn, as long as, at some point, we come out the other end.”

Here is the video of Andreessen on the show (he starts to talk about the new fund in the interview at around 18:33 minutes, again at 46:55 minutes and at the very end):

Under cover of darkness last night, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on the social-networking site’s blog that it would “return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”

Oh, this is just too good to resist. Therefore, BoomTown shall not tarry in our ongoing job of busting the chops of the young Facebook leader, whose minions have actually–and I am not joking here–given him the nickname: The Wizard.

Well, the Wizard obviously had to pull back the curtain last night and show some serious mea culpa to the people, before they got out the pitchforks.

That’s due to the controversy Facebook has been embroiled in this week about changes it recently made to its Terms of Service that gave the company unusually sweeping rights over customers’ content and privacy.

While Zuckerberg had said in his first post about the issue that Facebook was not in the content-stealing business, the strong language in the ToS sent the usual suspects into a major meltdown over the possibility that the young geek had gone into full-scale evil mogul mode.

As if!

In fact, Zuckerberg has been ensconced in his Silicon Valley lair for years now, counting down until he knows precisely everything about everyone’s drunken college days!

Until D-Day then, here is my translation of his latest backtracking post:

What the Wizard wrote: Update on Terms

Today at 10:17 pm

Translation: OK, I have reached my limit of being yelled at by Sheryl and Elliot, have had my usual breakfast of Red Bull and Frosted Flakes–they’re grrreat!–and am ready to eat some major digital crow this morning.

I mean, night, which is my morning, because I actually slept through all this noise today about this whole Terms of Service “controversy.”

What the Wizard wrote: A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.

Translation: Did you know crow is delicious if you eat it with a little Bosco on top?

More to the point, I would just like to assure you that we have taken our lawyers–who idiotically rewrote our ToS to give us ownership rights to the Bible, “American Idol” and everything Bill O’Reilly utters–and sent them over to our friends at MySpace, because their owner, News Corp. (NWS), already owns two of those three [and also this site!].

What the Wizard wrote: Many of us at Facebook spent most of today discussing how best to move forward. One approach would have been to quickly amend the new terms with new language to clarify our positions further. Another approach was simply to revert to our old terms while we begin working on our next version. As we thought through this, we reached out to respected organizations to get their input.

Translation: As in: More yelling by Sheryl and Elliott and more Fedexing of lawyers to MySpace HQ in Beverly Hills.

But after we calmed down, we all decided the best course of action was to shoot ourselves in the right foot to stop the bleeding from when we shot our left foot before.

We are, of course, completely out of feet now, so if these hijinks continue, sooner or later, someone is going to lose an eye. By someone, I mean, um, me.

What the Wizard wrote: Going forward, we’ve decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don’t plan to leave it there for long.

Translation: Facebook, of course, never had any intention of stealing content and copyright! Perish the thought! After all, that’s the job of Google (GOOG)!

By contrast, ours is to collect incredibly embarrassing photos of everyone in the United States until one of them runs for president, and then our nefarious scheme to control the world begins.

We were planning on blackmailing the world for one billllliiiion dollars then, but Microsoft kind of forked over 15 times that without any pressure.

Still, we would like to own Palo Alto, Calif., and get free parking 24/7, so there will be demands!

Until then, enjoy the sheep-throwing. Mwaahahahahahahaha! (Quick visual: I am petting my white cat right now with Ernst Stavro Blofeld-like evil glee, and am, of course, cackling.)

What the Wizard wrote: More than 175 million people use Facebook. If it were a country, it would be the sixth most populated country in the world. Our terms aren’t just a document that protect our rights; it’s the governing document for how the service is used by everyone across the world. Given its importance, we need to make sure the terms reflect the principles and values of the people using the service.

Translation: Not to be completely and utterly arrogant or anything, but we just passed Pakistan, and those Brazilians better get ready to samba.

By the way, once we get to No. 1–look out, China!–we plan on decreeing that everyone in the world speak Pig Latin and that forthwith it will be flip-flop Fridays.

Also: Esyay, Iway amway anway alienway omfray anotherway anetplay.

What the Wizard wrote: Our next version will be a substantial revision from where we are now. It will reflect the principles I described yesterday around how people share and control their information, and it will be written clearly in language everyone can understand. Since this will be the governing document that we’ll all live by, Facebook users will have a lot of input in crafting these terms.

Translation: Ybay ethay ayway, “Otay Ervesay Anmay”? It’sway away ookbookcay.

In other words, I am sure you will make delicious contributions, after which Facebook will “invite” you to our world-wide HQ to share in a lovely meal.

Especially those Winklevii. I look forward to the twins coming by soon!

What the Wizard wrote: You have my commitment that we’ll do all of these things, but in order to do them right it will take a little bit of time. We expect to complete this in the next few weeks. In the meantime, we’ve changed the terms back to what existed before the February 4th change, which was what most people asked us for and was the recommendation of the outside experts we consulted.

Translation: To my credit, I did give in much quicker than with the Beacon ad snafu. And you thought I learned nothing during that debacle!

And, by outside experts, I mean Microsoft (MSFT) CEO Steve Ballmer, who yells much, much louder than Sheryl or Elliot combined.

What the Wizard wrote: If you’d like to get involved in crafting our new terms, you can start posting your questions, comments and requests in the group we’ve created–Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. I’m looking forward to reading your input.

Translation: Here’s my first pass, based on the U.S. Bill of Rights, Amendment I:

Facebook shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition Faebook for a redress of grievances.*

*Exceptway, ithway ymay ompletecay iscretionday, enwhay Iway
ecideday otherwiseway.

Late tonight, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted a blog entry, saying the popular social-networking site would “return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised.”

Facebook has been embroiled in a controversy this week about its Terms of Service–essentially a Web site’s rules that users must abide by while using its online service–after recent changes gave it more sweeping rights over customers’ content and privacy.

While BoomTown in no way thinks Facebook had any intention of asserting copyright ownership over intellectual property posted by users, the language was strong enough to make such a thing possible and went much further than other sites on the issue.

My guess: It was more likely a case of lawyers gone wild.

Facebook’s Zuckerberg said in a post yesterday that the service had made the changes in the first place in order to archive posts and other content users had shared with each other, even after such material was deleted.

“When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created–one in the person’s sent messages box and the other in their friend’s inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message,” he wrote in his first post.

To be fair, Zuckerberg also had noted: “Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with.”

But the fact that Facebook had still given itself such wide-ranging rights over content, whatever the reason, had caused a nuclear explosion online among users, privacy advocates, content owners and the media.

Thus, in full backtracking mode tonight, Zuckerberg returned Facebook’s ToS to its previous version, pending new wording. He also said a new “Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” (you can join here) was on the way and asked for user input.

Viva La Revolución! I vote for no more SuperPoking!

Here is the whole blog and here is a link to it on Facecook too:

Update on Terms

If you’d like to get involved in crafting our new terms, you can start posting your questions, comments and requests in the group we’ve created—Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=69048030774). I’m looking forward to reading your input.

In a BoomTown post last night noting that users should just get used to not having much control of their privacy and posted content online, in the wake of the controversy over Facebook’s terms of service changes, how could one leave out this gem of a digital diatribe on the issue by gossipmonger supreme, Perez Hilton?

In an item yesterday, Hilton–who has gotten into a lot of copyright infringement legal trouble himself–asked his fans to boycott the fast-growing social-networking site and claimed that Facebook “can license your personal pictures out to companies, make a shizzle of money and don’t have to give you a dime.”

Facebook could certainly use a shizzle or two, but that seems about as likely as people like Hilton laying off of Jessica Simpson for her alleged weight gain. (Speaking of which–Hey, Perez, let’s say we just blame the bad jeans and move on, shall we?)

Nonetheless, it is still kind of fun to watch as different worlds collide so perfectly.

Of course, Hilton’s Facebook app was still up last nigh, although it apparently only has 361 monthly active users, compared to SuperPoke’s sheep-tossing 6.3 million.

Not to be catty or anything!

In any case, here’s a link to the Hilton post and an image of it below (one can only dream that Perez will come after me with that digital Sharpie for lifting it!):

When Sun Microsystems (JAVA) Gadfly-in-Chief Scott McNealy made his infamous statement about online privacy in 1999, there was a horrified hubbub at the time that he had the audacity to say such a thing.

You know, that he actually uttered such a terrible thing as the truth.

What a shock then that everyone is now in yet another tizzy about Facebook changes to its Terms of Service, which pretty much state the obvious again by noting that Facebook archives info you posted, even if you quit the service.

As in, you probably can’t delete it.

No, you can’t–because you shared it, whether it be a photo, an email, a Wall post, whatever, already.

Because the fact of the matter is–since the moment the first caveman sent the first email to another Neanderthal–there has never been true online privacy for anyone who has chosen to participate in this highly interactive medium.

Here’s the key definition of interactive: “mutually or reciprocally active.”

That means once you send something to others, it is out there in cyberspace forever, never ever to return.

And that goes double on social-networking sites, where–let’s be honest–people egregiously overshare and then get all righteous when it is explained to them that sharing means, um, sharing.

As in: You cannot take it back, if you have shared with 476 of your closest “friends,” your bikini shots from Cabo.

Now, BoomTown has learned to live with some very unfortunate haircut choices preserved forever online and does not often agree with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (I and everyone else slapped him silly on the Beacon debacle until he gave in, for example).

But he is technically right on this, even if Facebook could have done a much better job communicating the changes it made to its ToS, especially since ToS controversies are the Bermuda Triangle of the online arena.

This lack of clarity has always a major Facebook weakness, but it was the same for AOL–now owned by Time Warner (TWX)–back in the day when it was raising privacy red flags all the time.

But that does not make Facebook wrong, as Zuckerberg finally said clearly in a post on Facebook:

People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them—like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on—to other services and grant those services access to those people’s information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with.”

Zuckerberg then notes that users are just going to have to trust services like Facebook with their data, which is up to the individual to decide before posting whatever online.

And, if regrets come later? Well, try this quote from the great playwright Arthur Miller: “Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the right regrets.”