That’s what the AMP Summit, being held today and tomorrow here in Washington, D.C., is all about–and so far, it’s a fantastic conference.

This morning I had the pleasure of volunteering with registration at the conference, which earned me a free ticket and the chance to bump into more than few cool people right from the get-go. Once off my shift, I attended a session on online advertising with representatives from Aol, Google, and Facebook–lots of good content, albeit mixed in with some heavy sales pitches and brand plugs.

Not a whole lot of time to discuss it much right now, but if you’d like to keep up with the conference be sure to follow the hashtag, #AMP10, and check their website to follow along with the schedule of events. And of course, follow me on Twitter for all of my own exciting updates and commentary.

Social media is a business, and it amazes me how much social media users are, quite frankly, acting like entitled, spoiled brats.

Reality is striking the social media space and it’s hitting hard and fast. As we all know, it’s centered on the Facebook privacy debacle, set in motion by a changed privacy policy meant to help further the business–and the continued existence–of a growing international corporation. Couple that with some bad PR on Facebook’s part and a spoiled user base, and you’ve set the stage for a crisis of poisoned Tylenol proportions. But Facebook can relax, because they’re in the right on this one. People need to wake up and smell the roses, because there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Three things I want you to learn from this post.

Privacy Is an Illusion

First, some contend Facebook needs to get serious about privacy. In Facebook’s defense, I’d argue that Facebook’s users need to get serious about their own privacy and stop posting stupid shit online they don’t want other people to know.

Don’t want people to know your phone number? Don’t put it on Facebook. And delist yourself from the phonebook, contact Google to get yourself removed from their database, and be sure to call up every company you’ve ever subscribed to, filled out a warranty card for, or enlisted in a loyalty program for to get your name off their lists, while you’re at it.

The thing is, privacy doesn’t exist. Not only is privacy dead, but it’s been dead for a long time. If I want to find you, I can. And I can almost guarantee you I can do it without the help of the Internet.

Social Media is a Business

Secondly, Facebook needs to make money, and advertising is how they do it. By taking usage statistics and the information that we, its loyal users, are posting on their site, owned by a private corporation, they are more than entitled to take our information and make those ads more relevant, targeted and profitable. And to be perfectly honest, I’d prefer to see an ad about PR and marketing services (as I often do on Facebook, thanks to my chosen career path) than an ad on nail polish or enlargement pills (circa 2001), any day.

Facebook is a business and if you’ve got a problem with the way they run their business, fine. But don’t act like you are entitled to anything, because you aren’t. They aren’t public, so you certainly don’t own any shares. They never signed an agreement with you–you signed an agreement with them. And they have a responsibility to themselves and their employees to make money and to continue to grow. Are they pushing the boundaries of privacy and the social web? Sure they are. Is it 100% morally right and something they should be doing? Maybe not. Is it their prerogative to do so? Absolutely.

The best way to complain about a business is to leave. So do it. Just leave. Quit complaining about their privacy policy. If you don’t want to be as social as Facebook thinks you should be, perhaps you don’t belong on their social network. There’s nothing wrong with that, and that’s your decision. But making ridiculous claims like “Facebook’s invading my privacy” and that they are “stealing your identity for profit” is getting nothing done, and to be brutally honest, Facebook really doesn’t care about you. You don’t have a legal leg to stand on, and the thousands of lawyers they’ve had write their privacy policy know that.

The “Customer” is NOT Always Right

Finally, to those of you arguing that Facebook should “listen to its customers more”–I think you’re wrong, too. On more than one level. First of all, we aren’t customers because we aren’t buying anything from them. We’re users. Of their service. That they’re providing to us completely free of charge.

Secondly, where do you think Facebook would be today if it had always “listened to its users?” I’ll tell you. They would’ve abandoned the idea of the newsfeed–which single-handedly revolutionized the way we consume and share content on the web. They would’ve abandoned their latest series of redesigns, which undoubtedly make information on the service easier to access and digest. Oh, and they would’ve abandoned the idea of every leaving Harvard University, because I’m sure those users were enjoying having the service very much to themselves. If they abandoned their current line of development–specifically, sharing content and interacting with third-party websites–it would be a remarkable leap backwards in social media technology. They know that, and that’s why they aren’t going to do it.

Look at what happened to Myspace. Myspace didn’t fail because it “stopped listening to its users.” It failed because it listened too much. There’s a fine line to walk when it comes to customer service in social media and those boundaries are still being explored. However, by giving its users so much free reign over the service, Myspace collapsed into a jumbled mess of spammy-looking profiles and pedophile stalkers.

Facebook has succeeded because it took a hard line on what they thought was best, and what they thought would best propel the social web forward. They’ve done well, so far. It’s hard to argue with their kind of success–500 million users is nothing to balk at, and the innovation they’ve brought to the web (minus some feature-stealing from Twitter) can hardly be considered minor developments.

Now obviously this all just my humble opinion. I’m not looking for a fight, and I’ll gladly entertain other opinions and respect other views. But to be perfectly honest, I think this entire debate is just getting ridiculous.

P.S. Twitter is a business too.

Quickly reading this article on TechCrunch about the new Tweetdeck update (my absolute favorite Twitter client), one section caught my eye and got me thinking:

You can now view more photos and videos inside TweetDeck, meaning that for some users Tweetdeck is going to start being the way they interface with rich media. Clicking on links to Youtube videos will now show the video in a TweetDeck preview window. Flickr image links will also now open in a preview, along with pictures from Posterous, Mobypicture and Twitgoo. Users can also upload to Mobypicture.

In other words, heavy Tweetdeck users are going to start finding they use their browser less to upload media to Twiter [sic] apps.

My question for the Web is this: how will this affect analytics? I know that on my blog, I can detect if a person is referred to my site from a client, but how will YouTube, Flickr, and even Twitter itself calculate analytics for content that comes from the API, instead of the Web site?

Now clearly, I’m not an analytics guy, by any means. But I do know that all the talk about Twitter peaking has gotten people talking about whether Twitter is a unique case of people actually accessing the site far more from third-party clients than via the actual Web interface. Perhaps people are simply using clients now, the argument goes, so hits aren’t showing up in site analytics. I dunno, kind of makes sense to me.

So how will this affect sites like YouTube and Flickr, in particular? Now that more and more content is driven by Twitter and more and more people are using Tweetdeck, will this result in lost site traffic by those sites? If this becomes a long-term trend, how will they find a way of getting these analytics? And how will they persuade advertisers that it’s still worth it to advertise on the site? After all, if people are using a client to watch a YouTube video, they certainly aren’t seeing any of the ads on YouTube.com. Who’s going to come up with the next big thing in analytics? Looks like it might be necessary sooner, rather than later.

[techcrunch]