Life on the Web

Here's why it's a massively bad idea to rely on Google AdSense for revenues if you're an online publisher:

In a nutshell: Google bid on, displayed, and then failed to pay for over $40,000 of advertising space on Hatchlings. They have since stonewalled us for almost a year, locking us out of our accounts, screening our phone calls, ignoring our emails, and making it a living hell to figure out what exactly went wrong.

Google's well-known in publisher circles for pulling this kind of stunt. They cut you off at the knees with no warning, no redress.

Develop multiple revenue streams. Seriously.

Edit 4/27/2012: Added links to other sites discussing problems with Google's "we don't give a shit about you" behavior... (see below.)

Here's another in a long and growing list of reasons why baring all on Facebook is a bad idea.

SEATTLE (AP) -- When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.
Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn't see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information. More...

Everything you say and do online is public. It's like putting stuff on a supermarket bulletin board, only worse: it's accessible in real time, from anywhere. It was only a matter of time before this kind of crap started. I've always thought people who post personal information to sites like Facebook are asking for trouble, and now we're starting to see just what kind of trouble they were asking for.

As a rule, I'd suggest that you treat online conversations (written under your real name or traceable back to you) this way: Would you like to have that read aloud in a court case? How would it sound to the jury? Remember: Everything you say can and will be used against you.

First, we have The Onion Facebook-CIA faux-expose.

Now this:

In February 2011, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the agency planned to implement a program that would monitor media content, including social media data. The proposed initiatives would gather information from "online forums, blogs, public websites, and messages boards" and disseminate information to "federal, state, local, and foreign government and private sector partners." The program would be executed, in part, by individuals who established fictitious usernames and passwords to create covert social media profiles to spy on other users. The agency stated it would store personal information for up to five years.
[...]
The records reveal that the DHS is paying General Dynamics to monitor the news. The agency instructed the company to monitor for "[media] reports that reflect adversely on the U.S. Government, DHS, or prevent, protect, respond government activities."
[...]
The DHS instructed the company to "Monitor public social communications on the Internet." The records list the websites that will be monitored, including the comments sections of [The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, the Drudge Report, Wired, and ABC News.]"

Source: EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security: Media Monitoring via British Tourists Arrested in the U.S. for Tweeting (Bruce Schneier)

All I can say is... what did you expect?