Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg trumpeted his social network as a modern communication platfor that could connect people in new and exciting ways during his keynote interview at this year's South by Southwest Interactive content.

There's only one problem: the company's spam filters are deleting messages sent by users that contain certain messages, according to some fancy investigation at ReadWriteWeb.

It would be disturbing enough if the messages were from child predators or other socially questionable groups. After all, free speech is for everyone. However, the spam filters aren't deleting those questionable emails.

The company is blocking messages that reference two other social networking sites -- Wadja.com and Yuwie.com.

This news comes days after Facebook blocked access to Google's data portability system because, the company said, it doesn't contain enough privacy controls. Initial reaction from pundits and press is that Facebook is more concerned about losing its main asset: control of users' information.

The Microsoft won't pay users to help track its email network, but the company said it would offer shopping rebates from 700 selected retailers for those who use its Live Search application.

The goal: find a way to slow Google's continued growth in search.

Both Microsoft, a distant third in the search market, and Yahoo have both experienced slight declines in overall searches, while Google continues growing. That's a concern for both companies, although Yahoo continues exploring how it can partner with the search giant.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is searching for a way to compete globally. So far, the results have not been good.

According to comScore's March numbers, Google now handles approximately 60 percent of all searches, followed by Yahoo with 21 percent and Microsoft with 9 percent. Google's upwards trend and Microsoft and Yahoo's downward trend have continued in April as well.

Live Search shoppers won't see any immediate benefit as the rebates won't be processed for 60 days in ensure no products are returned. That factor, along with the general feeling that paying for customers is unseemly, has left some with a sour taste about the new product.

Social networks are slippery.

By their nature, they invite competition because the user base is only as interested as the number of friends they have (which eventually slows in growth) and the number of things they can do (which can feature creep people to death).

Corporations believe they need to be involved with them because there are millions of waiting eyeballs. Myspace and Facebook have 58 million and 22 million people respectively. However, nobody is quite sure how to use them to promote -- and more importantly sell -- wares other than music, movies and comedy.

There's even been talk that the network growth is slowing, although I don't buy into that theory. Eventually, triple digit growth is impossible.

These networks aren't just about selling.

The social network that shows the most promise -- and the one that has grown 361 percent in the past year -- is LinkedIn, the business networking site where people can upload their resume, give and receive testimonials from friends and meet other business contacts.

On the surface, it sounds boring. It's Web 2.0 for the serious professional. It's Monster.com without the spam. It's networking with the bells and whistles.

In a modern world, people are the driving force in any good company. As businesses decentralize operations and put more decision making in the hands of employees, it's important to find the right people.

LinkedIn allows people to effectively use social media to target candidates, get references from people you know and hire candidates (or find a company) most suited to your needs.

Beyond the obvious business attraction, the company has also taken a slow growth approach to social networking. Instead of capturing every eyeball, they opted to target specific eyeballs and grow around that.

They didn't rush out to be first. They didn't try to beat the crowd. They watched. Observed. And built a network with a solid foundation and a great user base.

First doesn't always win. Sometimes best makes a comeback.

The first time I came across Adobe AIR, the Flash-like software the enables a desktop application to sync with a website whether the user is online or not, I realized that the way we used the Web was about to change.

Not because the technology was so revolutionary. We've been down the "best new technology" road before only to watch it fade as the next "best" came to market. AIR -- and applications like it -- will change the browsing experience because the philosophy behind emerging software development gives users control of a site's design, information, sharing and experience.

Think about that for a moment.

Companies are just getting used to the idea that social media -- those technologies that allow for open, distributed communication -- has changed the way they have to do business. Openness is key (Apple excluded).

Now, they have to face a world where the medium of their message is being usurped. Imagine a world where individuals had control over the look, feel and layout of a website. That will fundamentally change branding, marketing, public relations, ecommerce and customer service at any business. And users will soon demand this type of experience,  particularly on ecommerce sites.

As companies open up their APIs, which allows software developers to understand how data from a site is called from a database for instance, these new software tools like AIR enable anyone to create a customized browsing or desktop experience.

And that will force companies to re-evaluate how they do business. Again.

May sweeps have been an epic disaster for the six major television networks, scoring record low ratings.

The most concerning number for television executives is that viewing is off 17 percent this year in the 18-49 male demographic, long considered a benchmark for advertisers. Even the top-ranked network, CBS, has an 11 percent decline in total viewers compared to last year.

There are several reasons for the decline: the writer's strike, summer is here and the emergence of Web and mobile video platforms which aren't tracking yet.

The simple fact is this: major networks have made their content available online through their own network sites, mobile television providers and aggregation services such as Hulu and iTunes; however, the tracking mechanisms weren't put into place to accurately provide data alongside traditional Nielsen ratings.

The networks have only recently dipped their toes in the digital waters and the traditional tracking world is still trying to wrap its hands around how to both track online viewing and combine that with the panel-based research done with television.

While comScore and Nielsen/Netratings agreed to a third-party audit of their tracking last year, Buzz Machine's Jeff Jarvis -- rightfully so -- presses that the way media in general tracks usage needs to be overhauled in a digital age.

Distribution methods and patterns have changed too radically to continue tracking with panel and estimation based research.

Nine years after the Napster service hit the Web, the service has finally achieved an important milestone: all the major record labels have licensed their content.

This comes as the entertainment industry -- mainly the recording industry and the television industry -- is rethinking the decision to allow Apple a near monopoly on digital distribution sales. Faced with the realization that CEO Steve Jobs is more interested in using digital content to push his company's electronics, the entertainment industry is now looking for a variety of alternatives for selling content.

For Napster, that means this according to PaidContent:

It claims that at 6 million DRM-free tracks from all four major labels plus thousands of indies it has the largest selection of any competitor. Pricing looks pretty familiar at $.99 per track and $9.95 per album. And it should go without saying that since they’re MP3s, then yes, they play on the iPod.

The new deal gives Napster the content for a monthly subscription service to go along with its DRM-free MP3 sales option.

With Napster, the emerging mobile video market, the NBC-News Corp television video service Hulu and even MLB.tv which broadcasts every major league baseball game for about $10 per month, content companies have started to latch on to the value of reaching customers anywhere, anytime and anyhow.

The Internet may not be the best place for retailers to seal a deal according to a new study by the Pew Internet and American Life project.

The 42-page report (pdf) found:

1. People user search for information, but online research is only one of several information-gathering systems
2. Information gathered online has the most impact on big purchases
3. Most people don't rate products after their purchase, except with music
4. Consumers will price shop online, but purchase at brick-and-mortar stores
5. Shoppers use the Internet to research what they have found or experienced in other places (radio, television, movies, print)

The study's results tell us one of two things: either retailers haven't yet cracked the code for reaching their customers or people are using research resources available to them to target their purchasing.

These results, though, are good news moreso for marketers than anyone else because it helps validate that while online revenues for businesses may be flat, there is some correlation between online research and offline spending. 

America Online -- once the great Internet Service Provider power -- has struggled mightily throughout the past decade.

The struggles appear to be in the rearview mirror. AOL continues to reinvent itself as a two-headed hydra with its Platform A advertising network and its recently purchased social network -- Bebo -- which will be integrated with its two instant messager software applications (AIM and ICQ) along with other media assets.

The goal: compete with Microsoft, Yahoo and Google for dominance in audience aggregation at social media and network sites.

AOL also appears ready to ditch its brand name, since it now comes with so much negative baggage, in an attempt to reach a younger demographic, which it sorely needs to do.

Thee business model around these social media networks is still nebulous but that shouldn't worry marketers and advertisers. The people who use social media and social networks are engaged online. They create content. They get involved with interactive games. They share.

The question will be: can these networks find a way to work together on data portability -- which gives each the best chance to grow and thrive -- or will they choke themselves off by trying, as AOL did in the early part of this decade and Facebook is doing now, to create a proprietary, walled garden of information?