I’ve been a regular user of Facebook since it’s inception in 2004, when it was first marketed amongst collegians as an exclusive social network. When I heard about it from my randomly-assigned freshman roommate, I could barely grasp what she was talking about. “A face? Whose face? A book? What kind of book?” “No, no,” she said, exasperated. “F-A-C-E-B-O-O-K. Dot com!” Over the next four years, my relationship with Facebook mutated more often than Burger King’s marketing campaign; my peers and I generated online personas and expanded our networks exponentially, all under the semblance of control and ownership.

The rate of change in Facebook rivals its rate of integration into our lives. For hours on end, we update, like, share, chat and peruse the profiles of friends, bands, companies…of everything and nothing at all. This behavior makes Facebook the perfect vessel through which companies can reach their audiences. Given the time we spend on Facebook, the nature of what we share and the potential data available to advertisers, privacy is certainly important to users. But how important?

The general consensus is that consumers will continue to “sacrifice” their privacy because they value the experience so much. Maybe Facebook will continue to serve 400 million users because it’s made mistakes and innovations in a way that makes it seem like its growing up with its audience. We believe Facebook is listening and making every effort to protect us. Like parents who thrive on that semblance of control and ownership, millions of users, save for a fraction of outspoken and conscious ones (like, say, 35,000 people), won’t care about Open Graph and its ability to “target you on an even more granular level,” nor the Graph API, which “makes it much easier to parse, collate and thus search through user info.” More specifically, Open Graph allows website URLs to be part of the Facebook universe and advertisers are able to trace and track users who connect to those websites, much like Facebook Pages.

As an avid Facebook user and marketer, the big question after the ruckus dies down about things like “privacy” and “transparency” is whether or not most people care. And not only do I wonder how many people care, but who exactly cares?

We want to hear from you! Do you think a significant amount of users negatively react after companies adapt this new knowledge stream? How will Facebook resolve its liminal stance between connecting users and monetizing their participation?

Inspired by a post on the blog Legends of Aerocles, we asked Razorfish’s 100 search marketers who they trust more, Facebook or Google. The elder company won by a longshot, though the results would’ve been different if we’d allowed replies of “neither” or “Apple.”

Excited by the Facebook-Marin integration and Chris Copeland’s “Life After Google” speech at SIS Captiva, we scoured the Web for money quotes on Facebook’s monetization strategy.

We learned Facebook wants to position as a demand-generation channel, against Google, in the 90% of the funnel above the point of purchase. Expect Facebook to join Microsoft’s Atlas in speaking out against the last-click attribution model and bringing innovative multi-attribution solutions to the table in the coming months.

Here’s how ex-Googler Sandberg laid it out for Vogue:

“Google makes money because it commands 50 percent of online advertising dollars spent on that final stage, the one that gets people to make a purchase. But that stage represents only 10 percent of all ‘ad spend’— here she writes “$690 billion,” then draws an arrow to her ‘online ad spend’ column. Facebook can dominate the other 90 percent devoted to ‘demand generation’ ($621 billion a year!). It’s not unreasonable, she thinks, that Facebook could wind up getting a substantial part of that, every year.”

Mashable’s article on Vogue’s profile is here:

http://www.buzzbox.com/top/default/preview/vogue-features-facebook-coo-sheryl-sandberg-in-may-issue/?id=1066949&topic=facebook%3Asheryl-sandberg