I’m experiencing one of those a ha moments that may not make it into the annals of history, but I claim all the same. The team on Bloomberg Surveillance chatted a bit about the big three social networks: Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. One of the hosts, Tom Keene, described LinkedIn as a winner while giving Facebook mixed reviews. His analysis was based primarily on LinkedIn’s overall stock performance since it went public two years ago. I think LinkedIn is the better play also simply based on the value of its content. Specifically, the value that is derived from the quality connections people expect to make on LinkedIn versus Facebook.

People use LinkedIn to connect with individuals that may lead them to job or other business opportunities. The site also markets itself to job recruiters looking for ideal candidates. LinkedIn plays a role in maximizing income and wealth for the subscriber. Facebook simply doesn’t do that. It is still the bulletin board that is hung up in a dorm room where Kim can tell Sally about the sorority party next week.

What Facebook needs to do, if it wants to stick with its advertising model, is to create events. Facebook is like a night club. People show up for the entertainment. Real swank clubs have corporate sponsors for an evening underwriting events while hawking their wares. Facebook has one billion potential MCs and DJs on its site and plenty of sponsors that are willing to hawk their wares around them. This is how Facebook will be able to generate more income.

As long as Zuckerberg is in charge, Facebook will never be a LinkedIn, and as the years progress, professionals will never look at Facebook as a rival to LinkedIn, but since Facebook doesn’t even want to take on more of a media company look, the club option may be its best bet.

The New York Times has a piece on the downside of broadband adoption. It seems like low-income kids enjoy playing video games and hob knobbing on social media sites like Facebook. (No wonder Zuckerberg wants to target 13 year olds.)

As quoted in The New York Times, “Despite the educational potential of computers, the reality is that their use for education or meaningful content creation is minuscule compared to their use for pure entertainment,” said Vicky Rideout, author of the decade-long Kaiser study. “Instead of closing the achievement gap, they’re widening the time-wasting gap.” In short, the time-waste gap is the new digital divide.

The irony of it is that the Federal Communications Commission wants to spend $200 million to teach households how to put technology to productive use. The FCC will be teaching households how to be productive? Really?

Cynicism aside, turning the computer at home into true capital stock by teaching young people how to use it could be a boon to employers looking for young employees with keystroke and data entry skills. Also, the efforts may help engender the next self-taught programmer who comes up with the next big idea in tech, whether it’s a new app or a new type of media company.

Microsoft and Best Buy are helping to fund some similar digital literacy initiatives so this may be a good investment in the long term for American labor. What the markets need, however, is for young people to put any digital literacy they garner to productive use.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Facebook is contemplating technology that would allow children under the age of thirteen to use the social networking site. As if this company doesn’t have enough on its political plate.

Regulators are concerned that investment banks may have shared information about Facebook’s ability to adapt to a mobile app world or make money from advertisements. Now the social networking giant with 900 million users is literally giving Congress an invitation to drag Mark Zuckerberg on to Capitol Hill to have a sit down.

Somehow I don’t see members of Congress wanting to wear hoodies should such an invite be issued.

Facebook for kids under 13 is troubling. As a father I would prefer Facebook only grant access to people over the age of 35, but that’s a stretch. The privacy infringements and cyber bullying activities should have been the first thing that popped up on Zuckerberg and Cos. Radar.

They must think the additional ad revenue from targeting kids will be well worth it. Let’s face it; the only way that company is going to make money is to get more subscribers hooked and the kid market appears ripe for the taking.

Oh well. I already know what my ten-year old is going to ask, so here is the answer: Hell no.

According to Gigaom.com, Consumers are uploading 72 hours of video to YouTube per minute. That’s a lot of content.

YouTube is owned by Google, Inc.

With all the smart phones equipped with cameras, uploading video is easier to do. This increases demand for access to the airwaves or spectrum. Will technology, and more importantly, regulation be able to keep up?

What this also tells me is that Google is a much bigger threat to Facebook as we know it. Google has a much more lucrative advertising business. They are able to get more eyes to their content because of YouTube. All that is missing is the social networking piece. They will either keep plodding along with Google+ or go after Facebook.

Now that would be fun to watch on YouTube or anywhere else.

Seems like presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee Willard M. Romney has a ways to go to catch up with incumbent Barack H. Obama in terms of a social media presence, according to Investors.com. Mr. Romney allegedly has 251,000 followers on the micro-blog platform, Twitter. On the social networking behemoth, Facebook, Mr. Romney has 1.6 million “friends”.

Mr. Obama is doing better on both platforms. Mr. Obama has allegedly 14.6 million disciples on Twitter while his Facebook acquaintances number approximately 26 million.

It’s not surprising that Mr. Obama would have a commanding lead in the social media world. He has shown his preference for connectivity via technology ever since entering the White House and making arrangements for a special Blackberry that would allow him to stay connected while keeping people with ill will at bay.

Also given Mr. Obama’s relative youth and being a member of a minority demographic that makes disproportionate use of cellphones and Twitter, not only should we find Mr. Obama to be a proponent of social media use, but we should also expect him to exploit it to its fullest.

It’s not to say that Mittens can’t catch up. At this juncture it’s about how you leverage those social media resources versus how many Twitter followers are making you feel like Jesus.