CNBC’s Julia Bornstein brings her insights to whether Google is favoring its Google + social network when consumers search the web for “@usernames”. Twitter, according to Ms. Bornstein, argues that Google suppresses the “@” sign during a consumer search, and instead sends the consumer to one of its Google search options.

The antitrust question maybe, is Google using its dominance in search to elevate its options over Twitter’s.

On the surface it seems a big what to do about nothing. If I’m that hard up to do a search for someone’s Twitter handle, I’d go to Twitter and do the search. Consumers have that option if they have problems with Google.

Hopefully the FTC or the Justice Department will find that they have other things to do.

I’m all for app development, creativity, and free market capitalism, but this piece in The Wall Street Journal caught me Afro-Carib-Irish eyes this afternoon.

Seems like broadcast and cable channels are considering developing applications for wireless devices that would allow viewers to interact with TV show actors and advertisement.

Just imagine Bobby Bubba sitting on the couch with the iPad on his lap and the 100 inch flat screen in front of him. Also imagine First Lady Michelle Obama having a fit as she tries to convince home slice to get off the couch.

If you work from home and have a couple kids buzzing around, you should be able to deal with the added distraction apps can provide.

I can see a broadcaster leveraging a platform like Twitter or Facebook to deliver content to listeners or viewers wherever they may be, while eliciting their comments. I guess the big difference is that with the app, a broadcaster can engage real time with the viewer while advertisers hawk their products to Bobby Bubba.

I for one don‘t care for the intrusiveness and would rather that businesses that I regularly patronize, like my grocery store, or gas station, offer me a free download of their app. That way I know who is bombarding me with ads, but I wouldn‘t mind so much because I already have a relationship with the advertiser.

The Twitter-sphere is all lit up with arguments for and against AT&T’s proposed purchase of T-Mobile USA. As you may know, the Federal Communications Commission and the United States Department of Justice will be reviewing the deal over the next several months. The FCC will apply a public interest standard, while the DOJ applies a threat to competition standard for determining whether the acquisition will pass muster.

In other words, this review will boil down to anti-trust law and microeconomics. You wouldn’t think so when you listen to the arguments made by some opponents to the acquisition.

I say some opponents because not all those opposed to the acquisition are stereotypical haters. They have expressed legitimate concerns about service coverage and whether there will be a change in the market structure that may not benefit market participants. Unfortunately, those reasoned voices are the minority.

Opponents micro blogging away on Twitter appear focused only on the usual innuendos regarding civil rights groups, arguably the very groups that paved the way for the free democratic discourse opposing groups and individuals are enjoying in the digital age. It’s like slapping your grandfather.

Rather than scaring consumers with the usual claims of the industry being eaten up by the big dogs while spreading rumors of civil rights groups on the take, how about more reasonable conversations.

Thanks to the czarina of tech news, Cecilia Kang at The Washington Post, for herarticle on the settlement agreement between Google and the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC, who I think was unfairly described as a regulatory lapdog by the Center for Digital Democracy, got Google to agree to rework its privacy policy and audit itself periodically. If not, then the company is looking at a fine of $16,000 per violation.

That’s a lot of cheese given Google’s size and blonde ambition for some of Facebook’s market share in the “we’re making money off of free consumer-provided content” industry.

But that’s the thing about free. Social media and social networking is free, at least access wise, for the consumer. The consumer gets to add followers on Twitter like Jesus added disciples in Galilee. Consumers add so many friends on Facebook that shows like “Living Single” and “Friends” would have never got on the air in the first place if social networking were around in the 1990s. All this networking for free.

In the legal world parlance, if a consumer is getting this unprecedented access to people who would otherwise walk past them without speaking, where is the consideration due to Facebook, Google, and Twitter? Why shouldn’t they get something for all they have invested into making the consumer feel like they are putting together their very own virtual mafia family?

Sure one can argue equity for the social network consumer who wants to know how much information about him is being put out there. The real problem, however, is the consumer’s unwillingness to educate himself about the basics of a medium that to this day its power he doth not appreciate.

The bottom-line is that concerns about privacy in the digital age are being blown out of proportion. If you don’t want it out there, keep it to yourself. Otherwise, learn how to leverage and make a market for the content you put out there.

Standing in a line at the bank yesterday (I know, I know. Standing in a line at a bank is so 2G), I overheard two African Americans talking about Facebook and Twitter. One individual was a female apparently in her late 60s; the other a male in his mid-forties. They were sharing their observations about young people were so connected to and buy these two social networks.

What struck me was their conclusion that today’s technology was a sign of the end of times. I rarely discuss religion, but the discussion raised the issue in my mind as to whether religious views may be hindering adoption?

The bank conversation harkened me back to a sermon delivered in my hometown church back around 1979 where the pastor, a man I have the most utmost respect, love, and admiration for, made a similar comment about a satellite that was expected to crash in Australia. In a rare moment of bravery (given that my favorite cartoon hero is Courage the Cowardly Dog, my acts of bravery are rare), I raised my hand in the middle of the sermon and told him that he was wrong. I said it was not the end of the world and briefly explained the science behind it.

Since I’m writing this post, it’s obvious that I lived to tell the tale. Seriously though, if a certain segment of our community is taking a fatalistic view toward technology, won’t that make the technology harder to adopt?