Yahoo's proposed new HQ in the Silicon Valley town of Santa Clara would be big enough to house 7,000 additional staff, according to former Valleywag Nicholas Carlson, at Business Insider. The company continues to try and push permits for the plan through the city's approval process despite plenty of available office space in existing Silicon Valley buildings.

We've seen this movie before. It does not end well:

• Fox Interactive's $350 million new HQ near Los Angeles was said to be the biggest area development deal in 25 years. Amid layoffs, Fox cancelled its move as the building was being finished.
  
• Internet conglomerate IAC finished its new Gotham headquarters in early 2007. Within months came a plan to break up the company.
  
• Amid the dot-com boom, network technology company Cisco Systems planned a controversial Silicon Valley megacampus for 20,000 workers. In late 2001 it scaled that back to plans for an office that could — maybe! — hold 3,000 to 9,000 workers.
  
• Handheld device maker Palm had dot-com-era plans for a 39-acre campus; the collateral alone on the project was $238 million. By mid-2001 Palm announced it would sell that land.
  
• From late 2000 to late 2001, USA Today reported, "Intel, Excite At Home and Inktomi... shelved or cut back plans for new plants or offices."

It's worth noting that Yahoo's plans have been underway since three years ago, when the company bought the land in question for $112 million. Seasoned real estate developers know it often makes more sense to obtain city approvals before canceling a project, since the approvals can usually be transferred to a new owner, making the underlying land more valuable. So Bartz is not necessarily at fault for Yahoo's hubristic plans. But that doesn't make her any less likely to be the victim of what they portend.

According to Harvard's Nieman Journalism Lab, AP CEO Tim Curley (pictured) recently let slip at a Hong Kong gathering of journalists that the AP hasn't even talked to Google as part of its complete overhaul of the way it syndicates content online. Why bother, when Microsoft is clearly so lethally good, online? "They know how to have a conversation," for one, unlike a certain other tech giant, plus they gave AP this, just, killer demo:

Microsoft this month has some new technology that it's unveiling that will be much more visually dramatic than anything you've seen before. Multimedia in ways you haven't thought about yet. We've seen it, we've seen the technology.

Oh, and Microsoft also just happens to have basically promised to give AP top ranking — "privileging" their content, as Nieman puts it — over other sources reporting the same news. Never mind if other sources add information to a linked AP story, or generate lots of buzz by using an AP link to launch an in-depth opinion piece. Quality = AP, always. Which is why Microsoft Bing will rule the internet, real soon now. What could possibly go wrong?

The Hollywood Reporter passes on word that Huffington has joined forces with How I Met Your Mother executive producer Greg Malins to concoct a new ABC series about three newbie Congressional members trying to make their way in our nation's capital:

The 20th Century Fox TV-produced project centers on the friendship of three freshman members of Congress — two men and a woman — who live together in D.C.

"One is swept up in the movement of change and goes to D.C. to make a difference; one has been in politics for a long time; and one is a master of the media and sound bites," Malins said.

The project will draw inspiration from real-life Washington figures.

Apparently Malins and company think DC is the hottest ticket in Hollywood. You know, because Barack Obama has made the District cool again. But has it really?

A number of DC-based shows tried — and failed — to make it to the small screen this season, yet television big-wigs axed the ideas. And, honestly, we can't blame them. Our nation has become hyper-politicized and the very thought of a fictionalized account of our collective national struggle seems, at best, a lame attempt at zeitgeist-related desperation.

The spots did not come from Crispin Porter + Bogusky, Microsoft's edgy ad agency of record. Instead, they were from an agency called Bradley & Montgomery. And they were directed by Bobcat Goldthwait. Who said earlier this month:

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.

I think they were trying to do something that was a little less mainstream, and I think that's (what led to) my involvement. Normally the corporate world is very frightened of hiring the dude from Police Academy to direct their stuff

A fear that was well-founded.
[Media Memo]

This whole argument is premised on the assumption that we must save newspapers. At the cost of making the internet into an inefficient mess! So Richard Posner, professional smart man and US Appeals Court judge who writes 23,000 words per day, floated the idea of banning links (and more!), so internet cannibals don't keep stealing newspaper content for nothing:

Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder's consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.

Periods, Richard Posner. Try them. To break up text. What you may notice here is that Posner proposes banning linking or paraphrasing copyrighted materials. The problem: this is America dude, we say what we fucking want, amirite?

You can copyright a news story, but you can't copyright the news. "The news" just means "things that happen in the world." What would it mean, in practice, to make it illegal to paraphrase a copyrighted news story? Summing up, for example, political events, or a sports controversy, or even a fashion trend, could be interpreted as paraphrasing copyrighted material. So let's ban talking about anything. And banning links will help us make our references even more obscure, by making it impossible for anyone to refer to source materials! Good idea, Posner. This gross oversimplification makes you look none too freedom-loving!

We all know journalism happens only at newspapers. Better to protect them at all costs than to invest in the murky "future."

This idea is supported by a newspaper columnist! Connie Schultz, a columnist for the Cleveland Plain-Dealer (who's married to a senator, btw, nothing to see here), also touts the idea of giving newspapers a 24-hour injunction on news they post, during which time it's all theirs, and can't be aggregated by others online.

Fine. You can have your injunction. But you can't stop anyone from discussing, and writing about, current events. As they happen. Go read all those "Twitter Generation" stories you guys are always writing! The idea that it's worth crippling the entire free flow of information on the internet in order to add to the bottom line of newspaper companies is prima facie idiotic. I guess you could also help save newspapers by passing a law that everyone has to buy one every day, or by making it illegal for TV news to exist. That doesn't make those things good ideas.

If Bill Gates pledged to make it so computers could not be operated properly until the user could prove they had read today's Cleveland Plain-Dealer that might save a reporter and he is a monster for not doing so, QED.
[Pic: Chronicling America]

People are notoriously loathe to pay for well-researched original Web content, so you have to admire the chutzpah of Super Chirp, which is bravely going into the business of selling access to Twitterized brain farts. The company doesn't even have this sad market to itself.

What compelling, original content is Super Chirp launching with? A celebrity Twitter stream? Status updates from some nerd God?

Not quite. The standout among the scant debut offerings is a $10/month feed from Tim Sykes, former star of reality show Wall Street Warriors, who in 2007 ended his hedge fund career with foolish stock bets, earning the title "Trading's Buffoon" from the same publication that had once named him among Wall Street's hot "30 under 30."

Now a Twitter denizen, Sykes urges you to "screw it, sign up" for "real-time trade alerts form [sic] me." How can you resist?

Update: Sykes takes to Twitter (of course) to respond to this post: "Are people really so dense they can't see how valuable real-time info is? Bring it gossip columnists." Of course, his business partner Adarsh Pallian gives a more honest assessment: "@timothysykes on gawker and @pallian on techcrunch - not a bad press day."

Sassy programmer Rogers Cadenhead points out the giant, Libya-shaped hole in Bit.ly's business plan: Libya controls all Internet domain names ending in ".ly". Right now, Bit.ly is only paying $75 a year to keep the address, but in theory, the Libyan government could reassign bit.ly to anyone it chooses.

Moreover, .ly domains are required to comply with Islamic sharia law. What Bit.ly does is take an existing web address and shorten it to a unique, random URL on bit.ly. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine imams protesting Bit.ly linking to porn or gambling sites. And then where's Bit.ly's $2 million? Shortened indeed.

Marcelo is pioneering the world of paid endorsements—on Twitter! Everything is different now. Here's how it works: people watch Marcelo on TV; they think he's funny and interesting; they follow him on Twitter; then, when he bizarrely busts out and recommends a specific new fiber optic internet service there, in Brazil, they'll all buy it, because hey, it's Marcelo!

In his first tweet mentioning Telefónica's service, Mr. Tas told his followers about a recent promotional event he hosted in São Paulo. "Xtreme event was fun, informative and full of insights," he wrote. "I loved it!"

We congratulate Mr. Tas on his new, creative way of soaking a corporation for its marketing budget. He should have gone into branding. [WSJ]

Remember the Google Video Marketplace? Exactly. Launched months before Google bought YouTube, the video store required cumbersome copyright protections and was a nonstarter with consumers. Google closed the store last year, enraging the dozen or so people who'd actually bothered to buy videos.

And Google's Book Search operations are a disaster, overseen by Ramsey Allington, an unqualified IPO lottery winner who joined Google at the right time to get valuable stock options and social connections. He has made a mess of his department, driving out qualified female employees by being a sexist boor. Publishers would do well to steer clear of Google until he's gone.

Even if Google Book Search is placed under competent management, I doubt it will succeed. Google lacks a merchant's sensibility, trusting algorithms over salesmanship. But most people do not walk into a bookstore knowing what they are looking for. They seek serendipity — a quality that Googlers, with their overplanned vision of the world, hope to eliminate. There is beauty in an untidy stack of books. But a Stanford MBA's spreadsheets will never capture that.

(Photo via Paris Parfait)

Never mind that! When Schafer sold his Twitter background, Commenter Gregnog told us to quiet down and "just nod, smile and take the check." Well, Gregnog, wherever you are, now's your chance. Using Twittad, Rishi Lakhani, who has 305 Twitter followers, just sold the rights to choose his background image for the next 7 days for $30.00. Even if all 305 of those followers visited Rishil's page over the next seven days — and trust us, they won't — that's a fantastically high, unlikely to be repeated $100 CPM, or cost per thousand impressions. Most social networks are lucky to get a single-digit CPM.

Born on March 16, 2005 as "an innovative and engaging way for people to share their lives, leverage their community and get the most out of their online experience," according to Yahoo's then-COO Dan Rosensweig, Yahoo 360 isn't technically dead yet. But it's proved unpopular enough for Yahoo to try to replace it at least four times with the social networks listed below.

Yahoo tried to replace 360 by offering $1 billion for Facebook in the summer of 2006. Mark Zuckerberg almost took the deal — but then Yahoo CEO Terry Semel scotched the deal by cutting the price. That's when Mark's sister Randi sang "Fuck you, Yahoo, they're going IPO!"

Yahoo began talks with also-ran social network Bebo, reportedly offering to buy it for $1 billion in May 2007. The deal never happened. AOL bought Bebo for $850 million earlier this year.

Less than a year ago came Yahoo Mash, a social network that allowed a user's friends to "mess" with each other's pages like they were Wikipedia entries. Eventually, Yahoo's Terrell Karlsten told Wired in October 2007, "it will become a feature inside other services. For example, it's possible that you'll log into Yahoo Mail and see your profile along with all of your friends' profiles in your contact list."

In November 2007, Yahoo launched a LInkedIn-like site for recent college graduates called Kickstart. But by January 2008, site lead Scott Gatz had already left the company and management began to cut Kickstart's marketing budget because no one was signing up.

YouTube execs estimated that if just 10 percent of the service's users took advantage of live streaming, the company would have to add 20 to 25 percent to its huge server and bandwidth infrastructure to support it.

Sounds like another sign that YouTube's popularity, while giving it a great position in the market, has become something of an Achilles' heel — every video played, every user added cost the company money, and neither creators or consumers are paying. Advertisers are only interested in a small percentage of videos on the site, and YouTube can't even sell all of that inventory. So adding new features such as live streams or improving quality would only serve to dig Google's $1.65 billion money pit even deeper. The episode is enlightening in one regard, though. It demonstrates how much influence YouTube's founders have at the company — little to none.

(Photo by Ben Cooper

Unsurprisingly, there's already signs of trouble. MainStreet has lost its launch editor, Caroline Waxler, amid a change of editorial direction. FiLife has ratcheted back its once-lofty ambitions. And WalletPop? One of a bevy of websites launched by AOL, which is desperate to find readers who are not turned off by that once-magical, now-deadly three-letter brand. With few prospects for attracting an audience or advertisers, will they not soon need financial advice of their own?

Regulators frown on free communications between knowledgeable company executives and information-hungry investors. LinkedIn offers "compliance" tools, but those tools amount to letting the fox electronically monitor the henhouse. Hedgies surely realize this, and will see LinkedIn's lax policies as a selling point. (Other firms which connect investors with company insiders have, at some expense, created systems which allow the experts' employers, not just the investment firms, to monitor contacts.)

If it gets in trouble, LinkedIn will likely plea that it didn't know how its networking site was being used — the standard we're-just-a-platform dodge. But it will be hard to claim that for two reasons. First, LinkedIn is touting the account managers it's providing who will actively help traders use the service. Second, CEO Dan Nye previously worked at Advent Software, a company which provides portfolio-management software to Wall Street firms. It's not like he's unfamiliar with the SEC's disclosure and monitoring requirements. Rather, one has to think he knows just how expensive complying with those rules are, and that rejiggering LinkedIn's software to obey them will make LinkedIn Research a nonstarter.

It's not a stretch to imagine how an ambitious government prosecutor could make a case for LinkedIn aiding and abetting insider trading. The law doesn't even require that money change hands; exchanging inside information for a thumbs-up reference on LinkedIn could very well qualify as a breach of the rules.

But that assumes anyone in Washington or New York is paying attention. Unlikely, given the mortgage mess. LinkedIn will likely go public on the basis of its hedge fund-juiced revenues long before an overtaxed SEC gets around to looking at how, exactly, the avaricious traders of Greenwich are getting their information.