Social media enthusiast Adam Jackson embraced the new medium.

Valleywag commenter Matt Ghali dryly noted Twitter's new maintenance routine.

Los Angeles tech scenester Sean Percival suggested a new hangout.

CNET News reporter Ina Fried had a straight-up freakout.

Search Engine Land editor Danny Sullivan pondered his options.

How did you survive the great Twitter blackout? Report your experience in the comments. 140 characters max!

Did you witness the media elite tweet something indiscreet? Please email us your favorite tweets — or send us more Twitter usernames.

In 2008, I shouldn’t see local businesses still acting as if the web and search are as far away from them as they thought in 1998.

I needed new locks for the house. That sent me to Google to try a search for “locksmith 92663.” The local locksmiths obviously never search like this in a way that their customers might. The results I got back were loaded with “mapspam,” where a single company appears to have registered many fake addresses to crowd out competitors.

I had to struggle through Google’s help pages to eventually find the correct instructions. If I’m a small business owner seeing a fake business, I want a prominent link somewhere that says “Report Fake Business!”

85 percent of Mozilla's $67 million in revenues in 2006, the most recent year reported, came from Google, it's true. But Sullivan seems to think this is some kind of bribe, with Mozilla picking Google as the search engine because the company is showering the browser maker with cash.

Utter nonsense. Google pays Mozilla a cut of the revenue generated when Firefox users conduct Google searches. In Asia, Mozilla defaults to Yahoo, not Google, because Yahoo has a larger user and advertiser base in the region, making its searches more lucrative. It's all about the money, sure. But why shouldn't it be?

Mozilla could open up Firefox as Sullivan suggests. The end result would be a lot of annoyed users who have to go through an extra step as they pick their search engine, which would likely be Google anyway. Google doesn't need to bribe Mozilla; the superior economics of its business do the work for Google.

This, by the way, is also why nothing has come of the perpetual rumors that Google is working on its own browser. It could easily build one. But why bother? As long as Google's search ads are more profitable than the competition, there's no reason for Mozilla to send Firefox users elsewhere. A Google browser might hurt adoption of Firefox, which would do more to lower the number of Google searches than Google's own browser would do to raise it. Build a browser? Sure, Google might get to that after it finishes shooting itself in the foot.

Here's something I wonder: Why does no one ask the same question about Apple's Safari browser, which likewise defaults to Google? Google must be paying Apple a considerable amount of money every year, though not enough to break out in its financial reports; Google CEO Eric Schmidt serves on Apple's board, as does Al Gore, who is a senior advisor to Google. Apple has a monopoly on the browser installed on Mac OS X computers, and makes it harder to switch the default search engine; I don't hear anyone calling for Apple to free its browser search.

Which makes me think people like Sullivan are picking on Firefox not because they believe in open browser search, but because Mozilla, owned by a nonprofit, is a more easily pressured target. A familiar stratagem of attention-seeking activists. Let's not pretend that calling for open search is anything but a tactic for generating false controversy. And let's not pretend that Mozilla is doing anything except trying to make money.

"The purpose of this post isn't to cast blame," he writes, before blaming Incisive Media for not giving him the incentive to grow the site and conferences.

The news comes shortly after USA Today featured Danny, making him, for 15 minutes, famous for more than 15 people.

An insider says that Danny was probably even more upset with his cut of his first sale of SEW and SES to Jupitermedia than he's letting on. Then, as Danny's written, it hurt not to get a chunk of the $40 million Incisive paid Jupitermedia for his properties. The tipster thinks Danny will "play with house money next time."

Leaving Search Engine Watch [Danny's blog]
Photo by Rustybrick [Flickr]

USA Today, the paper read by Middle America and hotel guests trying to find the Sudoku page, ran a rock-star profile of search blogger Danny Sullivan.

Danny's not quite a household name, but he deserves all the media attention he gets. Reading his site Search Engine Watch, you'd have no idea that this dude's not in the Valley but in an English village.

Danny will be down in the Valley for his bimonthly Search Engine Strategies conference, held next week in San Jose.

Got a search engine question? Ask Mr. Sullivan [USA Today]

So here's the quick follow-up to Valleywag's Danny Sullivan translation. In "I Love," he praised VP Marissa Mayer, Google-blogger Matt Cutts, and the Plexpeople in general. In "I Hate," here's what Danny says against the staff of the search colossus:

And every word of it scathing.

25 Things I Hate About Google [Search Engine Watch]
Earlier: Translating Danny Sullivan [Valleywag]