Today Nielsen, the venerable measurement service, shed light on the question of how online social media "buzz" relates to TV ratings. In a study done jointly with the McKinsey consultancy, the company found that within a few weeks prior to the premiere of a new television show, a 9 percent increase in social media comments correlates to a 1 percent increase in ratings among people aged 18 to 34, who are the most active social networkers. Later in the TV season, it takes a 14 percent increase in buzz to correspond to a one percent increase in ratings. This correlation is statistically significant, and the analysis is the first to make such a link, according to Radha Subramanyam, Nielsen's senior vice president of media analytics and Nielsen and NM Incite, the joint venture between Nielsen and McKinsey.

Subramanyam doesn't claim that the buzz actually causes the ratings boost. But it does suggest something else important: research on social media activity is on its way to producing a reliable metric for real-world trends and behaviors. I'll go out on a limb and say that what Nielsen did was show that, eventually, it might become possible for the right measurement and analysis of social-media comments to serve as a proxy for today's widely-accepted measures on all sorts of things, including TV viewership, sales, and even voting behavior.

The caveats are several, of course. In the television context, for example, men over 50 aren't very likely to tweet about Andy Rooney's retirement and the future of 60 Minutes. (You're more likely to get good data on Glee or Jersey Shore.) But the trend is toward more, not less, social media engagement. And two-screen behavior—in which people use laptops or smart phones while also watching TV—is on the rise. As Subramanyam points out: "As television becomes more digital—in the form of sharable video clips or articles about a show's premiere, for example—social media will continue to play an increasingly important role in how consumers discover and engage with various forms of content, including TV."

The causation question came up when I was reporting our upcoming feature, posting October 18, on Bluefin Labs, a startup company in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that is trying to precisely pin social media comments to the TV shows and advertisements that provoke them. (The company leaves it to others, such as Nielsen, to measure viewership.) "We'd love to know the connection between social media and ratings," Gayle Weiswasser, the vice president of social media communications for Discovery Communications (which owns Discovery Channel and several others), told me. "Is there a causative relationship? Or are they simply correlated?" She will have to wait awhile longer for that answer; Nielsen and others are plugging away. But with more data being generated all the time, and more companies discovering business models in producing analytics, the tools for figuring this out are getting sharper.

Details on the study's findings and methodology can be found here.

It's never been easy to keep information from spreading across the Internet, as a recent legal fight between a prominent UK soccer player and the Twitter user behind an anonymous account illustrates.

Forbes explains the basic details of the case:

After a Twitter user alleged sexual indiscretions by a host of British celebrities that were allegedly protected by super injunctions, it set off a firestorm, forcing British lawmakers to think about whether such a thing is still feasible in the age of social media, and if it is, how to enforce it. One of the celebs, a soccer player who is alleged to have a super injunction for scoring goals with a woman who was not his wife, has filed a lawsuit to find out who the user behind the anonymous @InjunctionSuper account is. His lawyers identify him as "CTB" in the lawsuit, but it quickly emerged through social media and the American press (which is not subject to the super injunction) that the client was Manchester United player Ryan Giggs.

Newspapers have stepped into the mix as well. The Guardian describes how a Scottish newspaper used Giggs as the bait for a special report on privacy laws:

The Scottish newspaper, which the Guardian cannot name for legal reasons, devoted its front page to a large picture of the footballer's face, with a black band across his eyes and the word "censored" in capital letters. The player is easily recognisable.

Below the picture is the text: "Everyone knows that this is the footballer accused of using the courts to keep allegations of a sexual affair secret. But we weren't supposed to tell you that ..."

Politicians have also taken the opportunity to question current privacy law, particularly John Hemming, the MP for Birmingham Yardley.

To the condemnation of some of his colleagues, Hemming, who has been campaigning on the issue, exercised parliamentary privilege to identify the star at the centre of the injunction just minutes after the high court refused to lift a ban on naming the sportsman, who is said to have had a relationship with Imogen Thomas, the former Big Brother contestant.

"With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it's obviously impractical to imprison them all," Hemming said.

The circumstances of this case may seem frivolous, but they get at larger issues about freedom of speech.

The New York Times writes:

And while a debate centering on an athlete's love life might not seem to be the most pressing example of free speech online, there are broader and more urgent implications, analysts said.

"If you step back, that same sort of protection is really vital to have in place when you're talking about the individuals involved in a revolution or a social movement like the Arab Spring," said Thomas R. Burke, a chairman of the media law practice at the firm Davis Wright Tremaine.

Whatever the higher ideals brought out by the controversy, it's also been good for Twitter's traffic, according to the BBC:

Obviously the San Francisco-based site did not set out to be at the centre of a British media firestorm. But the result, according to some figures I've been shown, has been a big surge in traffic.

Experian Hitwise, which gets its data from internet service providers, says UK traffic to Twitter's website hit a new high on Saturday, as a footballer's attempts to use the courts to identify people behind various tweets dominated the headlines. The traffic was 22% higher than the previous day.

When protesters in Egypt overturned the country's government, Twitter got some of the credit.

But Danny O'Brian of the nonprofit Committee to Project Journalists pointed out at the South by Southwest festival yesterday that social networking sites can be a curse to activists, too. "We see the social tools being used by activists or independent journalists becoming a lever to be used against them, to monitor them, to implicate them, or reveal their sources," he said, suggesting that social networking sites be tuned to prevent that and protect political activists in oppressive regimes.

Examples of web services flipping from enabler to disabler include the way Yahoo's Chinese webmail servers were used by the government to identify and then jail political activists. More recently, prominent Chinese blogger and free speech advocate Michael Anti lost a network of 1000 contacts he had built up on Facebook after someone (assumed to be politically motivated) reported him for a technical breach of the site's terms of service.

He was reported for not using his real name, although he has lived for decades and attended Harvard University as Michael Anti. Social sites can't make exceptions to the terms of service (ToS) they ask users to abide by, said Jillian York, of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, but Facebook should consider adding nuance to its strict name requirements.

When a person is found to have breached Facebook's ToS their account disappears along with their photos, contacts, and other content. That process can be triggered when one user complains about another, creating a tool that can be used to quash free speech, said York. Government agents and competing activist groups report their enemies to pitch their accounts into lock down and their owners into a lengthy, unwieldy claims process. One example was an Arabic group who used the tactic to close down atheist activists on Facebook.

"[Facebook's policy] skews against people who are famous and have enemies," said York, "I believe you should get a choice of what name you use."

Photo-sharing site Flickr, which has no qualms about users taking any name they please, doesn't have such problems, said Ebele Okobi-Harris, director of Yahoo's business and human rights program. "Unlike Facebook's real-name policy our policies can't actually put users at risk," she said, while the company runs every pending product release past her team to screen out potential risks to human rights.

Flickr is under fire from human rights advocates nonetheless this week, for taking down photos uploaded by Egyptian photographer and activist Hossam el-Hamalawy showing alleged members of Egypt's secret police. Flickr took them down after other users reported them for copyright infringement. El-Hamalawy had uploaded a photo taken by someone else, breaching the sites ToS.

Flickr, Facebook and other social sites may not want to politicize themselves by making exceptions or design tweaks to make room for activists. But they can't ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

"I can't truly recommend that anyone use these services for activism in oppressive places," said O'Brian, "but on the other hand, how can you not use Facebook?" As social tools become more powerful and widely used, incidents like Anti's will likely become more common; activists have nowhere else to go online that offers the same features. Some firms, such as Twitter, have actively tweaked their services to help ongoing protest movements like that in the Middle East. Perhaps in the end the commercial imperative to avoid bad publicity will make others take a similar course for business, not political reasons.