On the Internet, huge numbers are typical. Just search for anything on Google, and be rewarded with a “1 to 10 of 36 million results for…” or something similar.

We’re used to massive numbers for participation: ebay, Paypal, MySpace, and so forth.

Lately however, Facebook has been in the news, with upwards of 175 million members.

It’s large numbers as usual. But that represents a lot of flesh and blood people – so let’s put it into perspective.

Take for example television: the Oscars, at 36 million viewers, was a ratings success – but only one fifth of Facebook membership.

Superbowl? Huge. Super Bowl XLIII had about 95 million – just over half of Facebook membership.

And the classic all time viewed television program was the final episode of M*A*S*H, with 106 million viewers – only 60% of Facebook membership.

Or take countries – 175 million is roughly 1/2 the population of the whole United States, and is bigger than all but five countries in terms of population: China, India, United States, Indonesia, and Brazil.

Even with the big number of religious followers it’s still quite impressive: about 1/12 the size of Christianity, 1/9 the size of Islam, and over ten times the number of members of Judaism.

Is it any wonder online social media is influential?

Remember the constant buzz of American Idol? Yet this program only received about 35 million viewers at its peak – yet everyone was talking about the show.

Now here we have a single focus, with instant transmission, of 6 times that.

Put a message on Facebook central, and how long do you think it will take to make the rounds?

THAT is the power of social media – and why so many people talk about the power of blogs and social sites like MySpace and Facebook. The incredible influence of a huge number of people makes marketers salivate.

And if you’re in business, you might want to consider it too – after all, when was the last time you had an audience as large as Pakistan all in one place?

Today my wife showed me a cartoon that was making the rounds, and promoting a lot of controversy.

For those of you not aware, the New York Post published this – and a lot of people are offended by what they perceive as racist (and possibly president-threatening) “art”.

However, of more interest were our opinions here at home:

• My wife “got” it right away: the chimp was representing President Obama, and it was an obvious racial slur, as well as a non-too subtle reference to assassination. Coming from the sister company of Ultra-Conservative Fox News (both Rupert Murdoch properties), it made perfect sense.
• I thought it was representing the idea that “any monkey” could put together a stimulus package, and just tied in with the local (Connecticut) shooting of a pet monkey. As for the reference to the “writer” of the bill, I saw no problem, as many people are involved in drafting this legislation (even if President Obama will eventually be called the “author” or “architect”).

Now you may agree or disagree with one of us (let’s face it, one of us is right, right?), but the more important fact is, we were split down the middle.

And here’s the REAL point: imagine that cartoon making its way through New York Post headquarters.

If my household was split 50/50 as to the meaning, weren’t the offices of NYP split?

Darn right.

So they knew they had something offensive (at least to a goodly percentage of people).

And they published it anyways.

So folks, you’ve been played.

Talk about how horrible it is.

Or talk about how inoffensive it is.

But just keep talking – PLEASE.

Because the New York Post could have held off on it – and didn’t. And they want you to talk. But don’t worry – I expect they had the apology drafted before the cartoon was even published.

And now as it settles down, they’re off to the next issue (“did you SEE the way Bradgelina looked at Jennifer at the Oscars?”)

Well played NYP – I’ve never read you, and I never will, but you obviously have no problem with slinging sleeze to get readers. In the ages old tradition of newspaper folk everywhere (whose motto is “if it bleeds, it leads”), you could have taken a moral stand, but chose to go the low-brow controversy route.

As for everyone else, pro AND con, you have a choice – fuel the (artificial) fire, or give it up.

Imagine if instead of accepting the apology, we see it for the sleeze it is, and hit NYP where it hurts, such as boycotting them, apology or no apology. Boycott them if you think they’re offensive. Boycott them if you think the cartoon is meaningless. But boycott them.

And imagine keeping it up – and sending a clear message to everyone everywhere manipulating you and your emotions.

Because if you don’t take a stand for people manipulating you deliberately, it will continue.

After all, people ARE talking, aren’t they?