If I ever write another book it will probably be about one of three topics. The first is the truth about how the press and journalism really works – the sausage making – to show just how much of a beautiful, subjective and chaotic mess it all is. The second idea is to talk about how perfect blogging is, with its constant feedback loop, as a training ground for mass psychology and manipulation. The third idea I’m keeping to myself for now, but it’s more startup focused.

It’s the second one that’s been on my mind lately. Mostly because it’s become pretty clear to me that any blogger worth her salt could start, say, an extremely successful militant religious cult.

Any blogger will tell you how frustrating the early days are. Getting someone, anyone, to link to you. Your first comment! etc. And as your audience grows you are introduced to the first rule of anonymous human behavior – it’s dark and brutal, and reminds me how thin the veil of civilized behavior really is. If there is something nasty that can be said, someone will say it. Over and over.

A big part of blogging is simply keeping the peace. You set rules on whether or not you’ll allow anonymous commenting, or commenting at all. You decide if/how to moderate comments. You decide if/how to respond to opposing arguments and (more often) personal attacks. And you, involuntarily for the most part, evolve your writing in response to the feedback loop. Those are the days of innocence, simple joys and simple sadnesses.

But then you start to get really good at what you do. You write something and you get trashed. The next time you try it a little differently and it the commenters love you. You don’t even do it consciously – but over the years you just get better at it. To the point where you pretty much know exactly what the reaction will be to any given post, and how to tweak things to get the reaction you want.

Zynga talks about constant A/B testing in its games to maximize revenue, a huge competitive advantage for them. Bloggers go through the same thing every time they write a post.

Old media types don’t have quite the same experience because they generally have an editorial agenda, certain writing rules, and editors to please. There are too many layers between them and the direct feedback loop. so they evolve much more slowly. Bloggers have a direct line to the collective mind.

I imagine priests and rabbis and career politicians have much the same experience. Speaking publicly so frequently they learn exactly how to manipulate the audience, or the camera, to get the reaction they want. It doesn’t work on every individual, but the masses as a group are easy to manipulate. and your audience tends to self reinforce over time, meaning the people who buy what you’re selling tend to come back for more, and others wander away.

In a post last weekend I wrote about women in tech. I feel like I’m on pretty firm ground here, since more than half of our senior staff are women, including our CEO, and we cover female entrepreneurs whenever we find them. I know exactly the post I could have written to get a super big high five from our audience. Talk big about how the problem is so prevalent, talk quietly about what we do directly to help solve it (but note how much more we must do!), and then salute the ringleaders who are making a living out of pretending to care about the issue (without, of course, pointing out that they are frauds). Seriously, I could have had you as a collective group eating out of my hand on that one. I even pointed to a couple of posts by men that did exactly that (also very experienced bloggers who know how to write a crowd pleaser when they need to).

I didn’t do that though. I wrote a different post that I intended to question some of the basic assumptions that are being made about women in technology. And I knew exactly what the comments would be like. More FU than high five, for example.

And that’s ok with me. I’d rather say what I really think than pander to the crowd. This is an issue that’s too important to use for my own glorification.

It would be so much better if we could stop a lot of the bullshit that we see in blogging. To do that we need a smarter audience – one that sees through it because they’ve been trained to, and demands a little more meat on the bone from the sites they frequent. I’m telling you flat out that any decent blogger can manipulate the hell out of their audience. Don’t let yourself be one of the manipulated.

In a follow up post I may explain some of the common tricks to manipulate the crowd so you can see through them more easily in the future. And just for the record, we try to avoid manipulating readers here at TechCrunch. Or at least to abuse that power as little as possible. And most of my favorite blogs also play it straight.

Remember this, though. When you’re reading something here that’s getting you really riled up, stop. It may be that you really should be thinking the exact opposite of what you are. And if you find yourself floating through a post agreeing with all the subtle pandering, wake up! And call us on it immediately.

And yes, I know exactly what you as a group are going to say in the comments below. If I told you it would change the outcome, of course. But I think you know deep down that I’m right.

Stealth Mode Watch, a searchable data spider of often very revealing SEC form D filings, is the brain child of Denis Papathanasiou, who came up with the idea while researching funding options (a.k.a spying) for his ebooks startup Fifobooks, “I was just using it to keep tabs on specific investors and other competitors in the ebook space, but I mentioned it to a few people, and they were interested enough to want to use it themselves.”

Papathanasiou then added a public API and launched it in beta under its own domain. Right now the site allows a simple search mode which shows results for the past four weeks and then an extended API mode which allows results past that date as well as filtering parameters like “people,”"companies” and “places” (Humans beware: The data is delivered in XML files).

Papathanasiou says he got the idea from First Round Capital Managing Director Josh Kopelman’s “The Death of Stealth Mode,” which warned startups of the perils of filing series D forms.

“If you’re starting a company and want to stay in “stealth mode”, make sure you understand the impact of your Form D filing and factor that into your plans. And if you’re a lawyer for a startup company, please tell your clients about the public disclosures you make on their behalf!”

In the meantime, watch your back McClure.

The term “social network” is of course synonymous with online networks like Facebook. But think about what you’re actual social life is like for a second. Are you really closest to the people whose items you “like” the most on Facebook? What about the people you @reply or retweet on Twitter? The people you reblog the most on Tumblr? If you’re anything like me, probably not. Instead, the best indicator of who I actually interact with socially the most in real life are the calls I make and the texts I send — it’s all mobile interaction.

I’ve written before that I think location is the bridge between social networks and actual social life. But why do we even need that bridge? Why are so many startups content to build on top of the Facebook or Twitter social graph, when a lot of them can access your actual social graph in your mobile contact book? We’re seeing more and more apps go “mobile first, web second” these days, and that’s likely to increase going forward. This means that they start as services on mobile devices. So again I ask, why not just get to your actual social graph through your contacts there?

Sure, many do that to some extent already. APIs for Android and the iPhone give you access to contact list information to varying degrees. But most startups are still approaching that idea as a secondary tactic after they’ve hooked in your social graph through Facebook or Twitter. But I think we may start to see some that go right to the heart of your contacts on your mobile device. In fact, I met with one in the making last week, Addappt.

While they’re still building out the product, the core idea of Addappt is to connect people through their contact lists (in this case, on the iPhone). Specifically, their app scours your contact list to see which of your friends are signed up to go to various upcoming conferences. But you can easily see this concept transferred to any number of social utilities. “When was the last time the address book saw any innovation?,” is the way co-founder Mrinal Desai puts it. And he’s right.

It seems that companies like Apple and Google are sitting on a treasure trove of actual social data with these contact lists. Calls, texts, emails, it’s all right there. Google obviously has tried (and failed) to build a social graph through your email contacts before — but they went about it wrong, and they did so on the desktop. Mobile is the key to this.

Currently, we’re also seeing Apple also struggle in its first real attempt at social networking, with iTunes Ping. Their network is way too closed to be of much use — but at least they get that mobile should be a component of it.

But imagine if Apple built social tools right into your Contacts app? Maybe it would start with short status updates (maybe this would even pull in tweets), and then it would move to something like instant messaging. Then imagine if they did something with location? All of this would be opt-in, of course, but it could be very powerful.

And think about FaceTime. It’s an amazing product, but it’s far too hard to use because you never know when someone else is available to chat. Apple won’t accept the FacePlant app which solves this, so I have to believe they’re working on their own solution. The Contact app would be perfect for this. You load it up and see who is available to FaceTime.

Obviously, using your mobile contact book isn’t ideal for all types of social applications. But for the ones you want to use with just your closest friends: location, photos, short messages, events — it could be a killer set of data.

A couple weeks ago, Facebook officially opened their new office in Seattle, WA. At the time, Facebook’s Ari Steinberg (the main engineer in charge up there) wrote a post and shared a few pictures of what it looks like. But those pictures sort of made it look like a dismal, dreary version of Office Space (I know Seattle is cloudy all the time, but come on). So we’ve got a few better ones that show actual signs of life.

Just as when Facebook opened their new Bay Area office, and when Twitter opened their office, I think it’s sort of neat to see pictures inside these offices — to see where the sausage is made. We’ve been thinking about doing something like this for TechCrunch TV as well — think: Cribs for tech startups. We’ll expose ridiculous murals and raid startups’ fridges. Would that interest you?

Behold Facebook Seattle below. I’m not even sure Mike has been inside yet even though Steinberg moved 800 miles to be near him.

According to new research from Pew Internet, 82% of American adults own a cell phone, Blackberry, iPhone or other similar devices. And 65% of adults who own them say they have slept with their cell phones on or right next to their beds.

Yet consumers don't know what these devices are made of exactly, and what their environmental and health impact may be. Phone manufacturers aren’t required to share all the details. Some do anyway.

Not Apple, though. The company is keeping secrets as usual, this time from O2 EcoRatings the UK-based initiative to rank the most and least environmentally sustainable mobile phones.

Nokia, HTC, Samsung, LG, Palm and Sony Ericsson participated in the O2 EcoRatings. And RIM committed to participate in the next year of the study. The ratings, released last week, found the Sony Ericsson Elm the most environmentally friendly phone.

Was Apple justified in blowing off the outside, environmental inquiry about the iPhone? After all, new environmental reports, labels and certifications come out every couple of weeks.

Recently, the EPA proposed a new vehicle efficiency rating, and a new partnership called the ULE-880 kicked off ratings of manufacturers.

The sheer volume makes it hard for companies and consumers to know which reports are credible and scientific, or just public relations fluff.

Jennifer Woofter, founder and president of Strategic Sustainability Consulting near Washington D.C. believes the O2 EcoRatings are credible, though. Woofter’s company helps manufacturers get their products, operations and environmental reporting up to the specifications of retailers like Wal-Mart.

By declining to participate in environmental ratings by trustworthy outside agencies, Woofter says “[Apple] isn't taking a leadership position when it comes to sustainability. And it risks looking like a company that doesn't take feedback well." She believes that Apple’s own environmental audits are not yet done in a consistent manner, or with clear enough criteria to appease legitimate concerns.

Environmental researchers still want Apple to answer some questions publicly like: are the materials in its devices obtained from conflict-free mines? What toxins, if any, are still in those iPhones and chargers? With what standards and regularity does Apple review its original equipment manufacturing partners to make sure they are operating in an environmentally and socially responsible way? How will the company curb e-waste?

Continued secrecy should not surprise those familiar with Apple's corporate ways. Earlier this year, the company shot down two shareholder proposals asking it to do more rigorous reporting.

Apple rarely acquires other companies, preferring to innovate from within, which also happens to minimize its exposure to outsiders like a target company’s attorneys, accountants or advisers.

One of the firms that developed O2 EcoRatings Telefónica O2 UK is not a total stranger to Apple, but a major mobile carrier and retailer that sells the Apple iPhone in Europe. The other, Forum For the Future, is an independent non-profit that promotes "sustainable development" and studies the impact of various industries on people and the planet.

Woofter (who is not affiliated with either) lauded them for: making their ratings criteria clear and non-proprietary; examining metrics like energy use and materials in the phones; and looking at the sources of these materials, and conditions for workers all along the supply chain. “Sustainability is not just about carbon," she says.

In the past, Apple has allowed a number of its personal computers and laptops to be rated by a US-based environmental reporting non-profit, the Green Electronics Council, which created the highly influential Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool, or EPEAT standards. Its products received stellar EPEAT ratings, "Gold" level across the board.

Opening up about its computers helped Apple win some respect from (and quiet down) Greenpeace; the environmental activists launched a massive campaign criticizing Apple in 2007. Allowing the iPhone to be independently rated and compared to peers’ devices could make the company look good and green anew. So why would Apple still decline?

Chris Pinney, the director of research and policy at Boston College's Center for Corporate Citizenship suggests it’s because they just don’t have to talk. "Apple has a comprehensive supplier code and auditing program. They may feel their [own reporting] is sufficient to deal with 'green' issues. They may also feel they have nothing to gain by joining a new, 'eco-rating' initiative in a market where they are a dominant player,” he says.

Pinney believes real change and less secrecy will be driven by government standards and by large carriers and retailers like Wal-Mart as they demand more labeling on the products they handle due to consumer pressure.

For now, an Apple spokesperson declined to comment on O2 EcoRatings. She pointed to the “environment” pages of Apple’s website, and emphasized that the company restricts more toxins than the European RoHS Directive, which limits the use of hazardous substances in electronics and is considered progressive today.

Customers can bring most iPhones and iPods (not including the shuffle) to Apple retail stores for recycling, she said. For returned iPods, they get a 10% discount on a new iPod. The company hasn't created a similarly motivating program for its iPads, iPhones, batteries, chargers or laptops, though.

Apple’s retail employees aren’t required to inform customers about responsible e-waste disposal, or available take-back and recycling programs.

Environmental responsibility is a theme largely absent from Apple’s hype events, too. Nobody from Apple’s top ranks talked about green features or e-waste recycling as they rolled out a new lineup of media devices last week.

Contrarily, Apple has been lauded for being accidentally and overtly green: their iPods and iTunes store have displaced tons of waste from compact discs. They’ve also been designing more energy-efficient products using less toxic material, and minimizing packaging over time. They’ve applied for patents to include solar cells in their portable devices. And a host of iPhone apps are meant to help consumers lead “greener” lives.

Still, if you found out your new iPhone was full of conflict minerals would you keep it? Or if it contained cancer-causing toxins, would you still sleep with it?

Top Secret photo via: Malakh Kelevra
E-waste recycling photo via: U.S. Army Environmental Command