Got to hand it to Michael Arrington for this great scoop. His site, TechCrunch, is reporting that Google is in talks to purchase Twitter. According to "two separate people close to the negotiations," the deal is in late stages.

Besides complete and total Internet domination, why would Google bother with the micro-blogging service that has yet to even unveil a business plan? Perhaps it's because of Twitter's vaunted “real-time search” of Tweets. As Arrington explains:

More and more people are starting to use Twitter to talk about brands in real time as they interact with them. And those brands want to know all about it, whether to respond individually (The W Hotel pestered me until I told them to just leave me alone), or simply gather the information to see what they’re doing right and what they’re doing wrong.

And all of it is discoverable at search.twitter.com, the search engine that Twitter acquired last summer.

People searching for news. Brands searching for feedback. That’s valuable stuff.

How is Twitter's search different from Google's? In a word, simplicity. Twitter is only searching and indexing 140 character tweets, not scouring and ranking whole websites based on complex algorithms. Therefore, Twitter's search results are more immediate, or available in "real time."

Beyond marketing, others claim that the Twitter search function can provide a unique insight into news and events, a thought that Valleywag's Owen Thomas throws cold water on:

Williams's Twitter, which lets users post short updates about whatever thought crosses their minds, is being hailed by the Valley's groupthinking bloggers as a revolution in "real-time search." Much as a stopped clock is right twice a day, occasionally one finds some bit of timely news posted by a Twitter user. (It's hardly a threat to established newsgathering operations, because more often than not, what's posted on Twitter is just a link to some page on CNN.com or nytimes.com.)

The fact that Google is in cost-cutting mode and has engaged in significant company layoffs also seems to belie any major purchases. However, Google has a history of purchasing hot web properties with no real revenue model... they bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in stock.

For what it’s worth, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone addressed the rumors on the Twitter blog.

It should come as no surprise that Twitter engages in discussions with other companies regularly and on a variety of subjects.

That’s certainly not a denial.

The conventional wisdom is that Twitter’s popularity stems from the fact that the microblogging service allows followers an glimpse into the personal lives of others. While I’ve maintained that the driving force behind Twitter is just the opposite (that is, Twitter is primarily driven by exhibitionism, not voyeurism); either way, people are all about immediate access to intimate details.

That said, Twitter is a natural fit with celebrities. Fans want to be closer, celebrities crave attention. But the New York Times performs the Twitter equivalent of debunking Santa’s existence by suggesting that GASP! some celebrities don’t write their own tweets! They have ghost writers churning out phoniness 140 characters at a time.

According to When Stars Twitter, a Ghost May Be Lurking, rather than allowing backstage access to the celeb’s life, Twitter is really just another vehicle for manipulation and branding. From the article:

Many online commentators are appalled at the practice of enlisting ghost Twitterers, but Joseph Nejman, a former consultant to Ms. Spears who helped conceive her Web strategy, said there was a more than a whiff of hypocrisy among critics.

“It’s O.K. to tweet for a brand,” he said, remarking how common it is for companies to have Twitter accounts, “but not O.K. for a celebrity. But the truth is, they are a brand. What they are to the public is not always what they are behind the curtain. If the manager knows that better than the star, then they should do it.”

I’m sure I speak for disheartened fans everywhere when I ask, if you can’t even believe in tweets anymore, then what can you believe in?

I tend to agree with those who claim that Twitter is a feature, not a business (see my previous post, No Money in Web 2.0?), but you can't really put a dollar value on the adolescent-level giggles generated by a recent spate of Twitter hackings.

Apparently, some prank prone near-do-well attained access to multiple celebrity and news agency Twitter accounts and sent out (warning, PG13-rated content ahead!) charmingly immature tweets. For example, The Fox News feed "broke" the news that "Bill O Riley is gay." CNN's Rick Sanchez called in sick claiming, "I am high on crack right now and might not be coming into w ork today." And Britney Spears warned us of her unique anatomical features (see link above). In the end, Barack Obama, The Huffington Post, and, according to Twitter, more than 30 other high profile accounts were all penetrated.

The joker behind these misdeeds? An 18-year old hacker going by the handle GMZ. The method? An elaborate phishing scheme, perhaps? No, the kid attained access to Twitter's administrative controls by hacking into the account of a support staff member. It wasn't difficult, considering the member's password was "happiness," according to the Wired Blog network.

So the question now is, if Twitter really is a business, shouldn't its employees create better passwords?