Apr 24
▼Where are the independent voices with power promoting standards and privacy that have impact at large companies who own our data?
The last week's events, mostly centering around Facebook's announcements with F8, their expansion of user profile data being accessed by partner sites, in an auto opt-in model, raised a lot of eyebrows. The company's 500 million person user base is only somewhat aware of the changes, and what they really mean. It's extremely likely that the overwhelming majority of users have no idea that anything has changed, and will continue using the site as they had before.
In the ensuing days, you have seen some high profile people, many of them from Google, suggest they were going to delete their Facebook profiles, and opt out of the network. That, in turn, made news, and was set up, of course as a company vs company battle of Silicon Valley titans.
For the sake of discussion, assuming that high levels of concern are warranted, this stand by Google employees (high, medium and low) is not going unnoticed, but it is immediately suspect. Even if their intentions are true, it just looks like sour grapes. On the heels of the company having its own high-profile battles on what is right and what is wrong (See China or the Buzz launch for example), it is hard to look at both issues and claim one company is 100% clean and the other is not.
Thus, their stand, however well-intended or not, looks more like an escalation of battle than it looks like them looking out for your own interests.
What is missing, in my opinion, are high-profile independent voices who can analyze the changes made by companies who have access to our data. Some of the most respected people in this game, such as Joseph Smarr, Chris Messina, Monica Keller and David Recordon, are now at the very companies in question. Their blog posts, no matter how nuanced and sourced, are seen as biased. Chris, specifically, while no doubt wanting to do the best for the Web overall, has lost his position of neutrality, and there is no getting it back.
Meanwhile, unfortunately, some of the louder independent voices we have left often sound cantankerous and spiteful. No wonder the big guys haven't hired them! :)
So what can we do? If Facebook has done something wrong, or if they are on a path to doing something wrong, how should we expect people to respond? And if Google crosses us in the future, then what can we do? I am really hoping the solution is not government intervention. We need to trust the people who are making the decisions out there that impact us, and we need to know that we are being taken care of as consumers and users.
For those of you Googlers who are holding your heads higher because you opted out of Facebook and let the world know, consider that a hollow victory. It is tainted, and the more you talk about what you've done, the more it cements your position, because you cannot separate your personal ID from your business role. For those of you who like Facebook and Twitter and others who have made tough decisions, it's time to go beyond pointing fingers and choosing who's right and wrong. It's about getting everyone's trust back again and finding a way to have open debate without this becoming the latest edition of the Hatfields vs. the McCoys.
The last week's events, mostly centering around Facebook's announcements with F8, their expansion of user profile data being accessed by partner sites, in an auto opt-in model, raised a lot of eyebrows. The company's 500 million person user base is only somewhat aware of the changes, and what they really mean. It's extremely likely that the overwhelming majority of users have no idea that anything has changed, and will continue using the site as they had before.
In the ensuing days, you have seen some high profile people, many of them from Google, suggest they were going to delete their Facebook profiles, and opt out of the network. That, in turn, made news, and was set up, of course as a company vs company battle of Silicon Valley titans.
For the sake of discussion, assuming that high levels of concern are warranted, this stand by Google employees (high, medium and low) is not going unnoticed, but it is immediately suspect. Even if their intentions are true, it just looks like sour grapes. On the heels of the company having its own high-profile battles on what is right and what is wrong (See China or the Buzz launch for example), it is hard to look at both issues and claim one company is 100% clean and the other is not.
Thus, their stand, however well-intended or not, looks more like an escalation of battle than it looks like them looking out for your own interests.
What is missing, in my opinion, are high-profile independent voices who can analyze the changes made by companies who have access to our data. Some of the most respected people in this game, such as Joseph Smarr, Chris Messina, Monica Keller and David Recordon, are now at the very companies in question. Their blog posts, no matter how nuanced and sourced, are seen as biased. Chris, specifically, while no doubt wanting to do the best for the Web overall, has lost his position of neutrality, and there is no getting it back.
Meanwhile, unfortunately, some of the louder independent voices we have left often sound cantankerous and spiteful. No wonder the big guys haven't hired them! :)
So what can we do? If Facebook has done something wrong, or if they are on a path to doing something wrong, how should we expect people to respond? And if Google crosses us in the future, then what can we do? I am really hoping the solution is not government intervention. We need to trust the people who are making the decisions out there that impact us, and we need to know that we are being taken care of as consumers and users.
For those of you Googlers who are holding your heads higher because you opted out of Facebook and let the world know, consider that a hollow victory. It is tainted, and the more you talk about what you've done, the more it cements your position, because you cannot separate your personal ID from your business role. For those of you who like Facebook and Twitter and others who have made tough decisions, it's time to go beyond pointing fingers and choosing who's right and wrong. It's about getting everyone's trust back again and finding a way to have open debate without this becoming the latest edition of the Hatfields vs. the McCoys.
92 people liked this - AJ Kohn, Ahad Bokhari, Alex Chitυ, Allen Stern, Andrew Terry and 87 others, Andy Roberts, Arnaldo de Moraes Pereira, Beau Liening, Carl Levinson, Carsten Pötter, Charlie Anzman, Chris Heath, Christian Martel, Dane Lyons, David Recordon, Dennis Jernberg, Dylan Kirby, Edward Barnieh, Eoghann Irving, Eric Florenzano, Eric Logan, Eric Renz-Whitmore, George Tsiolis, Haider Sabri, Hans Heiner Buhr, Hugh Isaacs II, Ian McGee, Ileane Smith, Iván Abrego, Jean Friesewinkel, Jesse Stay, Jessica Doyle, Jorge Escobar, Julian Bond, Keith Bourgoin, Kevin C., Kevin Costain, Kevin Whalen, Kol Tregaskes, Kurt Starnes, Li Zunlong, Logical Extremes, Louis Gray, Mahendra Palsule, Mark Essel, Mathew Ingram, Matt Cutts, Melinda M. Sorensson, Micah Wittman, Nathan Snyder, Nick Waye, Nyan Min, Oliver Bouchard, Omair Sajid, Osama Hosokawa, Patrick Kajirian, Peter William Lount, Peter du Toit, Phil Baumann, Rainer Helmes, Ray Drossaert, Rex Hammock, Richard Lusk, Rick Klau, Rob Nelson, Robert Diana, Robert Konigsberg, Robert Sanchez Jr, Robert Scoble, Robin Seaver, Sadagopan S, Sebastian X, Simon Tong, Srikar D R, Stephen Pickering, Steve Dale, Steven Hodson, Stuart Miniman, Susan Beebe, Tatyana Kanzaveli, Thomas Power, Tibor Holoda, Tom Barnett, Vezquex V, Victor Panlilio, Vishal Naik, Vishwajith H K, Wayne (AWP), World ofHiglet, agnes moloney, gas vagenas and peter cowan
Rex Hammock - I like this, but I can't decide if I Goolgle buzz like it or Facebook open like it.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Louis Gray - @Rex Hammock Just retweet it and call the whole thing off.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Carsten Pötter - Indeed, there are very few independent voices left that are able to understand how these changes actually affect people's privacy or how they interact with other protocols.
The main problem is that everything is very technical, developer centric stuff. That has been the problem of open standards like OpenID from the very start. There haven't been many down to earth explanations, so users or even bloggers of big tech blogs were able to understand it correctly. So it's no wonder it lacks widespread understanding and adoption.
Additionally, there is - at least in my opinion - a very closed circle of people working on that stuff and holding positions at various foundations.
Actually, I don't know what can be done about it. Sadly. Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
The main problem is that everything is very technical, developer centric stuff. That has been the problem of open standards like OpenID from the very start. There haven't been many down to earth explanations, so users or even bloggers of big tech blogs were able to understand it correctly. So it's no wonder it lacks widespread understanding and adoption.
Additiona
Actual
Eric Florenzano - There are still outsiders who are involved in standards and have interesting perspectives. Martin Atkins and Kevin Marks are two people that spring to mind immediately.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Saad - Yep, all the independent open 'rockstars' are at bigco's now. No one was able to step into their shoes because they cultivated such a closed, tight nit little group.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Eric Florenzano - @Chris I'm not sure that's such a bad thing--they've naturally gravitated towards places where they can actually make a difference. Standards are no good if nobody uses them, and by joining up with the "bigco"s, they can affect that kind of change.
Again though, I think this is a strawman. There are plenty of people outside of Google/FB that are less biased.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Again though, I think this is a strawman. There are plenty of people outside of Google/FB that are less biased.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Eric Florenzano - @Chris Do you have any arguments to back that claim?Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Saad - Probably - but I'm in too bad a mood to bother.
It should be obvious. Independent voices with a platform are important. Open means a wide range of voices and access from the grass roots - not bigcos fighting it out through battles of personality and ego.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
It should be obvious. Independent voices with a platform are important. Open means a wide range of voices and access from the grass roots - not bigcos fighting it out through battles of personality and ego.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Mark Essel - We're forced to pick a side. Being neutral and social at the same time comes off as callous. Open standards are a choice, not something we can restrain businesses into using (although I'd really enjoy data ubiquity)
The type of moves Facebook is making are natural for targeted search, ads and for improving relative search index for the web at large. My scoring of web sites differs from Louis' which differs from Chris'. Yet social search from Google has the only big push towards personalized search in an attempt to improve relevancy.
I'd be satisfied with having a crystal clear image of the product I'm working to craft. I've spent a few weeks chewing over the data flow and open feed subscription models. The social web has become frothy for predicting business opportunities and any long term trends
Chris-> don't forget beyond personality and ego there is the almighty $$Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
The type of moves Facebook is making are natural for targeted search, ads and for improving relative search index for the web at large. My scoring of web sites differs from Louis' which differs from Chris'. Yet social search from Google has the only big push towards personalized search in an attempt to improve relevancy.
I'd be satisfied with having a crystal clear image of the product I'm working to craft. I've spent a few weeks chewing over the data flow and open feed subscription models. The social web has become frothy for predicting business opportunities and any long term trends
Chris-> don't forget beyond personality and ego there is the almighty $$Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Lillian Wight - I'll be watching Canada's privacy commissioner for a reaction to this.
The office has already had a significant impact on how Facebook does business, and based on those results I'm fairly confident that Facebook will get very, very near the line but not cross over, at least not for long.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/fp/Canada+privacy+boss+setting+rules+world/2944821/story.html
http://www.facebook.com/press/releases.php?p=118816
http://priv.gc.ca/cf-dc/2009/2009_008_0716_e.cfm
Based on what I've read - and been seeing for several months, usually at news-related sites, where lists of other news stories are presented under the heading, "Your Facebook friends are reading..." - I'm not concerned about the imminent changes because what I've been seeing is available only to me. Yes, FB is accessing my data, but no one else sees what I see when they surf.
I have to read more as it becomes available, but so far, so good.
The office has already had a significant impact on how Facebook does business, and based on those results I'm fairly confident that Facebook will get very, very near the line but not cross over, at least not for long.
http://www.va
http://www.fa
http://priv.gc.ca/cf
Based on what I've read - and been seeing for several months, usually at news-related sites, where lists of other news stories are presented under the heading, "Your Facebook friends are reading..." - I'm not concerned about the imminent changes because what I've been seeing is available only to me. Yes, FB is accessing my data, but no one else sees what I see when they surf.
I have to read more as it becomes available, but so far, so good.
| Silner | - There could be a more subtle problem in Facebook's plan though. New Facebook users will still come, but now they'll come with more fabricated personal info. Facebook may well find itself selling more counterfeit information and who wants to buy that @Mark Essel?
After all, once we know they're all selling our info, it's a lot easier to distort that info than keep going back to their settings every time they take a whim to change them. This will certainly be my own user policy in future and not only for Facebook.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
After all, once we know they're all selling our info, it's a lot easier to distort that info than keep going back to their settings every time they take a whim to change them. This will certainly be my own user policy in future and not only for Facebook.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Eric Souza - So what do we do now? How about just relax. It's just a friggin' social network. If FB crosses a line and stays across, the bad press will build, they'll lose more and more subscribers and people will move to something that does a better job of respecting everyone's relative privacy demands. Or, FB will stay one step ahead of evolving privacy standards that finds people more open and transparent about many of the things going on in their lives.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Saad - Yeah it's just the new web-wide OS that powers a number of core user experiences/applications - letting one company run it (essentially reversing the fundamental open nature of the web) will be awesome. Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
DeWitt Clinton - I disagree with Louis here. I felt, and continue to feel, that it was wrong to enable automatic sharing of personal data with third-party sites without an opt-in process than an average user can understand. I would have removed my own account regardless as a result. I blogged about it because I wanted to raise awareness of the issue.
I'm disappointed that Louis feels that I shouldn't be allowed to share that opinion because of where I work.
(Edit: And for what it's worth, when my employer has done bone-headed things, I'm far more vocal than this internally, where I have a direct conduit to influence the outcome. Where I work, employees are not shy about voicing their opinion on all topics. That is why I'm glad that people like David and Chris and Joseph work at big companies, where they can and do make a difference every day.)Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I'm disappointed that Louis feels that I shouldn't be allowed to share that opinion because of where I work.
(Edit: And for what it's worth, when my employer has done bone-headed things, I'm far more vocal than this internally, where I have a direct conduit to influence the outcome. Where I work, employees are not shy about voicing their opinion on all topics. That is why I'm glad that people like David and Chris and Joseph work at big companies, where they can and do make a difference every day.)Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Robert Scoble - DeWitt: Louis isn't saying you shouldn't speak up. He's saying that you guys look prejudiced here. Personally I argued about this with Bill Gates (I told him that Microsoft should turn off Google at its Redmond Campus after I came back from a trip to Google's building43 back when I was a Microsoft employee in 2005 and he argued back with me that it's better to study our competitors than to shut them off -- I noticed that Microsoft employees were mostly using Google and not helping Microsoft improve its search engine). I've come to understand why Bill took that stance and agree with it (Google back then scared me the same way Facebook is scaring Google's employees today).
If I worked at Google I'd have doubled down and stayed on Facebook where I actually could talk to those who matter: both the employees at Facebook and other users. Then I would have improved its own services -- Facebook right now is making Google look bad, Google Buzz really sucks in comparison and until that gets fixed we won't have a competitor to Facebook and if there isn't a competitor to Facebook all these arguments are moot. It's like the Microsoft employees who don't use Apple iPads. Give me a break.
Now you guys have given up any of that potential. Which is OK, but I think you guys made a strategic mistake in doing so.
You never change a system by leaving it.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
If I worked at Google I'd have doubled down and stayed on Facebook where I actually could talk to those who matter: both the employees at Facebook and other users. Then I would have improved its own services -- Facebook right now is making Google look bad, Google Buzz really sucks in comparison and until that gets fixed we won't have a competitor to Facebook and if there isn't a competitor to Facebook all these arguments are moot. It's like the Microsoft employees who don't use Apple iPads. Give me a break.
Now you guys have given up any of that potential. Which is OK, but I think you guys made a strategic mistake in doing so.
You never change a system by leaving it.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Robert Scoble - And Chris Saad: all those voices were bought up, but don't get angry, the key is to start a new set of voices that can credibly speak to these issues.
What is the web we want? I don't see many people speaking about that.
As to Facebook I love the new features. Have you played with Pandora? I've discovered more new music in the past week than in the previous year. Why? Because they opened up their social graph.
So, when you guys say that these changes are bad that simply does NOT resonate with me as a user.
You've got to explain how much better my life would be if Facebook took another approach.
Since you both haven't been able to do that it's very hard for me to take your side in this argument.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
What is the web we want? I don't see many people speaking about that.
As to Facebook I love the new features. Have you played with Pandora? I've discovered more new music in the past week than in the previous year. Why? Because they opened up their social graph.
So, when you guys say that these changes are bad that simply does NOT resonate with me as a user.
You've got to explain how much better my life would be if Facebook took another approach.
Since you both haven't been able to do that it's very hard for me to take your side in this argument.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Robert Scoble - Change is ALWAYS scary. Facebook's ambition freaks me out, but in order to change it you have to provide a plausible alternative. Sorry, what I'm seeing on the new Pandora totally rocks. Google's employees better pay attention to that.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Ray Drossaert - Studying competition is a good thing. But if people (not just Google employees) are dissatisfied with a service, want out and are vocal about that, I think that is also a good thing. This keeps FB awake. And even though the 'Googlers' are "under suspicion", I tend to agree with a lot of the points made by them, although I have chosen not to disable my FB account (yet). I did however make a renewed visit to the privacy settings and just to be sure tuned almost all of them down to "only friends" or less.
Regarding alternatives, Google should focus on the strong points of Buzz instead of trying to make in into a combined Twitter/Facebook competitor.
For example: reading all the excellent comments here makes me want to 'like' individual comments (specifically those of @Robert Scoble). And perhaps 'dislike' some others - though heaven forbid they turn this into a ranking mechanism that would spoil the linearity of the discussion. The latter case would be a great example of ruining Buzz's strong points...Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Regarding alternatives, Google should focus on the strong points of Buzz instead of trying to make in into a combined Twitter/Facebook competitor.
For example: reading all the excellent comments here makes me want to 'like' individual comments (specifically those of @Robert Scoble). And perhaps 'dislike' some others - though heaven forbid they turn this into a ranking mechanism that would spoil the linearity of the discussion. The latter case would be a great example of ruining Buzz's strong points...Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Steven Hodson - @Robert and what about those of us that can't get Pandora what does this 'personalization' do for the rest of the world?Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Heath - what about someone like Leo Laporte? did anyone here catch his initial response on wednesday? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzjK0qVBA7A -- i envision he'll have more to say tomorrow on TWiT (and with some more time to analyze the situation also)Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Steve Thomas - There are no independent voices anymore. Unless you count the 4 billion or so humans who don't use the internet. Everyone here is using Buzz, a Google product. Some proportion also use Facebook. Nobody makes us use those sites, we choose to. And our choice biases our opinions.
I understand the point Louis is making, but I find it hard to get excited by it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. We're entitled to evaluate that opinion according to multiple criteria. Someone expresses an opinion about Facebook, and works for Google. So we evaluate that opinion in the knowledge that (a) he works for Google, and (b) we've read his stuff before and generally agree with it. It's all about reputation, not employment.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I understand the point Louis is making, but I find it hard to get excited by it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. We're entitled to evaluate that opinion according to multiple criteria. Someone expresses an opinion about Facebook, and works for Google. So we evaluate that opinion in the knowledge that (a) he works for Google, and (b) we've read his stuff before and generally agree with it. It's all about reputation, not employment.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Kevin Costain - This is interesting indeed. @Robert, the argument (or discussion) here needs to stay focused on one thing though. I think if the argument is about privacy and the dreaded auto opt -out of Facebook, then let it be that. If privacy is really dead (or at least on life support) - that argument is pretty much moot. Yes, we could talk about privacy, but I don't think this is what @Lois' post is about.
@DeWitt Clinton, you're allowed to deactivate your Facebook account and blog about it - but since you do work Google, you can't expect (or ask for) people not to think of you as prejudiced in some manner. What you describe about the internals of Google are good and I would suspect that if someone like Zuckerberg cried foul about Google in some way there is no way anyone would believe his words could possibly be without bias (even if they were). It's just the position your in. I think It's pretty awesome that you get to work for Google, btw.
That being said though, these are troubling times. There are a number of unknowns with regard to data and who has power over that data. If we don't know where information is physically stored (what country), what laws are access to that data governed by? I may not worry about how private that data is, but I sure do care about who can get their grubby hands on it if the sh** hits the fan.
And so it goes fro some other services, really what data does the site who sets up the Facebook Graph really have access too? When a Facebook account is deactivated, shouldn't we be allowed to at least delete it? Maybe Facebook could charge a fee to have account information and details actually deleted (or even, gasp, securely deleted). This doesn't reflect the greater Internet (I know nothing really goes away), but Facebook controls Facebook, and that would go along way towards earning more trust.
And another question I have is, how open is too open? If a social site pops up that fundamentally requires someones phone number to operate (and in so doing exposes that for every user on that site) would that be too much?Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
@DeWitt Clinton, you're allowed to deactivate your Facebook account and blog about it - but since you do work Google, you can't expect (or ask for) people not to think of you as prejudiced in some manner. What you describe about the internals of Google are good and I would suspect that if someone like Zuckerberg cried foul about Google in some way there is no way anyone would believe his words could possibly be without bias (even if they were). It's just the position your in. I think It's pretty awesome that you get to work for Google, btw.
That being said though, these are troubling times. There are a number of unknowns with regard to data and who has power over that data. If we don't know where information is physically stored (what country), what laws are access to that data governed by? I may not worry about how private that data is, but I sure do care about who can get their grubby hands on it if the sh** hits the fan.
And so it goes fro some other services, really what data does the site who sets up the Facebook Graph really have access too? When a Facebook account is deactivated, shouldn't we be allowed to at least delete it? Maybe Facebook could charge a fee to have account information and details actually deleted (or even, gasp, securely deleted). This doesn't reflect the greater Internet (I know nothing really goes away), but Facebook controls Facebook, and that would go along way towards earning more trust.
And another question I have is, how open is too open? If a social site pops up that fundamentally requires someones phone number to operate (and in so doing exposes that for every user on that site) would that be too much?Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Nick Waye - Repost this Buzz thread: http://goo.gl/nhxt (with some edits and additions) - I want Google to do what it does best and exploit their (facebook's) hubris. Google mission is indexing the worlds information, all of i in all formst. Social Graphs are that future data set that needs indexing. I don't buy the straw man retorts about "do you really want them selling your info to third-party advertisers more than they already are?" argument. Google is in the same business (or would like to be) they just aren't presumptuous dicks about it. They are nice enough to ask. They should lead by example and exploit the opening Facebook is giving them.
This is Google's opportunity to take what Facebook has given them and use it for the same purposes if not to make cooler and more social products. Facebook's move should be a call to arms at the Googleplex. Demo to us through cool new products and services how Facebooks approach isn't right. At the same time integrate more of Google's services into this wide open door that Facebook has giving you. That's my pitch. Great thread.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
This is Google's opportunity to take what Facebook has given them and use it for the same purposes if not to make cooler and more social products. Facebook's move should be a call to arms at the Googleplex. Demo to us through cool new products and services how Facebooks approach isn't right. At the same time integrate more of Google's services into this wide open door that Facebook has giving you. That's my pitch. Great thread.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Jonathan Terleski - I sent an email to my dad with a link to his Facebook public profile asking if he knew about it. He forwarded me his account deactivation email.
If people understood the true costs (public, shareable data and demographics) of supporting the majority of social networks business models, most would not choose to participate. It's that simple, really.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
If people understood the true costs (public, shareable data and demographics) of supporting the majority of social networks business models, most would not choose to participate. It's that simple, really.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
J. Abdul-Qahhar - I think the problem is complexity, putting aside the fact that it can be difficult to know who to listen to, read, follow, on any given subject this one in particular seems convoluted. For the most part, its geeks talking in terms and concepts that even other geeks find difficult to follow. So for me the question isn't where are the independent voices but, which one is going to be the first to put this in terms even the casual observer can understand?Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Louis Gray - @DeWitt Clinton, I cannot tell you what to say where. I am not embracing Facebook's moves, nor am I deleting my account. The discussion of their moves is not here. My concern is not that people are saying no to Facebook, but instead that this looks like a "Google vs. Facebook" issue, and that will make your moves and your comments less effective.
I want people who are independent and influential to come to the same conclusions you have, and say the things you have - assuming you are right. I want you guys to continue caring as you do about the right standards and products, as you do. But this is about caution. Others will see this as petty and prejudiced, and that will mask all your comments here, just like I cautioned when you challenged Apple's moves on the iTunes Store and coding for apps.
You are an individual, but you are also one member of a big team that is visible, and it is practically impossible to divorce the two.
Note also two things:
1) I did not @ anyone or reference anyone's specific posts or comments. This is not a personal thread.
2) I posted this to Buzz, not my blog, because of reduced visibility and because the people I think need to hear it are here. It's not about making noise for my benefit, but for talking openly in the right place with the right folks.
If I didn't care about how you are perceived, and getting the Facebook story right, independently, this post wouldn't exist.
/cc @Jonathan Terleski and @Robert ScobleApr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I want people who are independent and influential to come to the same conclusions you have, and say the things you have - assuming you are right. I want you guys to continue caring as you do about the right standards and products, as you do. But this is about caution. Others will see this as petty and prejudiced, and that will mask all your comments here, just like I cautioned when you challenged Apple's moves on the iTunes Store and coding for apps.
You are an individual, but you are also one member of a big team that is visible, and it is practically impossible to divorce the two.
Note also two things:
1) I did not @ anyone or reference anyone's specific posts or comments. This is not a personal thread.
2) I posted this to Buzz, not my blog, because of reduced visibility and because the people I think need to hear it are here. It's not about making noise for my benefit, but for talking openly in the right place with the right folks.
If I didn't care about how you are perceived, and getting the Facebook story right, independently, this post wouldn't exist.
/cc @Jonathan Terleski and @Robert ScobleApr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
KES Sholl - Wow leave your PC for a few hours and when you return it is as if WWW3 has broken out. If we are to move on to the next stage of the web then there needs to be more collaboration and especially between the likes of Facebook and Google. @Dewitt I understand that you have deactivated your google account on the basis that you no longer can be certain what if any of your data is being shared and how you can control the dissemination of that data. I don't think that is a problem unique to Facebook and indeed I have recently been astounded at the amount of my own personal data is visible on web as a result of participation in social networks that have no intention of passing that data to third parties. Nevertheless, the fact is that it is there freely available for anybody to see and harvest. Why is it there? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is because Google Robots do not discriminate as to the data that they collect from websites and then reveal within a search. As a result I have no control over the amount of my data that is visible via Google and yet the suggestion is that we should be wary of the changes that Facebook have announced - I might agree - but for someone who is a developer at Google to take this stance seems a little hypocritical.
I have read your subsequent post, which concludes: "Anyway, as you can see, I'm actually quite bullish on the F8 announcements. I think that the platform team at Facebook did a wonderful job and put on a great show. Congrats to all involved, and here's to working together in the future!" OK lets get it on and get to work together to improve the web experience for all - oh and the matter of privacy as well.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I have read your subsequent post, which concludes: "Anyway, as you can see, I'm actually quite bullish on the F8 announcements. I think that the platform team at Facebook did a wonderful job and put on a great show. Congrats to all involved, and here's to working together in the future!" OK lets get it on and get to work together to improve the web experience for all - oh and the matter of privacy as well.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Saad - @Robert Scoble Wait until the next time FB decides to shut down your account and you are unable to log in to the entire web. Or maybe wait until you are forced to deal with only 5000 friends instead of the number of friends you want to have. Wait until FB decides its not ok for any page running these scripts to use Flash, or Google Adsense or anything else they don't like.
And in the mean time, no other company can compete because FB's market share begins to eclipse the monopoly of Windows back in the day.
By the way, I don't believe any of this will happen, because open alternatives and cross-platform approaches will win in the end. But not because it 'always works that way' but because the rest of the web is working hard to make it happen.
As for you caring as 'a user' - you don't, wont and will never care about any of this. But you live in silicon valley and work in the tech industry - you are not just 'a user'.
Actually you even more than that, your account suspension crystalized a movement for a very good reason. Just because your account got restored and you have 'friends' at FB doesn't mean that the problem goes away.
Also I am not afraid of change or a particularly paranoid person - these things are real concerns that happen every day. It's not about privacy or policy it's about privatizing basic infrastructure of the web which fundamentally breaks the nature of the web.
To re-iterate though - I am optimistic.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
And in the mean time, no other company can compete because FB's market share begins to eclipse the monopoly of Windows back in the day.
By the way, I don't believe any of this will happen, because open alternatives and cross-platform approaches will win in the end. But not because it 'always works that way' but because the rest of the web is working hard to make it happen.
As for you caring as 'a user' - you don't, wont and will never care about any of this. But you live in silicon valley and work in the tech industry - you are not just 'a user'.
Actually you even more than that, your account suspension crystalized a movement for a very good reason. Just because your account got restored and you have 'friends' at FB doesn't mean that the problem goes away.
Also I am not afraid of change or a particularly paranoid person - these things are real concerns that happen every day. It's not about privacy or policy it's about privatizing basic infrastructure of the web which fundamentally breaks the nature of the web.
To re-iterate though - I am optimistic.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Thomas Hawk - I still totally don't understand what I have to be worried about by any of all this. I wish I could somehow understand it better. It's probably just a combination of me being dense and not using facebook very much.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Denton Gentry - I haven't deleted my Facebook account, and do not plan to. The network effect is quite real and quite compelling: just about everyone who wants to see pictures of my kids finds Facebook to be a convenient place to do so.
I am starting to use one browser just for Facebook, and perform all other web activity in a browser where I am not logged in to Facebook. Were I using a platform with just one browser, I'd have a conundrum to solve.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I am starting to use one browser just for Facebook, and perform all other web activity in a browser where I am not logged in to Facebook. Were I using a platform with just one browser, I'd have a conundrum to solve.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Linda Lawrey - I have to ask why, with what was clearly a personal struggle by some Google employees, be suspect to you? Are you aware that it was a struggle by everyone that had to leave Facebook because they didn't wanted to? Why am I not suspect? Or the teacher, or the car wash dude that left Facebook. Because they aren't Google employees? Oh come on. They aren't all "that", are they Louis? To who? And why, other than a money making headline? Sorry @DeWitt Clinton , luv ya' but you are just a person with an Employer (albeit a nice person) and Google is not MY God Particle nor yours either I suspect. ;)
Anyone know how many janitors at Google decided they couldn't stay at Facebook? No? Too bad.
HEADLINE: GOOGLE JANITOR took down his facebook page! Wait. Except for the fact that people have concerns about their privacy at Facebook, there is no additional story here regardless of what their job title is (or where they work at all). There's only those trying to make money creating one. And those riding their coat tails to do the same.
Fortunately, obituaries aren't "created" in the same manner that social media news is, huh. Someone would have to either be or end up dead, right? No? Wouldn't matter. The majority who saw the story are going to spread the story that someone is dead, while others are going to kill him off if he isn't. I'm suspect of anyone that doesn't adhere to investigative journalism when actually writing a piece that comes across as factual. Otherwise, it's only a story about a story, read elsewhere without fact gathering. Did you "interview" any Google employees for this piece, Louis? Because it appears that you did not or DeWitt wouldn't have commented as he did.
Google employees are people who have family and friends that they have to protect. And these were PERSONAL Facebook accounts. Personal accounts, personal decisions based on protecting their friends and family as well as being protected from them, due to Facebook's changes.
I could not BLAME Google if they mandated a "no facebook" policy under these circumstances. It's articles like this, Louis that will cause those we have come to depend on for information, lock down on everyone including us. You are aware of that, right? Quick mention, that you said you Buzzed this for reduced visibility? You are aware that you posted this publicly right, when you could have posted this privately to all of your follows instead, with one click?
I was a participator and a witness of the personal struggles everyone has had to STAY at Facebook, including some Google employees. It shouldn't have to be so hard. It shouldn't have to be so much WORK. It shouldn't be rocket science, and I'm no slacker when it comes to knowing how to use social networking features. Facebook gave many no choice.
@Robert Scoble - You stated to @DeWitt Clinton that they should have doubled down and stayed at Facebook. Why? They aren't Google. Suggest to Google that they go to Facebook. Google employees are people, not their jobs, and I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Google employees' families and friends get a weekly check, (and if they do, I want to be adopted) and to suggest they and their families AND friends outside of their employment be used in some kind of political business maneuver is, well that's just dirty.
Side note: Years ago there was a term for when a site "hijacks" someone when they land on their web page. Can't recall the term but it's a dirty little trick that now, only spam and scam sites use. It's actually disreputable to do such a thing now. You click on any link that takes you there and no matter what you do, you can't use your browser's back feature to leave the site. While doing those hours of research trying to STAY at Facebook, I followed several links from web pages to Facebook's FAQ's and Help center. Guess what. I could not "back OUT" of Facebook. NO reputable web page or site does this now.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Anyone know how many janitors at Google decided they couldn't stay at Facebook? No? Too bad.
HEADLINE: GOOGLE JANITOR took down his facebook page! Wait. Except for the fact that people have concerns about their privacy at Facebook, there is no additional story here regardless of what their job title is (or where they work at all). There's only those trying to make money creating one. And those riding their coat tails to do the same.
Fortunately, obituaries aren't "created" in the same manner that social media news is, huh. Someone would have to either be or end up dead, right? No? Wouldn't matter. The majority who saw the story are going to spread the story that someone is dead, while others are going to kill him off if he isn't. I'm suspect of anyone that doesn't adhere to investigative journalism when actually writing a piece that comes across as factual. Otherwise, it's only a story about a story, read elsewhere without fact gathering. Did you "interview" any Google employees for this piece, Louis? Because it appears that you did not or DeWitt wouldn't have commented as he did.
Google employees are people who have family and friends that they have to protect. And these were PERSONAL Facebook accounts. Personal accounts, personal decisions based on protecting their friends and family as well as being protected from them, due to Facebook's changes.
I could not BLAME Google if they mandated a "no facebook" policy under these circumstances. It's articles like this, Louis that will cause those we have come to depend on for information, lock down on everyone including us. You are aware of that, right? Quick mention, that you said you Buzzed this for reduced visibility? You are aware that you posted this publicly right, when you could have posted this privately to all of your follows instead, with one click?
I was a participator and a witness of the personal struggles everyone has had to STAY at Facebook, including some Google employees. It shouldn't have to be so hard. It shouldn't have to be so much WORK. It shouldn't be rocket science, and I'm no slacker when it comes to knowing how to use social networking features. Facebook gave many no choice.
@Robert Scoble - You stated to @DeWitt Clinton that they should have doubled down and stayed at Facebook. Why? They aren't Google. Suggest to Google that they go to Facebook. Google employees are people, not their jobs, and I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Google employees' families and friends get a weekly check, (and if they do, I want to be adopted) and to suggest they and their families AND friends outside of their employment be used in some kind of political business maneuver is, well that's just dirty.
Side note: Years ago there was a term for when a site "hijacks" someone when they land on their web page. Can't recall the term but it's a dirty little trick that now, only spam and scam sites use. It's actually disreputable to do such a thing now. You click on any link that takes you there and no matter what you do, you can't use your browser's back feature to leave the site. While doing those hours of research trying to STAY at Facebook, I followed several links from web pages to Facebook's FAQ's and Help center. Guess what. I could not "back OUT" of Facebook. NO reputable web page or site does this now.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Rob Gordon - I agree with Linda. I've read a few of their reasons here and it doesn't seem like any "corporate conspiracy" on the part of Google to me.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Brent Woo - Matthew, you might want to check out this video -
http://tinyurl.com/cmx6uu
Some of the connections that it states Facebook has would explain a few things about your connection question. I too have wondered at times how Facebook has done some of the things Facebook does.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
http://tinyurl.com
Some of the connections that it states Facebook has would explain a few things about your connection question. I too have wondered at times how Facebook has done some of the things Facebook does.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Louis Gray - @Linda Lawrey and @Rob Gordon I never said anything about conspiracy. That's silly. I understand this may be a personal struggle for folks. It is for many. But there is often a separation between the action's cause and its interpretation. I am asking for independent voices and caution. That's it. Nothing more.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Louis Gray - @Linda Lawrey, also, in regards to Google employees (or others) locking down what they say, let's turn it around with different IDs.
1. Microsoft employees tell you not to use iTunes and point out how to get out of an iPhone contract.
2. Facebook employees blog about how to delete your Google Profile and Buzz.
3. Nintendo employees blog about how you can return your XBox for a full refund. :)
Those may be silly, but it's the same way this discussion can be viewed by others. I want independent viewpoints to say this is as bad as the voices we have heard here say they are.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
1. Microsoft employees tell you not to use iTunes and point out how to get out of an iPhone contract.
2. Facebook employees blog about how to delete your Google Profile and Buzz.
3. Nintendo employees blog about how you can return your XBox for a full refund. :)
Those may be silly, but it's the same way this discussion can be viewed by others. I want independent viewpoints to say this is as bad as the voices we have heard here say they are.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Linda Lawrey - The main issue you posted about was clouded, Louis, and still difficult to pin down. I'm not sure who it is you are taking to task and about what. You were kind of all over the place with this one. Your comments just now are actually more clear though somewhat contradictory.
When you say "suspect", that implies something and gives the perception of that implication. I'm not sure what independent sources you are looking for. You say the voices with Power. Could you elaborate on that? What constitutes power and in what relevance? Perception of power is subjective. Are you looking for a big name to comment? And thus their comment carry weight where say, a "nobody" who has something more relevant to say, doesn't count? See, maybe I'm a little dense or it's late and I'm tired. But I can read and I can usually understand what I read. So I would welcome some clarity from you Louis, and perhaps YOUR voice and your cautions about the Facebook Privacy debaucle.
If you are willing to listen to all those nobody's, I can get them for you and they will tell you their viewpoints, many the same and many different. But I don't get that that is what you are looking for. You are looking for importance. So we need to find an IMPORTANT Facebook user that values his privacy. Hmmm... Oh wait. I do know a few. But when they offered up what it did to them personally, it suddenly became this so called "news" when it clearly wasn't. (And verified above by DeWitt)Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
When you say "suspect", that implies something and gives the perception of that implication. I'm not sure what independent sources you are looking for. You say the voices with Power. Could you elaborate on that? What constitutes power and in what relevance? Perception of power is subjective. Are you looking for a big name to comment? And thus their comment carry weight where say, a "nobody" who has something more relevant to say, doesn't count? See, maybe I'm a little dense or it's late and I'm tired. But I can read and I can usually understand what I read. So I would welcome some clarity from you Louis, and perhaps YOUR voice and your cautions about the Facebook Privacy debaucle.
If you are willing to listen to all those nobody's, I can get them for you and they will tell you their viewpoints, many the same and many different. But I don't get that that is what you are looking for. You are looking for importance. So we need to find an IMPORTANT Facebook user that values his privacy. Hmmm... Oh wait. I do know a few. But when they offered up what it did to them personally, it suddenly became this so called "news" when it clearly wasn't. (And verified above by DeWitt)Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Linda Lawrey - Louis, I hope you know that I follow you for a reason, and that reason is that I enjoy the things you share, as well as reading your point of view on many different topics. I have no issue with you personally of course.
And if I work for a major corporation and you knew exactly who that was, I can assure you that they have no issue with you either. lol
The Facebook Privacy issues are a sore subject. For a subject to be sore, people have to care. If they didn't care, no one would say a word about anything they did and they would just leave. So as much as it is a hot topic, it's a personal topic for anyone that uses Facebook for personal use. I'm sure those that use it to further their Branding, this is exactly what they want and need. But then doesn't that commercialize Facebook and throw the personal use of it out the window? There are very few who understand what Facebook is doing or any of the implications, good and bad for their doing it. So open dialog is important. It's the only way people are going to be alerted that anything has changed and that it will have an affect on them.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
And if I work for a major corporation and you knew exactly who that was, I can assure you that they have no issue with you either. lol
The Facebook Privacy issues are a sore subject. For a subject to be sore, people have to care. If they didn't care, no one would say a word about anything they did and they would just leave. So as much as it is a hot topic, it's a personal topic for anyone that uses Facebook for personal use. I'm sure those that use it to further their Branding, this is exactly what they want and need. But then doesn't that commercialize Facebook and throw the personal use of it out the window? There are very few who understand what Facebook is doing or any of the implications, good and bad for their doing it. So open dialog is important. It's the only way people are going to be alerted that anything has changed and that it will have an affect on them.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Matt Cutts - "My concern is not that people are saying no to Facebook, but instead that this looks like a "Google vs. Facebook" issue, and that will make your moves and your comments less effective."
I couldn't agree more, Louis. I feel like I've got a solid blog post in me, but as a private/personal citizen, not as a Googler. There's a reason that I've done about 7,400 tweets over the years but zero Facebook status updates over the years. But I know that even if I post on my personal blog, even if I put a big "this is my personal take, and it has nothing to do with Google" disclaimer, it will get twisted into a "Google vs. Facebook" post. As it is, it's already turned into more of that than is productive.
So I'm leaning toward staying quiet, and hoping that Chris Dixon, Kevin Marks, Jeff Jarvis, Marshall Kirkpatrick, Dave Winer, Gina Trapani, Cory Doctorow, Leo Laporte, Andy Baio, Om Malik, Louis Gray, Anil Dash, Matt Haughey, Clay Shirky, Tim O'Reilly or similar independent voices weigh in with their take. :)Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I couldn't agree more, Louis. I feel like I've got a solid blog post in me, but as a private/personal citizen, not as a Googler. There's a reason that I've done about 7,400 tweets over the years but zero Facebook status updates over the years. But I know that even if I post on my personal blog, even if I put a big "this is my personal take, and it has nothing to do with Google" disclaimer, it will get twisted into a "Google vs. Facebook" post. As it is, it's already turned into more of that than is productive.
So I'm leaning toward staying quiet, and hoping that Chris Dixon, Kevin Marks, Jeff Jarvis, Marshall Kirkpatrick, Dave Winer, Gina Trapani, Cory Doctorow, Leo Laporte, Andy Baio, Om Malik, Louis Gray, Anil Dash, Matt Haughey, Clay Shirky, Tim O'Reilly or similar independent voices weigh in with their take. :)Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Louis Gray - Thanks, Matt. I know it is a hard position for you because of your visibility, and the assumption that you are a spokesperson for the company. I hope many of the folks you mentioned do the right thing. My choice is to not ever post before it is time. I will talk about this when I feel I am in a good position to do so.
And Linda, sorry if I was not more clear. I was speaking to individual people (Matt is one example), but did not call anyone out by name. This is not a personal story and I did not add links. That is not the role I wanted to play. When it's time for me to talk about Facebook, I will.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
And Linda, sorry if I was not more clear. I was speaking to individual people (Matt is one example), but did not call anyone out by name. This is not a personal story and I did not add links. That is not the role I wanted to play. When it's time for me to talk about Facebook, I will.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Laura Norvig - To Matt's list of inspiring independent voices, I'll add danah boyd - or perhaps she has posted on this already, I need to check. I also hope concern about this breaks into mainstream media, but I won't hold my breath.Apr 24DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
David Recordon - "Thus, their stand, however well-intended or not, looks more like an escalation of battle than it looks like them looking out for your own interests."
Agreed. I didn't read Chris Messina's blog as Chris, but as Google. In that light it feels hypocritical given that there's plenty of data such as what people search for, what they click on, how long they spend on those sites, etc which isn't shared but would be useful if you were building a search startup. And I imagine many people viewed my post in a similar fashion.
I joined Facebook because, as Eric Florenzano said earlier, I care about making a difference and not just making standards. I believe that Facebook is the best place to influence how the web is becoming social even if everything we do isn't perfect. And I still get paid to spend the majority of my time working on open source and standards. :)Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Agreed. I didn't read Chris Messina's blog as Chris, but as Google. In that light it feels hypocritical given that there's plenty of data such as what people search for, what they click on, how long they spend on those sites, etc which isn't shared but would be useful if you were building a search startup. And I imagine many people viewed my post in a similar fashion.
I joined Facebook because, as Eric Florenzano said earlier, I care about making a difference and not just making standards. I believe that Facebook is the best place to influence how the web is becoming social even if everything we do isn't perfect. And I still get paid to spend the majority of my time working on open source and standards. :)Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Rob Gordon - I don't know where the "independent voices" for standards and privacy are, but I know where they are not. They are not in the Silicon Valley pundit class. They have been absurdly fawning over Facebook for years to the point where it got an almost cult-like status. I think Google is doing something amazing here. This is lightyears better then Facebook. They have made some mistakes, but in the short time I have been here, I have met some really interesting new people. I almost never met anyone new on Facebook.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Heath - Yeah, rob - funny thing is that this is a lot like friendfeed - weird, huh?Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
George B. Moga - @Matthew Blaisdell Did you have a e-mail conversation with the friend Facebook suggested? If he imported your email address into Facebook, that could explain how you got the suggestion.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Thomas Power - Google do not have the skills to build a clone of Facebook. Google's DNA is Search not People. Facebook's DNA is People not Search. Google must acquire Twitter to attach the People attribute. Why it's so hard for them to reach this conclusion amazes me.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Peter du Toit - Wow fascinating discussion and one I feel we need to have. As a user I am fascinated by the concept of a "personalised" web experience. Visiting Pandora as per @Robert's comment above or CNN and seeing what my friends feel and think as they navigate those sites is simply awesome.
To have that happen everywhere I go on the web would change my experience completely.
However, I want voices that help me understand the price I will pay for having that experience. What are the implications? Kevin Costain and Chris Saad's comments are an example of just what I have been looking for. These are topics that help me make an informed decision or at least be aware of the implications of the experience I seek.
I really do think that the discussion should be how personalisation can be made possible without, for example, having all my eggs in one basket as it were.
(@Louis Gray hope this is on topic)Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
To have that happen everywhere I go on the web would change my experience completely.
However
I really do think that the discussion should be how personalisation can be made possible without, for example, having all my eggs in one basket as it were.
(@Louis Gray hope this is on topic)Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Robert Scoble - Rob Gordon: that is patently bullshit. You forget that Facebook kicked me off for 24 hours. I have spent a lot less time there since that happened and I have written endlessly about how Facebook -- as a company that has power over my life -- scares me. Even my "Ambition" post this week goes to great lengths to document the power they have and when I had a private meeting with Mark Zuckerberg I told him that he now is in the same position that the railroad executives were when they completed the cross-country railroad: they did massive good and made our country a great economic powerhouse but they also were given monopoly pricing power that was used to hurt a great number of people. I warned him to use his new power carefully or he'll end up being regulated. Facebook is turning into a utility that people and companies count on and in the USA we regulate utilities for a lot of good reasons.
I have seen the power that Facebook can use against people. My entire set of work was erased (and all the stuff written on my wall and pictures were erased too).
I haven't been the only one to write about these. Arrington (founder of Techcrunch) was far more adamant than me that Facebook shouldn't put his private stuff into public back then (I got kicked off because I was trying to scrape my friend's email addresses and pull those into Outlook, which was against Facebook's terms of service back then). No one listened to him and you are TOTALLY WRONG when you say no one in the Silicon Valley pundit class has been taking the side of standards and privacy.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I have seen the power that Facebook can use against people. My entire set of work was erased (and all the stuff written on my wall and pictures were erased too).
I haven't been the only one to write about these. Arrington (founder of Techcrunch) was far more adamant than me that Facebook shouldn't put his private stuff into public back then (I got kicked off because I was trying to scrape my friend's email addresses and pull those into Outlook, which was against Facebook's terms of service back then). No one listened to him and you are TOTALLY WRONG when you say no one in the Silicon Valley pundit class has been taking the side of standards and privacy.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Carl Levinson - ALL patents need to be in the GPL.
In a fully non-commercial world, this conversation would be moot.
Indeed, everyone's comments here point to a simply fact -
We'd all be better off working together in collaboration.
Then rather than Facebook or Google being forced to be a utility -
we'd all be part of a vigorously innovative "utility" - called Earth.
Keep in mind just how innovative the Linux, Apache, Cloudera people are.
Imagine if we all joined them.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
In a fully non-commercial world, this conversation would be moot.
Indeed, everyone's comments here point to a simply fact -
We'd all be better off working together in collaboration.
Then rather than Facebook or Google being forced to be a utility -
we'd all be part of a vigorously innovative "utility" - called Earth.
Keep in mind just how innovative the Linux, Apache, Cloudera people are.
Imagine if we all joined them.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Robert Scoble - This thread got me to write a blog post about privacy and Facebook which I've put here: http://scobleizer.com/2010/04/25/an-inch-closer-to-the-end-of-privacy-thanks-facebook/ Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Ileane Smith - @Robert Scoble I left a comment already. ThanksApr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Linda Lawrey - Interesting points of view. However, who is all for letting Facebook decide and set what privacy standards will now be for everyone. (Non-existent) Forget what you want for just a moment, but instead, think for just a moment how this would have been a media success and not just a Facebook success IF this had been given as a clear and TRANSPARENT choice to each and every Facebook User.
If you think that splash page that most X'd off because they didn't understand it, was clear or transparent, you are mistaken.
I read in one article that since the horse is now out of the barn, there's no putting it back. Why is that? Because Facebook does not and I repeat, does not listen to it's Users and has no intentions of putting it back. Not until the threat becomes too great will they make what they will call "adjustments".
As long as Social Media stories and articles insist that this is a good thing, the sheep will go along with it. @Robert Scoble - You are a BRAND. You should love this. However, how many of ALL of Facebook users are brands? And why aren't their wishes as important as the Brands there? And with Branding, comes a responsibility and this is what I see missing. The Brands aren't living up to a responsibility about this issue.
People forget that Facebook needs them more than they need Facebook. There's too many other choices, and that's what people need to be made aware of. However the Brands DO need Facebook. It makes sense that they will temper what they have to say when reporting about them.
It's politics, and the Facebook users are not Politicians. It's time Facebook quit looking at them as members of the Facebook Party just because they use the service. Sometimes change is not OK when it harms more than it helps. Again, clear and transparent choices would have been successful.
Total FAIL on Facebook's part to think by doing this they would be an industry leader in ridding the world of personal Privacy. The only one that wins under this scenario is Facebook. Some people get it, and some people have to wait until they are bitten in the ass to get it. I get it now.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
If you think that splash page that most X'd off because they didn't understand it, was clear or transparent, you are mistaken.
I read in one article that since the horse is now out of the barn, there's no putting it back. Why is that? Because Facebook does not and I repeat, does not listen to it's Users and has no intentions of putting it back. Not until the threat becomes too great will they make what they will call "adjustments".
As long as Social Media stories and articles insist that this is a good thing, the sheep will go along with it. @Robert Scoble - You are a BRAND. You should love this. However, how many of ALL of Facebook users are brands? And why aren't their wishes as important as the Brands there? And with Branding, comes a responsibility and this is what I see missing. The Brands aren't living up to a responsibility about this issue.
People forget that Facebook needs them more than they need Facebook. There's too many other choices, and that's what people need to be made aware of. However the Brands DO need Facebook. It makes sense that they will temper what they have to say when reporting about them.
It's politics, and the Facebook users are not Politicians. It's time Facebook quit looking at them as members of the Facebook Party just because they use the service. Sometimes change is not OK when it harms more than it helps. Again, clear and transparent choices would have been successful.
Total FAIL on Facebook's part to think by doing this they would be an industry leader in ridding the world of personal Privacy. The only one that wins under this scenario is Facebook. Some people get it, and some people have to wait until they are bitten in the ass to get it. I get it now.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Robert Scoble - I actually don't need Facebook at all. I get very little traffic from it and I rarely use it. My wife, however, is totally addicted to Facebook. Brands would do better over on Twitter and on Google Buzz, since those are open systems that get you onto Google.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Ed Millard - John 8:7 "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her”
So I'm not sure I follow Google employees being upset about Facebook's moves. Google's been pushing pretty hard to make our GMail login the pass key for our access to the web for a while... like Facebook. Google's been harvesting vast amounts of information about us as we roam the web, largely without people really knowing it for years... like Facebook. Google's been tying applications to get a better picture of a user for a while... like Facebook.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there is a simple opt out privacy setting, or account deactivation, to shut off Google's tracking. Google owns DoubleClick after all which is one of the most pervasive pieces of spyware there is on the web. Facebook seems to just be leapfrogging Google and taking this to the next level.
Destruction of privacy is pretty much an arms race now, and any company that unilaterally disarms and opts not to do it will probably lose the war. Most users don't seem to value privacy enough to not use a dominant service simply because it invades privacy. As long as all their friends use a service so will they... this is the lemmings effect.
It is probably naive at this point to think these dominant companies can self regulate on privacy because there is simply too much money, power, knowledge, control and success to be had by tracking people. There are also a lot of amazing new applications you can create from that knowledge that will surely seduce people in to throwing open every intimate detail of their lives. We can hope people are only surrendering their privacy to marketeers and their next obnoxious ad campaign, but when you see the rather large number of government requests being made to Google for information about people, or the extent to which employers now use your Internet trail to cull applicants, its probably already beyond that.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
So I'm not sure I follow Google employees being upset about Facebook's moves. Google's been pushing pretty hard to make our GMail login the pass key for our access to the web for a while... like Facebook. Google's been harvesting vast amounts of information about us as we roam the web, largely without people really knowing it for years... like Facebook. Google's been tying applications to get a better picture of a user for a while... like Facebook.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there is a simple opt out privacy setting, or account deactivation, to shut off Google's tracking. Google owns DoubleClick after all which is one of the most pervasive pieces of spyware there is on the web. Facebook seems to just be leapfrogging Google and taking this to the next level.
Destruction of privacy is pretty much an arms race now, and any company that unilaterally disarms and opts not to do it will probably lose the war. Most users don't seem to value privacy enough to not use a dominant service simply because it invades privacy. As long as all their friends use a service so will they... this is the lemmings effect.
It is probably naive at this point to think these dominant companies can self regulate on privacy because there is simply too much money, power, knowledge, control and success to be had by tracking people. There are also a lot of amazing new applications you can create from that knowledge that will surely seduce people in to throwing open every intimate detail of their lives. We can hope people are only surrendering their privacy to marketeers and their next obnoxious ad campaign, but when you see the rather large number of government requests being made to Google for information about people, or the extent to which employers now use your Internet trail to cull applicants, its probably already beyond that.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Robert Scoble - And Linda Lawrey, I ask the question in my blog but you don't answer it: if death of privacy is so awful, so unthinkable, why am I loving the new Pandora so much? This is what you don't get. We're getting something in return and that is why we are still on Facebook. If people don't get enough in return they'll leave but my experience with Pandora demonstrates they are getting enough in return and will stay.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Linda Lawrey - I agree with that, @Robert Scoble , ref Brands at Twitter and Buzz. Yet it's the Brands that haven't figured out how to use Buzz yet effectively. So they go with what they know and that's by displaying the Facebook logo and creating pages that NOW, are part of the reason there's such a stink about the privacy issue. Not because of anything that the brand did, mind you. But because of the changes Facebook made, which you have to admit, doesn't hurt a Brand one iota.
You can't turn on the TV, or go to any page that you don't see the Facebook logo. If a brand is not at Facebook, it's barely considered as credible anymore. They know it, and therefore they need it.
I read with interest your post about Pandora. And I found that while this worked great for you, and you have an understanding about how it works, how many of those that you may see shared information about, are aware that it's being shared with you. And who else. All because it was not a clear and transparent choice.
There's always a return, Robert. And there's always a price to pay to get that return. For some, they can afford it. For others, the price is too high.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
You can't turn on the TV, or go to any page that you don't see the Facebook logo. If a brand is not at Facebook, it's barely considered as credible anymore. They know it, and therefore they need it.
I read with interest your post about Pandora. And I found that while this worked great for you, and you have an understanding about how it works, how many of those that you may see shared information about, are aware that it's being shared with you. And who else. All because it was not a clear and transparent choice.
There's always a return, Robert. And there's always a price to pay to get that return. For some, they can afford it. For others, the price is too high.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Robert Scoble - Ed: +1000. I remember when Microsoft employees back in 2005 were bashing Google for having putting a cookie on users' computers that lasted nearly forever. Microsoft's cookie would only last a few days. They saw this as a HUGE breach on privacy and one that allowed Google to study user behavior in a lot more depth than Microsoft could.
We all know how that turned out. Google won because its search and advertising were better and Microsoft lost.
Privacy is dead.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
We all know how that turned out. Google won because its search and advertising were better and Microsoft lost.
Privacy is dead.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Eoghann Irving - Privacy is a red herring in this discussion.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Linda Lawrey - @Ed, I think it was clarified further up ^^^ that this wasn't about Google's opinion of Facebook's Privacy changes, but a few Google employees that made personal decisions about their personal Facebook accounts.
@Robert Scoble - No it's not. If you think it has to be, you're doing it wrong. lol Try using http://multiply.com . You decide clearly how much you want public and private. Millions of users there aren't wrong and their privacy is in tact according to the choices they make daily there.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
@Robert Scoble - No it's not. If you think it has to be, you're doing it wrong. lol Try using http://multiply.com . You decide clearly how much you want public and private. Millions of users there aren't wrong and their privacy is in tact according to the choices they make daily there.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Eoghann Irving - Anyone who raises issues with Facebook's new strategy is getting portrayed as some sort of privacy nut. But it's really not about that. It's about control. Control of your own identity. With this move Facebook is setting itself up as a defacto standard. It's only open in the sense that DOCX is open.
Anyone who dismisses this with "privacy is dead" or "look at the cool stuff I can find on Pandora now" has completely missed the point.
People aren't arguing against the socialization of the web. They're concerned about control sitting in the hands of a privately held company with a questionable record on censorship use of data.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Anyone who dismisses this with "privacy is dead" or "look at the cool stuff I can find on Pandora now" has completely missed the point.
People aren't arguing against the socialization of the web. They're concerned about control sitting in the hands of a privately held company with a questionable record on censorship use of data.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Ed Millard - Robert, privacy may indeed be dead, but you seem to put a lot more positive spin on that than I would or is probably deserved. Privacy and some anonymity are intrinsically good things. Anonymity is bad when it gives a blank check to trolls and slanderers, but is priceless when it enables the powerless to speak truth to power, to expose corruption among the powerful, or for someone to say something that needs to be said that would have dire consequences if the speaker is identified. For example, China is pretty merciless in trying to track down dissidents on Yahoo and Google for saying things the powers that be don't want to be said.
Most people don't appreciate their privacy, especially when you dangle shiny bobbles like Pandora in front of them. If you live in China, North Korea or Iran you probably appreciate their value more than if you are living the easy life in SF. But, as most governments and big corporations seem to be trending the wrong way on abuse of power no one is immune to being on the wrong end of privacy abuse.
You probably won't fully appreciate the intrinsic worth of privacy until you get badly burned by not having it. Even more insidious in the privacy arena is the fact you can get badly burned and never even know it for sure.
With great power comes great responsibility. You can't assume companies or governments will opt for responsible if their stock price, survival or hold on power is threatened, or there is simply a lot of money to be made. The last few years on Wall Street prove that.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Most people don't appreciate their privacy, especially when you dangle shiny bobbles like Pandora in front of them. If you live in China, North Korea or Iran you probably appreciate their value more than if you are living the easy life in SF. But, as most governments and big corporations seem to be trending the wrong way on abuse of power no one is immune to being on the wrong end of privacy abuse.
You probably won't fully appreciate the intrinsic worth of privacy until you get badly burned by not having it. Even more insidious in the privacy arena is the fact you can get badly burned and never even know it for sure.
With great power comes great responsibility. You can't assume companies or governments will opt for responsible if their stock price, survival or hold on power is threatened, or there is simply a lot of money to be made. The last few years on Wall Street prove that.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Saad - Well said Eoghann - this has nothing to do with privacy...
Nice to see David Recordon admit that he cares more about impacting the web than keeping it open and that he and Chris Messina now both (at least in part) represent their employers whenever they speak.
That's not bad, it's just true.
Again, the call from Louis is for independent yet impactful/authoritative voices to join those from the bigcos. Both are valid, but there is a serious lack of the former.
No one is calling conspiracy either so no idea where that thread of thinking came from. Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Nice to see David Recordon admit that he cares more about impacting the web than keeping it open and that he and Chris Messina now both (at least in part) represent their employers whenever they speak.
That's not bad, it's just true.
Again, the call from Louis is for independent yet impactful/authoritat
No one is calling conspiracy either so no idea where that thread of thinking came from.
Peter William Lount - "For Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart, it all started with Monica Lewinsky.
...
“My objective is not to necessarily have Canada play a leading role in international online privacy, my responsibility is to deliver privacy protection as appropriately as possible to Canadians,” Ms. Stoddart said in an interview with the Financial Post. “But very early on in my stint as Privacy Commissioner, I came to the realization that particularly because of our very close trade and cultural links with the United States, that this job couldn’t be done just in Canada.” By mandating that even the largest U.S. online companies abide by Canada’s privacy laws when doing business in Canada or handling the personal information of Canadian users, Ms. Stoddart is, in effect, a sort of global Web cop, helping to improve privacy for billions of users across the borderless Internet. Last year, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was thrust into the international spotlight after an exhaustive 14-month investigation into Facebook prompted sweeping changes as to how the world’s largest social network — with more than 400 million users — handles the sensitive personal information of its users. This week, Ms. Stoddart brought together a coalition of privacy watchdogs and data-protection authorities from 10 countries to publicly condemn Google Inc. for the botched launch of its Google Buzz service. Together, the group issued a stern open letter to the Web titan’s chief executive, Eric Schmidt, one designed to act as a warning to other online giants to take greater care to protect the personal information entrusted to them by their users or risk raising the ire of the international privacy community. “There’s a growing impatience among privacy regulatory authorities with the kind of behaviour that doesn’t take privacy regulation into account,” Ms. Stoddart said. "
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/fp/Canada+privacy+boss+setting+rules+world/2944821/story.html Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
...
“My objective is not to necessarily have Canada play a leading role in international online privacy, my responsibility is to deliver privacy protection as appropriately as possible to Canadians,” Ms. Stoddart said in an interview with the Financial Post. “But very early on in my stint as Privacy Commissioner, I came to the realization that particularly because of our very close trade and cultural links with the United States, that this job couldn’t be done just in Canada.” By mandating that even the largest U.S. online companies abide by Canada’s privacy laws when doing business in Canada or handling the personal information of Canadian users, Ms. Stoddart is, in effect, a sort of global Web cop, helping to improve privacy for billions of users across the borderless Internet. Last year, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner was thrust into the international spotlight after an exhaustive 14-month investigation into Facebook prompted sweeping changes as to how the world’s largest social network — with more than 400 million users — handles the sensitive personal information of its users. This week, Ms. Stoddart brought together a coalition of privacy watchdogs and data-protection authorities from 10 countries to publicly condemn Google Inc. for the botched launch of its Google Buzz service. Together, the group issued a stern open letter to the Web titan’s chief executive, Eric Schmidt, one designed to act as a warning to other online giants to take greater care to protect the personal information entrusted to them by their users or risk raising the ire of the international privacy community. “There’s a growing impatience among privacy regulatory authorities with the kind of behaviour that doesn’t take privacy regulation into account,” Ms. Stoddart said. "
http://www.vancou
Ed Millard - Chris, this is equal parts privacy and control. Much of the power, control and money is coming from privacy destruction.
I seriously don't know how the "independent voices" will fix this problem. Google co-opted many of the last generation of "independent voices" with lucrative job offers. Facebook co-opted the awesome FriendFeed team.
Several of the still independent voices I can think of still reflexively side with Facebook, Google, Apple or Microsoft because they rely on their good will one way or another to make a living. Can't blame them when a small number of companies control most of the oxygen in tech space. Louis is one of the most independent I can think of but even he has to tread gently when broaching this touchy issue between Facebook and Google.
There are voices that will advocate open source and completely open solutions but at the end of the day they never seem to matter and the control still seems to fall back in to the hands of whichever company is closest to achieving a monopoly position. About all I can expect an independent voice to achieve is to cajole these companies in to editing their "privacy policy" to quell the tempest and then to continue down the same road after a suitable pause. The monetary rewards are simply too great for them to take a pass. At the moment this seems to devolve in to whether Facebook or Google will be the gatekeeper to the web, and of course there is a side bet which would mix in Apple and their faction. To show how far the mighty have fallen no one seems to even bet on Microsoft any more.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I seriously don't know how the "independent voices" will fix this problem. Google co-opted many of the last generation of "independent voices" with lucrative job offers. Facebook co-opted the awesome FriendFeed team.
Several of the still independent voices I can think of still reflexively side with Facebook, Google, Apple or Microsoft because they rely on their good will one way or another to make a living. Can't blame them when a small number of companies control most of the oxygen in tech space. Louis is one of the most independent I can think of but even he has to tread gently when broaching this touchy issue between Facebook and Google.
There are voices that will advocate open source and completely open solutions but at the end of the day they never seem to matter and the control still seems to fall back in to the hands of whichever company is closest to achieving a monopoly position. About all I can expect an independent voice to achieve is to cajole these companies in to editing their "privacy policy" to quell the tempest and then to continue down the same road after a suitable pause. The monetary rewards are simply too great for them to take a pass. At the moment this seems to devolve in to whether Facebook or Google will be the gatekeeper to the web, and of course there is a side bet which would mix in Apple and their faction. To show how far the mighty have fallen no one seems to even bet on Microsoft any more.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Eoghann Irving - Another thought. If privacy is dead as the slogan goes. Can I have your credit card and bank account numbers?
Thought not.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Thought not.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Eric Souza - @Louis Gray, "Independent" voices will begin to sacrifice their independence as soon as they weigh in on the subject. They may not work for Google or Facebook but they might as well at that point. Perception is a powerful filter and no one is free of it.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
AJ Kohn - I'm certainly concerned about the direction that Facebook and, in some respects, Google is going in terms of privacy and opt-in versus opt-out.
However, I certainly don't want anyone (on either side) to think that they shouldn't make public statements about how they're reacting to the situation. Can it be tainted with bias? Sure. Does it point to a growing feud? Probably.
But I want that to be out in the open so I can apply my own critical thinking to the situation and determine what weight to apply to each argument and theory. It's my responsibility to make sense of this and come to my own conclusion. And that's what's missing when we talk about privacy - personal responsibility.
A tenuous connection in this argument - yes, but I think one that does apply. The minority in this thread or other areas in the small bubble that is the digerati/Internati are watching this closely and have passionate feelings on the subject. And our noise creates a 'be concerned about privacy' meme in the mainstream.
But what does the mainstream do with that privacy meme? Too often it seems that it's a like a local news report on a hurricane. A few days of paranoia, some preparation, but as the storm passes people simply forget and move on to something else.
Should Facebook and Google be strong advocates for the people who seemingly don't care enough about privacy to understand exactly what they're sharing? How far should they go? Who's responsibility is it? The company or the user?
In the end I think we're talking about proper disclosure, privacy policy and terms of use - you know, that thing you usually rush by, clicking the check box and hitting the agree button. (I recall some stat on the average time a user takes and it clearly shows we're not reading them.)
Usually if this type of thing is abused, users flee. But Google and Facebook provide a great deal of value - they even use this private information to make the experience better for you. The system isn't self-regulating in this instance. And that is a very real problem.
[edit] BTW - self-censorship is still censorship.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
However, I certainly don't want anyone (on either side) to think that they shouldn't make public statements about how they're reacting to the situation. Can it be tainted with bias? Sure. Does it point to a growing feud? Probably.
But I want that to be out in the open so I can apply my own critical thinking to the situation and determine what weight to apply to each argument and theory. It's my responsibility to make sense of this and come to my own conclusion. And that's what's missing when we talk about privacy - personal responsibility.
A tenuous connection in this argument - yes, but I think one that does apply. The minority in this thread or other areas in the small bubble that is the digerati/Internati are watching this closely and have passionate feelings on the subject. And our noise creates a 'be concerned about privacy' meme in the mainstream.
But what does the mainstream do with that privacy meme? Too often it seems that it's a like a local news report on a hurricane. A few days of paranoia, some preparation, but as the storm passes people simply forget and move on to something else.
Should Facebook and Google be strong advocates for the people who seemingly don't care enough about privacy to understand exactly what they're sharing? How far should they go? Who's responsibility is it? The company or the user?
In the end I think we're talking about proper disclosure, privacy policy and terms of use - you know, that thing you usually rush by, clicking the check box and hitting the agree button. (I recall some stat on the average time a user takes and it clearly shows we're not reading them.)
Usually if this type of thing is abused, users flee. But Google and Facebook provide a great deal of value - they even use this private information to make the experience better for you. The system isn't self-regulating in this instance. And that is a very real problem.
[edit] BTW - self-censorship is still censorship.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
World ofHiglet - I was glad to pick this up from you, Louis (through FF, of course). I was looking for the same kind of analysis you are talking about so I could post links to it. I don't usually blog about tech but they problem I have with these changes Facebook have made is that 'normal users' simply have no idea what the implications are.
I would like people to be able to make an informed choice about what they are sharing. As I said on FF earlier this week: "...Facebook has gone from a place where you connect, share and interact only with people you decide you want to, to a centralised information hub were every person and every company Facebook decides it wants you to interact with can claim a piece of you. The nods to privacy control are simply that. Most users will not reconfigure their accounts...." This is a massive change and I'd like to see what it means now and will mean in the future.
That's not to say I am against progress, but I do not like the way these changes have been made.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I would like people to be able to make an informed choice about what they are sharing. As I said on FF earlier this week: "...Facebook has gone from a place where you connect, share and interact only with people you decide you want to, to a centralised information hub were every person and every company Facebook decides it wants you to interact with can claim a piece of you. The nods to privacy control are simply that. Most users will not reconfigure their accounts...." This is a massive change and I'd like to see what it means now and will mean in the future.
That's not to say I am against progress, but I do not like the way these changes have been made.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Rob Gordon - @Robert Scoble - I'm sorry you consider my opinion "bullshit". I was not referring to you, and I don't know if you fit the bill or not. Remember I never knew who you were until I saw your post here: "is Robert Scoble still Relevant" and tried to figure out why someone would say something like that.
I was simply talking about how Silicon Valley has bred an insular, "group think" culture, that we recently saw again in an extreme form with all the iPad adoration. Facebook is an accident of history. They were in the right place at the right time to form a natural monopoly lying in wait. Along the way, they were helped by a few things they did right, possibly not even realizing how significant they were. First, since everyone had to be a student, they were automatically linked to an organization and a network of real friends, second, since they originally required a student ID they were able to breed a culture of "real names" - something no one else, including Google Buzz, has really ever been able to replicate.
When they opened the sites to adults (i.e. non-students) there might still have been room for a viable competitor to emerge, but the Silicon Valley hype culture kicked in and sucked all the oxygen out of the space. Facebook's claim to fame has always been their "privacy" - meaning that only your real-life friends can see your material. Now, to grow, they are trying to convince people that is no longer relevant and you really should be sharing everything all over the place. Unfortunately, people have seen their "push the privacy envelop and then fall back" strategy once too often now. I predict that Facebook has seen their high water mark.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I was simply talking about how Silicon Valley has bred an insular, "group think" culture, that we recently saw again in an extreme form with all the iPad adoration. Facebook is an accident of history. They were in the right place at the right time to form a natural monopoly lying in wait. Along the way, they were helped by a few things they did right, possibly not even realizing how significant they were. First, since everyone had to be a student, they were automatically linked to an organization and a network of real friends, second, since they originally required a student ID they were able to breed a culture of "real names" - something no one else, including Google Buzz, has really ever been able to replicate.
When they opened the sites to adults (i.e. non-students) there might still have been room for a viable competitor to emerge, but the Silicon Valley hype culture kicked in and sucked all the oxygen out of the space. Facebook's claim to fame has always been their "privacy" - meaning that only your real-life friends can see your material. Now, to grow, they are trying to convince people that is no longer relevant and you really should be sharing everything all over the place. Unfortunately, people have seen their "push the privacy envelop and then fall back" strategy once too often now. I predict that Facebook has seen their high water mark.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Steven Hodson - OMG @Rob_Gordon you don't know who Robert Scoble is <GASP> time to hand in your geek membership card and secret decoder ring young man <snicker>™Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Peter William Lount - I think for myself and form my own opinions about where the tech industry is going. I urge you to do the same as being lemmings isn't too satisfying. While others opinions might be interesting they are often not directly on target and I find I can usually do better once I dig into something. Besides usually someone else's opinion doesn't take into account all the nuances of your use cases for technology.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Ed Millard - Linda, the problem is when the Google people deactivated their accounts they twittered it, with pointers on how to do it to a large audience, It suddenly started to look like a subtle boycott campaign. I can't know their intent. Whether they intended it to or not it kind of turned in to a public relations event. I'm not a big fan of Facebook, their ads creep me out, I may even deactivate my own account, but for Google employees to be out front on this is certainly problematic which I think was Louis' point in the first place.
One wonders, if the Google people are so concerned about the fundamental issues Facebook's actions have raised, are they just as concerned when their own company does many of the exact same things, are they concerned enough to take a stand? It is unavoidable human nature that people tend to look the other way at their own companies actions when a lucrative career is at stake... which is why companies tend to turn evil. I'm not saying that Google has, they are certainly less bad than most but there is a constant struggle between good and evil.
If Google as a company wanted to make a positive statement about tracking people on the web they could shut down or seriously alter what DoubleClick does instead of worrying about Facebook. Google can't really since its now part of their bread and butter revenue stream and their are limits on the idealistic actions their board, executives and employees can take if it adversely impacts their shareholders.
We have an inherent problem in our system that companies, especially publicly traded ones, have to turn a profit. We all want money for nothing and the Internet for free. Since there is no such thing as a free lunch, Facebook and Google have to monetize us one way or another. So there is a pretty constant struggle to find the line where a company does enough to stay profitable and not too much and turn us all in to their cattle. It will be interesting to see where that shiny bauble Pandora falls in this monetization struggle in the long run.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
One wonders, if the Google people are so concerned about the fundamental issues Facebook's actions have raised, are they just as concerned when their own company does many of the exact same things, are they concerned enough to take a stand? It is unavoidable human nature that people tend to look the other way at their own companies actions when a lucrative career is at stake... which is why companies tend to turn evil. I'm not saying that Google has, they are certainly less bad than most but there is a constant struggle between good and evil.
If Google as a company wanted to make a positive statement about tracking people on the web they could shut down or seriously alter what DoubleClick does instead of worrying about Facebook. Google can't really since its now part of their bread and butter revenue stream and their are limits on the idealistic actions their board, executives and employees can take if it adversely impacts their shareholders.
We have an inherent problem in our system that companies, especially publicly traded ones, have to turn a profit. We all want money for nothing and the Internet for free. Since there is no such thing as a free lunch, Facebook and Google have to monetize us one way or another. So there is a pretty constant struggle to find the line where a company does enough to stay profitable and not too much and turn us all in to their cattle. It will be interesting to see where that shiny bauble Pandora falls in this monetization struggle in the long run.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
WarLord Writer - Privacy is a slippery slope and sometimes like the song says: You don't now what you got til its Gone" Changing the TOS without a crystal clear opt-in is bad on its face BUT I just assume that it's like writing on a bilboard OTOH the quality of information being gathered about me is clealy suspect. Thanx for sharing a fascinating threadApr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Rob Gordon - @Ed Mallard. There is no doubt that Google knows far more about our activities than Facebook does - call that spying if you want. Facebook, however, made "privacy" part of its core identity, so they have almost violated their very reason for being.
I heard once that a true "scandal" is relative - it happens when someone violates their identity or a reputation they have cultivated. When a preacher of family values politician gets caught with some hooker, it is a scandal, but how would someone like - oh, say Madonna or someone like that have a scandal? She would have to be caught listening to some Barry Manilow records!Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I heard once that a true "scandal" is relative - it happens when someone violates their identity or a reputation they have cultivated. When a preacher of family values politician gets caught with some hooker, it is a scandal, but how would someone like - oh, say Madonna or someone like that have a scandal? She would have to be caught listening to some Barry Manilow records!Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Linda Lawrey - @ Ed, when I shut down my Facebook, I not only twittered about it, but I buzzed it, and made a lot of phone calls. Again , people have to stop with the "you are who you work for" perception. That would mean the jobless have no value in society. No voice.
What they did wasn't wrong. What people chose to perceive by reading information that had no relevance or value, was and will continue to be wrong, for those that do it. Everything you read isn't news, and all news you read isn't reported correctly. It's a spin.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
What they did wasn't wrong. What people chose to perceive by reading information that had no relevance or value, was and will continue to be wrong, for those that do it. Everything you read isn't news, and all news you read isn't reported correctly. It's a spin.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Steven Hodson - @Linda Lawrey just curious as to what makes you think the jobless (or the homeless which is just one short step from jobless) have a voice? Don't get me wrong I would like to believe that they would but practical real world living proves otherwise IMO.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Gord Wait - I've been following this with interest trying to decide why I feel I trust google more than facebook.
Both benefit the more we share with them, both have had privacy blunders, and also challenged us about how much we want to share.
I have the sense that Google's "Cloud OS" is far better put together than Facebook, so would hopefully better protect the data we want to keep semiprivate better than Facebook. Facebook's "random" user interface changes and pretty much horribly confusing user interface tells me that they have an out of control development process and hacked together infrastructure. I can't believe they patented their news feed scheme - why would anyone want to replicate it? It stinks!
Litmus test - would you share your credit card number with Facebook, or Google?
I do feel that Google do take our privacy more seriously than Facebook, although both Mark Zuckerberg and Eric Schmidt seem to have equal amounts of hubris lately.
When google did the "share your follower list" gaffe (when you clicked on "Try Buzz") I got the sense that they were seriously sorry about it, and hadn't thought it through.
When facebook gets challenged on similar privacy issues, they seem to only back down grudgingly, and would return to "misbehaving" with our privacy as soon as we're not paying attention.
Not at all a scientific theory, just the sense I'm left with after absorbing all this for the last few months. Perhaps all it means is Facebook needs better PR..Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Both benefit the more we share with them, both have had privacy blunders, and also challenged us about how much we want to share.
I have the sense that Google's "Cloud OS" is far better put together than Facebook, so would hopefully better protect the data we want to keep semiprivate better than Facebook. Facebook's "random" user interface changes and pretty much horribly confusing user interface tells me that they have an out of control development process and hacked together infrastructure. I can't believe they patented their news feed scheme - why would anyone want to replicate it? It stinks!
Litmus test - would you share your credit card number with Facebook, or Google?
I do feel that Google do take our privacy more seriously than Facebook, although both Mark Zuckerberg and Eric Schmidt seem to have equal amounts of hubris lately.
When google did the "share your follower list" gaffe (when you clicked on "Try Buzz") I got the sense that they were seriously sorry about it, and hadn't thought it through.
When facebook gets challenged on similar privacy issues, they seem to only back down grudgingly, and would return to "misbehaving" with our privacy as soon as we're not paying attention.
Not at all a scientific theory, just the sense I'm left with after absorbing all this for the last few months. Perhaps all it means is Facebook needs better PR..Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Linda Lawrey - How many people who can affect what happens in social networking do you think are online that fit into this category, @Steven Hodson? Percentages for instance. I think most would find it very interesting if they actually knew these numbers.
I've been doing this a very long time and my experience is that MANY involved in social networking and shaping the outcome of how it's used (and abused in some cases) are disabled, elderly and unemployed. Many more are self employed (which sometimes feels like unemployed, lol ) Then you have the "unemployed by choice", the stay at home moms who of all, can be the MOST vocal. (I love Mommy bloggers - they are the BEST)
When social networking wasn't at the job place, all of these people were the ones who made social networking what it is today. It's their voices that gave us the rights we have online today, and spurned the options that we do have. I still believe they are the voices that count. They are also least likely to be intimidated by those that are trying to change things without being clear about the changes.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I've been doing this a very long time and my experience is that MANY involved in social networking and shaping the outcome of how it's used (and abused in some cases) are disabled, elderly and unemployed. Many more are self employed (which sometimes feels like unemployed, lol ) Then you have the "unemployed by choice", the stay at home moms who of all, can be the MOST vocal. (I love Mommy bloggers - they are the BEST)
When social networking wasn't at the job place, all of these people were the ones who made social networking what it is today. It's their voices that gave us the rights we have online today, and spurned the options that we do have. I still believe they are the voices that count. They are also least likely to be intimidated by those that are trying to change things without being clear about the changes.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Saad - DataPortability post on the FB announcements http://blog.dataportability.org/2010/04/25/assessing-the-openess-of-facebooks-open-graph-protocol/ Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Heath - So, I'm watching http://live.twit.tv and Leo's getting ready for TWiT (live @ 6pm eastern) and he mentioned the stories they're going to talk about. F8 is one of them - so, if you're looking for some independent voices talking on the subject tune in!Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Steven Hodson - @Chris Heath thanks for the reminder about TWit .. I'm not normall a big watcher - or fan - but this could be an interesting discussionApr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Matt Cutts - "If Google as a company wanted to make a positive statement about tracking people on the web they could shut down or seriously alter what DoubleClick does instead of worrying about Facebook."
I can't resist that one, Ed. :) Google did seriously alter what DoubleClick does. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/making-ads-more-interesting.html is a pretty good write-up, but the short version is:
- we let people see (and modify!) what interests we think they have.
- if that's not enough, we let people opt-out of interest-based targeting completely.
- if that's not enough, we worked with privacy groups to design and implement an advertising cookie Opt-out Plugin for both IE and Firefox. The plugin is at http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/plugin/ if you want. The dev version of Chrome also has recently gained more granular privacy controls over cookies, JS, etc., by the way, and we haven't tried to keep people from developing ad-blocking plugins for Chrome.
The net result was really surprising (to me). Only a relatively small number of people visit that opt-out page each week, and the majority of them change their interests rather than opting out. It turns out that the number of people who use the browser plugin--which ensures consistent opt-out even if you clear your cookies--is truly miniscule. But providing those options for DoubleClick ads gives a lot more transparency/choice/control for users. Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I can't resist that one, Ed. :) Google did seriously alter what DoubleClick does. http://googleblog.bl
- we let people see (and modify!) what interests we think they have.
- if that's not enough, we let people opt-out of interest-based targeting completely.
- if that's not enough, we worked with privacy groups to design and implement an advertising cookie Opt-out Plugin for both IE and Firefox. The plugin is at http://www.google.co
The net result was really surprising (to me). Only a relatively small number of people visit that opt-out page each week, and the majority of them change their interests rather than opting out. It turns out that the number of people who use the browser plugin--which ensures consistent opt-out even if you clear your cookies--is truly miniscule. But providing those options for DoubleClick ads gives a lot more transparency/choice/
Ed Millard - Thanks Matt, good pointers and good to know. Do you think maybe "Only a relatively small number of people visit" is because 99% if the people on the web don't know about these, or what DoubleClick is, what it does or why they might want to opt out?
Much of the flack Facebook is getting from F8 is the auto opt in part, and so is DoubleClick. Though it is nice there is some place no one knows about to opt out :) My mom has Symantec on her PC and looking at its log it appears they spend significant energy killing your DoubleClick cookies.
I saw this on Hacker News today, its kind of grinding an axe with Facebook but it makes you think, http://blog.jperla.com/facebook-is-a-ponzi-scheme-0 . Me personally I never click on ads so I always wonder who does or how anyone makes money on them. Targeted Google ads on searches might have better odds, but still you have to wonder if Facebook in particular needs to insert itself deeper in its users lives and shopping patterns before people figure out ads are a waste of money and before they IPO. The possibility FB will try to become the new Amazon with reviews from people you actually know was an interest part of TwitTV today. Reviews from people you know seem better than Amazon's reviews from people you don't and don't trust.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Much of the flack Facebook is getting from F8 is the auto opt in part, and so is DoubleClick. Though it is nice there is some place no one knows about to opt out :) My mom has Symantec on her PC and looking at its log it appears they spend significant energy killing your DoubleClick cookies.
I saw this on Hacker News today, its kind of grinding an axe with Facebook but it makes you think, http://blog.jperla.c
Chris Heath - FB has a lot more demographic info on its users than google does (i would hope) so they can sell ads for more, right? - and isn't it a big assumption that they'll eventually IPO?Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Matt Cutts - "Do you think maybe 'Only a relatively small number of people visit' is because 99% if the people on the web don't know about these"?
Ed, it's not for lack of talking about it. Here's a story from Forbes less than two weeks ago http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/12/privacy-facebook-gmail-technology-security-google.html where we talked about it (plus our privacy dashboard).
In fact, Alma Whitten from Google also did a proactive tour recently to talk about privacy. See e.g. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/0409/1224267969122.html for a story from earlier this month from proactively reaching out to talk about privacy. So we've been talking recently about privacy and the controls that Google gives.Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Ed, it's not for lack of talking about it. Here's a story from Forbes less than two weeks ago http://www.forbes.co
In fact, Alma Whitten from Google also did a proactive tour recently to talk about privacy. See e.g. http://www.irishtime
Peter du Toit - @Chris Saad thanks for the DataPortability link. On the privacy front, auto opt-in aside, (which to many is a big deal) am I understanding this correctly that host sites have no access to user’s data, gestures or friends?Apr 25DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Ray Cromwell - Here's a piece I wrote in 2008 "Decentralizing the Web" (http://timepedia.blogspot.com/2008/05/decentralizing-web.html ), so I claim zero Google bias, in fact, my preference for openness and federation goes back to my long history of internet usage, and as the piece explains, in the days of less powerful server hardware, and no one-size-fits-all browser client, cooperation and federation were pretty much a given if you wanted to scale something up. I feel like we've definitely lost something from that era, and Facebook's moves are just all the more depressing in that context.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Jesse Stay - Well said, Louis. I didn't want to say this specifically because due to some of my negativity towards Google in the past I did not want to sound like I was just being more negative. It was the inspiration for this blog post, though: http://staynalive.com/articles/2010/04/23/google-you-have-the-same-thing-as-facebook-why-not-promote-it/ - I prefer the positive, innovative approach than the negative, "you're doing it wrong so I quit", or "you're evil" approach. Get out and compete - that's the best way to make your statement. Take that as motivation to get focused and do something better.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Ray Cromwell - Part of competing is pointing out flaws in competitor products as well as producing products, I think it's fair game. If you're producing a great phone, for example, it's fair game to point out the disadvantages of Apple's heavily controlled ecology to end user, developer, and industry as a whole. If I had gotten banned like FriendConnect got banned, I might have felt just like those who get rejected capriciously in the Apple store, yes, maybe there was a new API, yes, maybe TOS was revised, but no matter what, you can still be rejected at will and whim in a closed ecosystem. At that point, you're on the competitors territory and they hold all the cards. That's why centrally controlled networks pose risks.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Jesse Stay - Ray, FriendConnect didn't get banned - they just chose not to do it the right wayApr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Jesse Stay - Ray, also, it's tough to see the new products and where the focus is when all you see is "I hate Facebook" everywhere you go. There are near 500 million Facebook users that really like Facebook. When Google employees criticize it forces them to make a choice between one or the other, and if their favorite tool is the one being criticized you can guess which one they'll chose. It doesn't have to be that way.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
George B. Moga - Wow, to choose between Google and Facebook? Tough choice... NOT!
I'll go with Google if it comes to that, thank you!Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
I'll go with Google if it comes to that, thank you!Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Myles - @Matt Cutts I would be VERY interested in your personal (non Google) view of the latest facebook updates via the blog post you mentioned. Your tweet was heard around the world and I would be interested in some of the details behind your very public statement.
Did you actually try one of the instant personalization sites before you deactivated your account? I think the facebook banner, with links to what and how the site is using your data is very clear. I also think the privacy settings that facebook forced me to review last Dec were also clear (http://news.cnet.com/8301-19518_3-10411418-238.html?tag=mncol;txt ) and that is when the data I have seen discussed (name, profile picture, gender, current city, networks you belong to, friend lists, and pages you're a fan of) was made public to Third-party applications/sites.
@DeWitt Clinton Sorry but I completely agree with Louis here.. you made a very dramatic statement including "how to deactivate Facebook" links and you didn't include what happens once you get to one of those instant personalization sites (the OR part of one of your screen shots).Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Did you actually try one of the instant personalization sites before you deactivated your account? I think the facebook banner, with links to what and how the site is using your data is very clear. I also think the privacy settings that facebook forced me to review last Dec were also clear (http://news.cnet.co
@DeWitt Clinton Sorry but I completely agree with Louis here.. you made a very dramatic statement including "how to deactivate Facebook" links and you didn't include what happens once you get to one of those instant personalization sites (the OR part of one of your screen shots).Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Heath - @Chris Myles - the problem is the power-grab that this represents. If you compare it to FriendConnect they basically allow for the same kind of things but FriendConnect is open and other companies can implement it to their advantage (afaik). This Facebook move is not open in that fashion. Facebook is the only company that this system can work with, and while that's fine - they can do whatever they want - it's also not what a lot of us want.
We want these 'social graphs' to not be controlled by any one company. Facebook, by virtue of it's momentum, may have already closed the door on this type of 'open social graph'. They'll provide enough value with enough ease for 99% of their users to not care about privacy or control.
AOL for the 21st century.
(please correct me if i'm wrong here)Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
We want these 'social graphs' to not be controlled by any one company. Facebook, by virtue of it's momentum, may have already closed the door on this type of 'open social graph'. They'll provide enough value with enough ease for 99% of their users to not care about privacy or control.
AOL for the 21st century.
(please correct me if i'm wrong here)Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Myles - @Chris Heath, Based on my experience with Google friend connect I would now consider it more closed than facebook. I completely understand peoples desire to not have one company control the "social graphs" but facebook is only controlling theirs. Facebook doesn't own the web but they have just released a complete example of the power of that social graph and how it can/will shape the future. They also give access to their graph so others can use it.. I don't think that means the end of the open social graph, I think it signifies the beginning!!Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Ray Cromwell - Jesse, I think that's a false dichotomy. It's possible to simultaneously criticize something, and work with it. For example, Google is still producing software for the iPhone even though individual engineers may be very critical, one cannot attribute the personal opinions of a few engineers as official company policy. Various open web Google advocates have criticized Flash in the past and advocated HTML5, yet Google is known to still be working with Adobe on Flash support.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Jesse Stay - Ray, I'm just saying how it came off to me. George, I'm curious, why do you choose Google?Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Jesse Stay - Chris Heath, Chris Myles is correct - FriendConnect is not released under the OWFa, and cannot be duplicated. The idea that Facebook Social Plugins are closed and FriendConnect isn't is a myth. Same goes for Facebook Graph API and Google Social Graph API - both are closed in Google's definition of the word. It makes me mad when I hear that Google is open and Facebook isn't, in fact - total FUD.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Linda Lawrey - Enjoy: http://www.google.com/buzz/lslawrey/6nRsGd7XrvM/Peek-A-Boo-I-SEE-everything-you-do-And-Im-not-even Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Jesse Stay - Linda, now try that with a Google profile :-)Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Heath - Thanks for the correction guys.
What kind of surf tracking do these services from Google and Facebook do? I've been told that Facebook will know all the sites that you go to (if the site has a like button - even if you don't click it - as long as you're logged in to FB while surfing).
If they're only tracking when you click the like button I would think that's okay, but if they're gathering info without any action on my part that is a problem.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
What kind of surf tracking do these services from Google and Facebook do? I've been told that Facebook will know all the sites that you go to (if the site has a like button - even if you don't click it - as long as you're logged in to FB while surfing).
If they're only tracking when you click the like button I would think that's okay, but if they're gathering info without any action on my part that is a problem.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
George B. Moga - @Jesse Stay I would choose Google because right now there is more value added (more services and more useful than just social). I can always connect to people by e-mail/phone etc. but I can't have meaningful search/e-mail from Facebook.
Btw, I checked out Pandora today and funny thing happened: they are only available in the US! Now try selling this recommendation stuff to non-US residents... Guess Facebook forgot all about it's international users.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Btw, I checked out Pandora today and funny thing happened: they are only available in the US! Now try selling this recommendation stuff to non-US residents... Guess Facebook forgot all about it's international users.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Jesse Stay - George, Pandora wasn't the only launch partner, and they're not the only ones with access to this data. Lots of other examples out there.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
George B. Moga - As far as I saw, Docs isn't ready for prime time either :)
Maybe I will give this thing a shot when there is actually something to look at.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Maybe I will give this thing a shot when there is actually something to look at.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Jesse Stay - George, look at HuffingtonPost.com, Yahoo, JibJab - there was a whole page of partners in Zuck's presentation at http://apps.facebook.com/f8live . Check those out as well. I think it's pretty easy to get the just of all of this. Or, just peruse through http://developers.facebook.com and see what you can do there. There's a ton of stuff you can do.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Chris Myles - George, Yelp instant personalization is pretty good and nails a use case I've been explaining for a while.. "I don't give a @$%# about the world thinks is a great sushi restaurant but I do care about what my friends (and trusted resources) think". Now I can __show them what I mean and move on to the next use cases.Apr 26DeleteUndo deleteReport spamNot spam
Louis Gray has disabled comments on this post
Comment
Like