Google: Facebook Can’t Import Our User Data Any Longer Without Reciprocity | Hacker News Reader

Google: Facebook Can’t Import Our User Data Any Longer Without Reciprocity

techcrunch.com

175 pointsssclafani62 comments

I don't get why the author claims this is a move towards google being more closed. All they ask is that you share back. According to that argument the GPL is on the path to closed source.

Agreed. This is a much better argument for Facebook being 'closed.'

Perhaps closed was the wrong word — it's certainly more restrictive, is it not?

It's my data. If I want to bring it to another service, I should be able to — at least, that's what Google has been saying for a long time now. Even if my data is ultimately going to be locked up in this other site, is that not my decision to make?

Export your data to a file. Import your data into whatever app or service you like. All Google is saying is that if some other service wants to scrape your data automatically and with your permission, then they need to let Google do the same, scrape your data with your permission.

Valid point, but the hurdle associated with exporting and re-uploading that data is non-trivial for most people. Is it truly portable if a user can't figure out how to take it with them in the first place?

Edit: I should add that I think a fairer exchange of information between Google and Facebook would be a good thing for users. I just think the way Google is doing this conflicts to some degree with their past mission statements regarding users owning their data.

Is it truly portable if its impossible to take it with you in the first place? Because thats what Google seems to be fighting against here.

Do you think that Google thinks that Facebook is going to give in because of this? They're not fighting anything. It's a convenient excuse for getting their users caught in the crossfire. If Google believes that open data is the right thing to do, then they should be doing it unconditionally, not using it as a bargaining chip.

If it really is our data, then they should provide some sort of export-to-file that you could conceivably upload somewhere else. Streamlining the process of moving to another site, though, isn't part of being open with data. Its just a courtesy that they are now choosing not to extend.

With an export-to-file, you control your data in every meaningful way, Google has complete control over their product in every meaningful way, and Facebook doesn't get to freeload.

Plus, if they offered to upload from files, it would open up this process to anyone using non-mainstream services who could conceivably export in the same format.

The main thing is I don't see Google taking a hit in the press for this, considering that it's clearly fair.

> It's my data. If I want to bring it to another service, I should be able to

Technically, you can. You can already move your data from Facebook to Google, or any place else. You just can't use an API to do it with. Google isn't imposing conditions on data. Instead, they are imposing restrictions on using it's API to access that data. You might consider it splitting hairs, but it's important.

As a business, I shouldn't be required to build things into my API I don't want, and I shouldn't be required to give access to anyone that asks my API. I should be allowed to build an API as I deem necessary.

While it's beneficial for users to have access to easily transport their data from one service to another, that should be my choice to set up.

I would say that the GPL is closer to closed source than MIT/Apache, in that it puts more restrictions on how you use the code.

That is only possible if you completely subvert the actual meaning of "open source". Feel free to argue that you think MIT/BSD gives more freedom to the downstream developer but please do not play around with words. GPL is open source, and ensures its derivatives stay open source. MIT/BSD do not do the latter, for better or worse.

It's the difference between the freedom of a bill of rights and the freedom of anarchy. Both ways make sense, they just don't get along together.

All politics and possible ulterior motives aside, this is awesome. I wish more companies made ballsy moves with the intended effect of giving users more control!

to their credit, google has also been remarkably open and user-oriented with the technologies they (we) have paid to develop. i commend them on this stance.

"the intended effect of giving users more control"

Isn't that a side effect? I would've thought that the intended effect was strengthening Google's position?

You're probably right, but I'm quite happy about this. I had to manually get e-mail addresses from Facebook recently to create a wedding-invitee Google contacts list. And there have been several situations when I needed a number from Facebook and had to use my phone to first log into Facebook to get it.

Yea Google is about 3-4 years too late of when this could have affected Facebook.

If nothing else it highlights the Facebook lock-in.

Highlights it to whom? Most new users won't realize that the feature existed and no longer works, most current users obviously don't care. The only people who will know about this are people who follow tech news - and we already know that Facebook is closed.

This is the beginning of the PR blitz against Facebook's data lock-in by Google.

This will still work well with other open-ended social networks like Foursquare and Twitter. I think this is actually a huge leap forward in social technology

+1 for Google.

When I used to develop Facebook apps, long ago, the primary was blow was no access to full contact data.

Glad someone with weight is finally standing up and showing them the wrongness of their approach.

Google's position is completely fair, but they should probably spend more effort trying to not suck at social, and less effort trying to undermine Facebook.

It's pretty remarkable how poor their social products have been, especially compared to other new product initiatives, like Android.

How can Google save its social strategy at this point (other than by trying to chip away at Facebook with tiny measures like this)?

I disagree. I don't want to rely on Google for social. Separation of concerns is very important.

As is data portability. This isn't an anti-competitive move, this is a pro-openness move.

This is bad. First of all, while it clearly targets Facebook, what about my confidential work contacts that I upload in salesforce or exchange? Now my company has an obligation to let Google export my contacts?

Second, if you read carefully, the condition is impossible to meet:

in a way that’s substantially as fast and easy as exporting such data from Google Contacts

I would argue that since Google claims to be the fastest service out there, no one can be as fast as they are. And when they come with a twice as fast, and one-click export, it will automatically force hundreds of small apps to align or die? That doesn't make any sense and was poorly written.

Third, it's my data. I should own it. If I give permission to give it to Facebook, I don't want Google to have any say or impose any conditions.

You are being way to alarmist.

I fail to see how this is bad. If Salesforces wants to access Google contact information, then it's only fair for Google to be able to access Salesforce contact info.

And this access isn't some automated way for Google to suck all your confidential data out - it's only on your request that the data would be accessed. Just like when facebook asked for your permission to access your google contacts to see if other friends are already using facebook.

Whilst Google is doing this to protect their market, it should nevertheless be applauded for 'encouraging' others to be more open.

You're over thinking it.

You still have full control over connecting to Google. If you don't want two-way syncing, and you don't trust it, then don't connect. The clause reads "agreeing to enable your users to"; i.e. you get to decide when data is transfered.

Giving permission to Google to share your Google contacts with Facebook is an inherently different action from giving Facebook permission to share your Facebook contacts with Google. This clause simply ensures that you have the choice to go either or both ways.

Google is saying "Sure if the user wants to use his/her data imported into Facebook by means of a Google account, they can do so easily; however it should go both ways, if a user wants to sync his data the other way around from his Facebook account to his Google account, he/she should be able to do so."

How can this be a bad thing? Yeah it's your data and you should be in control, how is Google imposing anything on you or your data? If anything Google is on your side asking Facebook to give YOU the ability to use your own data on their services if you see fit.

IMO great move by Google.

Substantially as fast, not just as fast. To me, that means that the speed must be within an order of magnitude of Google's - as in, you click some buttons, wait 30-60 seconds, and you're exported. You can't have some ridiculous "your request will be processed within 7 business days" mechanism.

"This is a move toward being more closed, though Google is positioning it as a strategy to help make the web more open in the long-term."

This is completely wrong, it is a move towards others being more open. Google is just as open, only demanding reciprocity. So, potential change will result is more openness, since Google is still open and just demanding those who use the data to also be.

What is sad about Facebook not allowing users to export their contacts is that they let advertisers and apps have access to your contacts without your permission. I doubt Facebook will do anything about this, it would take their users screaming for it.

Facebook could simply work around this. They don't have to use the official API. They probably scrape for AOL/Yahoo/Hotmail. They can do it for Gmail too. Then Google's only recourse would be to sue them. It'd be beautiful too because then we'd get to see Facebook argue in favor of what it doesn't itself allow.

AOL, Yahoo, and Hotmail all provide contact APIs. The amount of traffic Facebook generates would be unmistakable and Google would just block them.

With a large and diverse enough IP address pool they could probably get around being blocked. It might be cost prohibitive though.

also illegal?

They could try calling a law enforcement agency claiming Facebook was hacking, but a) they probably wouldn't do that b) the agency would probably tell them it was a civil matter.

Much more likely that it would result in a lawsuit than handcuffs.

Another workaround would be creating a third-party service for importing contacts from Google. That third-party would have an access to Coogle contacts but not Facebook friendlist. Thus it wouldn't violate Google TOS because it wouldn't have any data for Google to return back.

On Facebook side they might create a new accounts for that third-party automatically. Just a small note at the bottom of importing form saying that FB uses this service would be enough.

That third party would have a small website where users can view their importing history, for example. They could even use Facebook Connect for authentication! :)

>Another workaround would be creating a third-party service for importing contacts from Google.

http://www.goosync.com/

While I appreciate this move--Facebook is a silo and you need to be able to get your data out--it's probably too little, too late.

Facebook has half a billion users and this mostly affects you when you sign up. It feels like the ship has sailed.

Also, it'll need some other big players to adopt the same approach: Yahoo and Microsoft for a start.

Except Microsoft and Yahoo already negotiated with Facebook for access to their contacts:

"And it has also forged deals with both Hotmail and Yahoo that will let those services access its contact data. Google didn’t do a partnership with Facebook, so it doesn’t get the goods."

Which makes me more curious why Google did not negotiate a similar deal and why they are trying to force the issue now.

While I don't agree with many of Facebook's privacy decisions, this seems quite heavy handed on Google's side, to me. For google to say - if you use our API, then these are the features you have to provide in your own API - I'm sorry but who is Google to dictate what other companies do with their own data? Who gets to decide what's "Substantially fast", or "Easy"? Google I guess. How is this going to affect us - the small startups and independed developers - what happens when our 'export contacts' function doesn't work fast enough (at Google's sole discretion) and they shut down our access? Sorry, but this sounds borderline evil (disguised as altruism) to me.

Google has every right to determine what the price to use their data is. You may not like it, but it's within their rights. To put it another way - What right do you have to dictate under what terms Google shares their data?

And yes, this sort of thing is a risk you take when you start depending on a third party that has no contractual obligations to you. If you don't like it, don't depend on them - there are alternatives.

Just because they have the right to do it doesn't mean it's right to do it. You don't see a problem with a gigantic company using their dominance to dictate how other companies do business? When Microsoft did this, it was called a Monopoly. Now when Google does this, it's 'liberation'?

Difference is, google gives the same rights to its users.

Who's data is it? Is it Google's data, the user's data, Facebook's data?

Because your argument still makes sense to me if we swap out Google with Facebook.

Perhaps some legislated user's bill of rights is in order?

It's Google's data - they collected it from the user, to be used as they see fit subject to the terms of service.

Of course it's the same situation for Facebook. They can prevent others from using their data if they want - that just means that they don't get to use Google's data.

Personally, I don't know if a user's bill of rights is going to be helpful - If you don't like the terms of service, don't give your data.

You're looking at this completely the wrong way. For starters:

who is Google to dictate what other companies do with their own data

It's our data, not Facebooks, not Google's. Google is providing a benefit for Facebook and it's users and in return want's Facebook to provide the same. This is a good business decision for Google, a relatively very small nuisance for Facebook (since they do have a feature to export data), and a great BIG step in providing us, the USERS, with simple ways to use out data wherever/however we see fit. They are not dictating what other companies should do with their data, they're asking for the data stream to be importable/exportable by means of a two way sync in which the user is the one in control of their information.

Also, "substantially fast" and "easy", means "in a non crippling way". They don't want to get screwed over by Facebook adding what Google requests but maiming to a point it's not useful to anyone, in which case both the users and Google suffer from it.

How is this going to affect us - the small startups and independed developers

How is it going to affect you? Easy, after you leverage Google's API for years to get a gazillion users and a 25 billion dollar valuation, Google is going to expect you to play nice and share your data with them, but only if your users want to so anyway.

You know what sounds borderline evil to me? That you want to leverage the users data the resides in Google's servers and also take advantage of the API's Google make accessible, but don't want to have to go thru the trouble of giving them the same treatment. I find the company that doesn't comply with such a simple request more evil than the company that provides such a service and wants to build a relationship based on reciprocity, but is forced to close it's doors because someone doesn't want to play nice.

My question is: Why did they wait until now?

Negotiations for reciprocity probably failed.

I like the spirit and educational value of this move. Doesn't this make it difficult, however, for new developers to leverage google's contact data? Will they have to go through an approval process?

What would this mean for Facebook if Yahoo and MS followed suit?

> "Facebook has never allowed users to export the contact information of their friends. This has been a gripe against the social network for years, because there’s never been an easy way to pick up and leave Facebook with your own data in tow."

Isn't that factually incorrect? I seem to recall Facebook offering CSV exports of friends' contact information from the very beginning, along with SVG graphs of your social connections.

Link please? If I'd known such a thing existed I'd have been using it years ago.

The only way I know of to pull contact info from Facebook is to use my Droid's excellent contact syncing, and even that's one-way and can't add any data to my Google Contacts.

It was removed years ago, before Facebook was generally available outside of Zuck-blessed institutions, but I definitely recall using it during the 2004-2005 academic year. I'm mainly contesting the absolute claim that Facebook has never allowed this.

Twitter and all the other services should do the same. Isn't fb the only big social service that's not participating in open social?

Finally. Google is once again doing some good.

Wonderful. Now that corporations grok the idea of reciprocity--a difficult thing to do because of the ingrained internalized tendency of people to submit to unilateral corporate demands, it's time for individuals to demand the same thing from content providers to whom they provide personal information.

> And, if it really came down to it, Facebook has one other way to get Google’s contact data. Google is going to still allow users to download their contacts in a spreadsheet — Facebook could simply ask users to upload that file.

Is he kidding?! Noone would bother with that.

Looks like the pimps are fighting over the data again.

Is this socialist?

How could it possibly be socialist for Google not to agree to Facebook's unilateral non-reciprocated use of Google's own social network data? Are you saying that it's non-socialist only if Google simply hands their social network over to Facebook user by user, because even the thought of non-compliance with a corporate policy is necessarily socialist?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com