Google points finger at Facebook hypocrisy, blocks Gmail import
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
:(
...if you think about it, that's probably an easy way to get a lot of photos of people that they don't want to be seen.
I doubt shareholders would really want Google to sit back and give up the game on social.
I want Google to be the bare-knuckles, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners winner - for good.
In this case, it seems like they are currently doing the right thing.
Demanding reciprocity is the right thing for data portability. It's like the GPL is more restrictive license than the BSD license - and the best license for software freedom.
As you point out, these standards may not be entirely realistic for a for-profit company operating in a very competitive space.
Google therefore must either take the risk that their standards will actually make them into a stronger company, or gradually compromise them for competitive advantage.
The problem with the compromise approach is that it undermines trust even more than if they'd never held themselves to such high standards in the first place, and that's where the backlash comes from.
But I also prefer permissive Apache/BSD/MIT licenses to GNU GPL, so maybe that's just me.
FB restrictions > Google restrictions
You can still export your Gmail contacts... just not to automatically to Facebook (unless Facebook starts allowing easy export of its own data... which is the bigger problem right now, IMO).
In Google's eyes, our personal data should be portable (but under our control) and hence why they advocate openness. Google already does by allowing sites like Facebook to connect via APIs to access your contacts list and find other friends to invite to Facebook. Facebook however doesn't allow any other company to do a similar arrangement.
Google open, Facebook not. Google should be absolutely supported in their position - it will lead to be a better Net for all of us.
Google has taken away freedom from it's users to do as they want with their data (i.e. transfer it unidirectionally to Facebook). This is a fact.
So we have a clear example of Google choosing to control users data when it suits them. They claim they are doing this to try to force Facebook to become more open and that they are doing it on behalf of the users, but does anyone seriously think that's the only reason behind this decision?
Google has stated that they want access to Facebook's social graph and that they'll find a way to get it even if it's not through being granted access by Facebook. They obviously want this for competitive reasons, and to pretend that this isn't part of their motivation seems disingenuous to me.
And that's why this isn't as clear-cut as it seems. I personally think it would be good for users if Facebook's API did expose the social graph, but isn't it hypocrisy of Google to claim they are different while at the very same time holding user-data hostage?
The ends do not justify the means, particularly if the means are compromising the very principles you claim to uphold.
If open truly always wins, they wouldn't need to try to force Facebook to open up under terms dictated by Google. Google opens up data at their own pace - why shouldn't Facebook do the same?
'Open' doesn't win if others don't come to the party - Google is playing hardball to force Facebook to gives users control of their data. Yes they have ulterior motives but in this situation I believe the end does justify the means.
If Facebook wants to open their data at their own pace, then don't reap the benefits of 'openness', if you aren't prepared to contribute. Facebook is effectively the big selfish kid at school who only takes, but doesn't give anything back (in terms of openness).
This is exactly what Google does: read the open data that all other sites provide, over http, add a lot of value by processing that data, and carefully control any 'reciprocal' access to the results of this process: namely, their search index and ad targeting systems. To be clear, I am fine with that, and you should be too. Google has added a ton of value to a lot of lives, and I am perfectly happy with them making a buck or two in exchange. That would simply not be possible if they were perfectly "open" in the way they're insisting Facebook should be.
Lots of R&D effort, some of it mine, has gone into constructing a machine-readable version of the real-world social graph. Google insisting it should have full, unencumbered, automated access to this data, because users of its GMail service have provided some inputs into it, is every bit as insane as Facebook insisting it should have full access to Google's web index, because Googlebot crawls Facebook. Perhaps Facebook should start serving empty pages to GoogleBot until Google "opens up."
Let's perform a thought experiment, stripping out the branding and associated emotional baggage. Company A and Company B both provide large scale consumer-facing services over the web, and both have large, valuable datasets that they mutually covet. There is a lot of overlap in the userbase between the two groups; users sometimes take data from Company A's service to improve their experience of Company B, and vice versa. Company A decides to shut down this access, though no users have asked them to, and though they've voted with their feet by the millions to be able to move their data from Company A's service to Company B. Is Company A striking a blow for openness against the evil, proprietary Company B? Or, is Company A just trying to negotiate a favorable market position, while manipulating your emotions the best they can?
Disclaimer: Facebook pays me to write code, not HN posts.
Google crawls Facebook's data, by request (robots.txt.) You, me, Facebook, and the world do have access to Google's complete data set... its called the world wide web.
Facebook, on the other hand, does anything it can to get a hold of private data owned by individuals, and then hoard and monetize it.
Gmail Contacts is an example of private data, as is the Facebook social graph. These are directly comparable, unlike Facebook's social graph and the greater WWW that google uses for building search indexes.
"Facebook ... does anything it can to get a hold of private data owned by individuals ..."
Actually, Spock, Plaxo (RIP), Rapleaf, Whitepages.com, MyLife.com, the credit agencies, governments doing background checks, etc., do anything they can to get hold of private data. They scrape online directories and listings of students at schools, digitize yearbooks and phonebooks, buy subscriber information from magazines and ISPs, buy search log data from ISPs, go to brokers who do this shady stuff and then resell the resulting information, etc. Google itself slaps a pixel on AdSense clients, and a cookie on your disk, and builds machine models that watch your web browsing history to infer your likely age, gender, education levels, interests, etc.
Facebook asks users for their personal information, and they give it to Facebook, because doing so makes Facebook's service directly, immediately better. There is a world of difference; it is the difference between surveillance and voluntary communication.
"... and then hoard and monetize it."
"Hoard"? Would you rather Facebook gave the information away to anybody who asked? Somehow that seems worse to me. Providing programmatic, API access to all of a given users' friends' personal information which is what Google is insisting on here, would be hugely irresponsible. Users have weak passwords, phishing sites exist, etc.
"Monetize": Ah, you're edging perilously close to the "Facebook sells your data!" canard. Thank you for not stating that falsehood outright. As you probably know, Facebook pairs advertisements with users that match the advertisers' criteria; the user's data is not part of the bargain. What, specifically, do you object to about this practice? Do you feel the same way about Google "monetizing" the picture it took of your home?
" I don't recall asking Google to build a fleet of androids to drive around my neighborhood taking pictures of me and my neighbors' houses, but they did so anyway."
You have misread what google does. Legally, Google does not need your permission. Your implication that google collects personal data with streetview pictures would make sense if they take pictures of the _inside_ of your house.
Google and Facebook run businesses. They need to make money. The question is how they do it. And, on that question, I am on google's side because it is a better place for me and my data.
You set up strawmen ("Would you rather Facebook gave the information away to anybody who asked?") and it does not do much good to your argument.
* Google indexes information that is public, that I (or others) have chosen to publish. The data on Facebook is personal data.
* Other search engines, or even yourself if you wanted to code a crawler can index that same info because there is no 'lock'. No-one besides Facebook can access my personal info (because they have put a lock on).
* This is about (one caveat - see below) being able to access my personal data and being able to port it elsewhere. It's not about ad targetting or other business aspects - ie I don't expect FB to make their ad data exportable, just my personal details.
The Caveat (which is related to your thought experiment): With regard to your thought experiment - I think the answer is both - Google's action is both a 'striking a blow for openness' and' a self-interest action to 'negotiate a favorable market position'.
Remember, people actually want to export their contact information from gmail rather than having to find all their friends manually, and now Google is telling them they can't because Google doesn't like Facebook's policies.
If Google believed in openness they wouldn't make that decision for their users, they would let their users decide.
Google is playing hardball by taking away data portability to their users. Hardly a good example to set.
OK, but when you say "its users" you seem to be talking about the millions who have stored contacts data with Google, when actually you are talking about the hundreds who build apps that have other users.
Google has not taken away freedom from its users to do as they want with their data (e.g. transfer it unidirectionally to Facebook), except for those of its users that operate services or applications that limit the freedom of other users to do as they want with their data. THAT is also a fact, and one that says something about all the users who have contacts data stored with Google.
The hundreds of application developers have absolutely no right to access that contact information.
It is the users who have the freedom to give other applications permission to access their data, and it is that freedom that Google is taking away.
To me this means that Google doesn't respect its users rights to do what they want to do with their data.
What if Microsoft prevented users from their loading word documents into Google Apps because they disliked some of Google's policies?
If Google really believes that the data belongs to their users, then they would let their users decide what to do with it, even if the users want to give it to a company that Google finds threatening.
Now they are only allowing me to export my data to people who play by their rules. That's not really open at all.
Sure I'd like the choice to export my contact information from Facebook, but I'd rather Google compete with Facebook on the merit of their products rather than making things harder for Facebook users.
False. You can go to gmail right now, click on contacts, and then choose export in the upper right. You can export your contacts all you want, then give the exported file to whoever you want. Google isn't letting Facebook access your contacts. It's not Google's fault that Facebook doesn't have a CSV importer; or maybe they do, I don't know -- either way, it's not Google's responsibility to get your contacts into anywhere else. Google isn't hoarding your information, you have full access to it.
Sure I'd like the choice to export my contact information from Facebook, but I'd rather Google compete with Facebook on the merit of their products rather than making things harder for Facebook users.
It's not Google's job to make things easier for Facebook users, that's Facebook's job.
One could say that Google is competing on the merit of their product: you can export your contacts from Google and you can't from Facebook: if access to your own data is important, then Google has the stronger product.
also where do you see Google saying: "they'll find a way to get it even if it's not through being granted access by Facebook" I didn't see that anywhere.
The point is that Google isn't adhering to their own stated philosophy in this case - they're acting as though it's their data, not their user's data.
Here's a reference to "they'll find a way to get it even if it's not through being granted access by facebook":
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/15/schmidt-well-pull-fac...
That's indirect?!? It's basically a strait up $5 million a year investment in open source.
Producing open source stuff is cool 'n all, but it doesn't really matter as much as being open vs closed in terms of what you can do with your own data.
Personally, I don't particularly care if a company decides to be totally closed source and not participate in open source contributions, as long as they don't start putting up walled gardens and trying to lock in user data.
Google makes money from their page ranking algorithm and their ad-placing algorithms, which they use to sell your attention to advertisers. You'll never see them open those up.
Facebook makes money from your personal data and connections, which they directly sell to advertisers and other partners. You'll never see them open that up.