The most important principle for Facebook is that every person owns and controls her information. Sounds very noble but I suspect this is far from Facebook's "most important principle."
[deleted]
Facebook Slaps Google: “Openness Doesn’t Mean Being Open When It’s Convenient”
61–69 of 69 posts
Re: Facebook Slaps Google: “Openness Doesn’t Mean Being Open When It’s Convenient”
#62So their theory here is that when I add a friend on Facebook, I am really saying this: "I share some of my contact info with you, but only as long as we both use Facebook?" That's a convenient notion if you happen to work for Big #3b5998. But I think almost anyone would agree that it's really two people making a connection, and Facebook is just the middleman.
The theory is that by accepting someone's friend request you're not automatically granting them the ability to export your email address to any application that asks for it. If it were possible there's a good chance your inbox would quickly be filled with spam from apps your friends use. I know of no social network, including Google's own Orkut, Twitter, and Myspace, which allows this kind of mass exportation of frie…
So on the other hand, by emailing someone, you are granting them the right to download your contact information to a third party application who will then ... email you that you should join ... Facebook?
Re: Facebook Slaps Google: “Openness Doesn’t Mean Being Open When It’s Convenient”
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it were possible there's a good chance your inbox would quickly be filled with spam from apps your friends use. Apps like, um, FaceBook?
More like Zynga apps. Could you imagine if Farmville could easily get a hold of the emails of all of your friends? God help us.
Like Nostromo said...
Plus it's pretty clear Facebook itself needs to make a distinction between something like a "export application" (that does generate nothing-like-spam) and something like Farmville (which is only generates something-like-spam).
While this lack of distinction is a serious problem for Facebook ... it hardly qualifies as a good argument for Facebook being able to export from everyone else but not allowing exports to anyone.
Re: Facebook Slaps Google: “Openness Doesn’t Mean Being Open When It’s Convenient”
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook allows that kind of control by preventing data export. In other words, "If everyone uses Facebook for their data control needs, we'd all have perfect data control." This sounds suspiciously like an argument for DRM, which all end up failing and being bogus. Remember those email client plugins that would keep people from printing or remailing an email, that would have only worked if just everyone you sent som…
Obligatory DRM argument, check. But why even have privacy settings if you're not going to try to enforce them? Just make everything public, resulting in people hardly posting anything, and then the whole social networking thing can just shut down.
But why even have privacy settings if you're not going to try to enforce them?
That's a question for Facebook, not us. Don't you think?
However, the thing about Facebook isn't just that doesn't respect own privacy settings (which it hasn't). The thing is the concept of providing strong privacy while sharing within a set of intersecting friendship is essentially contradictory and impossible.
This (impossible) promise is very convenient for Facebook, however, since serves as an incentive, a pretext, for all-controlling environment. Consider, how do you keep your information safe while sharing it? The answer isn't "something sort-of like DRM". The answer is that is exactly, fully the definition of DRM. What Facebook is promising boils down to personal DRM (ie, impossible and opens the door nefarious third parties, etc).
Re: Facebook Slaps Google: “Openness Doesn’t Mean Being Open When It’s Convenient”
#65So their theory here is that when I add a friend on Facebook, I am really saying this: "I share some of my contact info with you, but only as long as we both use Facebook?" That's a convenient notion if you happen to work for Big #3b5998. But I think almost anyone would agree that it's really two people making a connection, and Facebook is just the middleman.
The theory is that by accepting someone's friend request you're not automatically granting them the ability to export your email address to any application that asks for it. If it were possible there's a good chance your inbox would quickly be filled with spam from apps your friends use. I know of no social network, including Google's own Orkut, Twitter, and Myspace, which allows this kind of mass exportation of frie…
[deleted]
Re: Facebook Slaps Google: “Openness Doesn’t Mean Being Open When It’s Convenient”
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laugh while you can. During the Buzz launch, I recall Google found it just as hard to negotiate the intrinsically tricky balance between privacy and openness. There is a real trade-off between the two in products that allow you to share information with groups larger than one. Good luck with your new social product.
I'm fully aware of this. However I happen to personally believe that Google's missteps have been far less than Facebook's - and less intentional. I'm sure that both companies will continue to fail to find the perfect balance. I'm strongly inclined to believe that Google will fail less. (However people will continue to hold us to a higher standard.)
> less intentional.
I'd refer you to Hanlon's Razor. You might also want to introspect as to why the singular social privacy fiasco whose decision-making you've seen internally strikes you as less evil than the privacy fiascos you've witnessed as an outsider.
Also, life is long, and the valley is small. We may work together someday. Let's try to presume good faith when possible, eh?
Re: Facebook Slaps Google: “Openness Doesn’t Mean Being Open When It’s Convenient”
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fully aware of this. However I happen to personally believe that Google's missteps have been far less than Facebook's - and less intentional. I'm sure that both companies will continue to fail to find the perfect balance. I'm strongly inclined to believe that Google will fail less. (However people will continue to hold us to a higher standard.)
> less intentional. I'd refer you to Hanlon's Razor. You might also want to introspect as to why the singular social privacy fiasco whose decision-making you've seen internally strikes you as less evil than the privacy fiascos you've witnessed as an outsider. Also, life is long, and the valley is small. We may work together someday. Let's try to presume good faith when possible, eh?
On intentionality, I find myself in agreement with a lot of what http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_sa... has to say. Facebook acquired a lot of data when everything was promised to be private, then changed the rules on people. Repeatedly. And Zuckerberg has been privately cavalier about his responsibility to respect privacy from the start, as is evidenced by http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims....
This does not mean to say that most, or even very many, people working at Facebook are as morally challenged as Zuckerberg seems to me to be. But the fact that I think that some of Facebook's controversial decisions come from Zuckerberg, and that I don't think Zuckerberg is acting in good faith, is why I view various incidents involving Facebook as being more evil.
As for the valley being small, it is but I don't live there. And it seems unlikely that I will ever live there. Furthermore my feelings about any particular company don't generally extend to the rank and file working there. Similarly I don't let my hatred of Microsoft's policies get in the way of my having friendships with people who work at, or used to work at, Microsoft.
Re: Facebook Slaps Google: “Openness Doesn’t Mean Being Open When It’s Convenient”
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> less intentional. I'd refer you to Hanlon's Razor. You might also want to introspect as to why the singular social privacy fiasco whose decision-making you've seen internally strikes you as less evil than the privacy fiascos you've witnessed as an outsider. Also, life is long, and the valley is small. We may work together someday. Let's try to presume good faith when possible, eh?
On intentionality, I find myself in agreement with a lot of what http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_sa... has to say. Facebook acquired a lot of data when everything was promised to be private, then changed the rules on people. Repeatedly. And Zuckerberg has been privately cavalier about his responsibility to respect privacy from the start, as is evidenced by http://www.businessinsider.com/well…
Sorry for any perceived "valley-centrism"; feel free to substitute "small industry" for "small valley."
What does Zuck's level of personal awesome have to do with anything? This strikes me as a major confusion about the business/consumer relationship. I know Zuck, and I happen to think he's a fine guy, but you don't, and you shouldn't have to.
I don't trust Google because Eric Schmidt is spiritually advanced, or because an engineer who now works at Facebook coined a tongue-in-cheek "Don't be evil" motto 12 years and 25,000 employees ago; I trust it because its search business' incentives are aligned with mine as a searcher.
So, what are Facebook's incentives? Facebook wants you to use its service to communicate with friends, so that it can show you targeted display ads. In the long run, using the service requires you to feel comfortable with who has access to your data, so Facebook's business has to get privacy and openness approximately right. Like everything about a customer-facing service, that turns out to be harder than it looks, at least while providing a stream of new features, but get it right we must for the business' health. But you're about to find out all about that...
Re: Facebook Slaps Google: “Openness Doesn’t Mean Being Open When It’s Convenient”
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
On intentionality, I find myself in agreement with a lot of what http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_sa... has to say. Facebook acquired a lot of data when everything was promised to be private, then changed the rules on people. Repeatedly. And Zuckerberg has been privately cavalier about his responsibility to respect privacy from the start, as is evidenced by http://www.businessinsider.com/well…
Sorry for any perceived "valley-centrism"; feel free to substitute "small industry" for "small valley." What does Zuck's level of personal awesome have to do with anything? This strikes me as a major confusion about the business/consumer relationship. I know Zuck, and I happen to think he's a fine guy, but you don't, and you shouldn't have to. I don't trust Google because Eric Schmidt is spiritually advanced, or beca…
What does Zuck's level of personal awesome have to do with anything? This strikes me as a major confusion about the business/consumer relationship.
The answer is, "a lot". And there is no confusion.
I believe that Facebook's behavior stems from attitudes I dislike at the top. Believing this, I believe that they will continue to push the boundary. You're right that they need to find the right balance between openness and privacy. However the corporate DNA looks to me like they consistently err on the side of openness for profit.
Worse yet, the corporate belief seems to be that while people will moan, they will accept continued encroachment on privacy. As someone who has things that I really need to keep private, I don't trust that and don't want my information there.
As for Google's social ventures, I have nothing to do with that and know little about it. If Google starts doing the sorts of things that I see Facebook doing, then I'll readjust my thinking about Google. Companies do change. In the meantime I have my preferences.