Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Larry Page Calls Out Facebook For Lack Of Social Data Portability

tcfast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Larry Page Calls Out Facebook For Lack Of Social Data Portability

#31

Post by saurik »

justinschuh wrote: post #16
kmavm wrote: post #11

Here's what Google had to say about the exact same product decision in their social network Orkut in 2009: "Mass exportation of email is not standard on most social networks — when a user friends someone they don’t then expect that person to be easily able to send that contact information to a third party along with hundreds of other addresses with just one click." http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/orkut-slows-hemorra…

That's a very disingenuous argument. The same statement you're citing clearly points out that "Google Contacts syncs with Orkut, so users can export their Orkut friends’ email addresses from Google Contacts," which is the only other piece you need to rebuild the social graph. The funny twist on this is that Facebook never would have experienced such rapid growth had email providers like Gmail not allowed users to eas…

For the most part, I remember sites like Facebook asking you for your e-mail username and password, then logging in as you, and scraping the data out: I don't remember it being because "email providers like Gmail [] allowed users to easily export their contact lists".

Re: Larry Page Calls Out Facebook For Lack Of Social Data Portability

#32

Post by justinschuh »

saurik wrote: post #31
justinschuh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very disingenuous argument. The same statement you're citing clearly points out that "Google Contacts syncs with Orkut, so users can export their Orkut friends’ email addresses from Google Contacts," which is the only other piece you need to rebuild the social graph. The funny twist on this is that Facebook never would have experienced such rapid growth had email providers like Gmail not allowed users to eas…

For the most part, I remember sites like Facebook asking you for your e-mail username and password, then logging in as you, and scraping the data out: I don't remember it being because "email providers like Gmail [] allowed users to easily export their contact lists".

I think you misunderstand what's occurring. Facebook wasn't "scraping" anything; Gmail provides a simple API and UX to allow users to export their information. In fact, Google called Facebook out for their lack of reciprocity in this area last year, and has experimented with blocking export directly to Facebook: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/google-facebook-data/

Re: Larry Page Calls Out Facebook For Lack Of Social Data Portability

#33

Post by saurik »

justinschuh wrote: post #32
saurik wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part, I remember sites like Facebook asking you for your e-mail username and password, then logging in as you, and scraping the data out: I don't remember it being because "email providers like Gmail [] allowed users to easily export their contact lists".

I think you misunderstand what's occurring. Facebook wasn't "scraping" anything; Gmail provides a simple API and UX to allow users to export their information. In fact, Google called Facebook out for their lack of reciprocity in this area last year, and has experimented with blocking export directly to Facebook: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/google-facebook-data/

...and yet, I remember it being a serious issue that sites like Facebook were asking for users' usernames and passwords to other sites, the disclosure of which is a violation of the terms of service of even Gmail. I do not remember Facebook offering this service as "upload your contact information", at least during the time when they were growing to prominence (important for your argument).

Re: Larry Page Calls Out Facebook For Lack Of Social Data Portability

#34

Post by pgroves »

thristian wrote: post #9
nhaehnle wrote: post #7

One way to look at the current situation in social networks is that it is a rehash of the pre-Internet situation. Pre-Internet, some institutions already had internal networks with mail systems and so forth, but each network was an isolated island. The internet enabled people in different networks to talk with each other. The social networks of today are isolated islands, and I would love to see a "social internet",…

The OStatus[1] specification enables distributed operation of Twitter-like interactions (specifically, short status messages, @replies and direct messages), so there's that. The people who worked on that are working on a new revision[2] that presumably will try to address the use-cases of sites like Google+. [1]: http://ostatus.org/about [2]: https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/it3iBLUj...

For any new technology (here, the example is social media), there is a natural evolution from closed to open standards. Early on, lots of proprietary code is modified as quickly as possible to see what works well in practice. Some companies win, some lose. An industry group trying to decide what to put in a standard is pointless b/c it's all hypothetical what features will survive the test of time.

Eventually, however, an open standards organization should come in and say "these are the standard features, let's encapsulate them in an open standard that everyone uses." This has been proven to be a very healthy way to get to an open standard that really works well in practice.

In 2011, I believe social media is ready to move to an open standard. The last five to ten years has seen a lot of technology built and verified by trial and error. There certainly has been enough capital investment in social media systems. The basics of what Facebook and Twitter do are a very good start. Something like OStatus can define the basics of what social media is by looking at what really works, which would not have been possible even a few years ago.

This is why I'm disappointed in google+. The social media industry is at the point in it's life cycle that it can move to an open standard. Google was in a unique position to ram it through all at once. Instead, they decided to make yet another closed system with minor improvements over the existing competitors. They may win lots of users in the short term but a bigger shift to open standards is coming, but now we have to wait longer for it.

Re: Larry Page Calls Out Facebook For Lack Of Social Data Portability

#36

Post by thristian »

pgroves wrote: post #34
thristian wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OStatus[1] specification enables distributed operation of Twitter-like interactions (specifically, short status messages, @replies and direct messages), so there's that. The people who worked on that are working on a new revision[2] that presumably will try to address the use-cases of sites like Google+. [1]: http://ostatus.org/about [2]: https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/it3iBLUj...

For any new technology (here, the example is social media), there is a natural evolution from closed to open standards. Early on, lots of proprietary code is modified as quickly as possible to see what works well in practice. Some companies win, some lose. An industry group trying to decide what to put in a standard is pointless b/c it's all hypothetical what features will survive the test of time. Eventually, howeve…

I too wish G+ were federated (or at least federable), and it's kind of sad that it's not... on the other hand, I've seen a number of Google employees making the right noises[1] about APIs and distributed operation, and reaching out to other social networks, so I'm still positive.

[1]: See this thread: https://plus.google.com/104323674441008487802/posts/1EzrmG9K...

Re: Larry Page Calls Out Facebook For Lack Of Social Data Portability

#37

Post by justinschuh »

saurik wrote: post #33
justinschuh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand what's occurring. Facebook wasn't "scraping" anything; Gmail provides a simple API and UX to allow users to export their information. In fact, Google called Facebook out for their lack of reciprocity in this area last year, and has experimented with blocking export directly to Facebook: http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/11/google-facebook-data/

...and yet, I remember it being a serious issue that sites like Facebook were asking for users' usernames and passwords to other sites, the disclosure of which is a violation of the terms of service of even Gmail. I do not remember Facebook offering this service as "upload your contact information", at least during the time when they were growing to prominence (important for your argument).

I don't see how that's at all relevant. Yes, of course you need to be logged in to export your Gmail contacts, but none of that implies that they're being "scraped" or retrieved in anything other than a readily accessible form. The simple fact is that Google has supported this kind of contact export for several years. Facebook has long benefited from it, but explicitly prohibits anything comparable on their end (i.e. not providing it themselves and intentionally breaking browser extensions, apps, or any third-party connectors).

Re: Larry Page Calls Out Facebook For Lack Of Social Data Portability

#38

Post by saurik »

justinschuh wrote: post #37
saurik wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and yet, I remember it being a serious issue that sites like Facebook were asking for users' usernames and passwords to other sites, the disclosure of which is a violation of the terms of service of even Gmail. I do not remember Facebook offering this service as "upload your contact information", at least during the time when they were growing to prominence (important for your argument).

I don't see how that's at all relevant. Yes, of course you need to be logged in to export your Gmail contacts, but none of that implies that they're being "scraped" or retrieved in anything other than a readily accessible form. The simple fact is that Google has supported this kind of contact export for several years. Facebook has long benefited from it, but explicitly prohibits anything comparable on their end (i.e.…

If you handed my website your Facebook username and password in the same way that users were handing Facebook their Gmail username and password, I could easily pull a list of all of your friends. The point here is that your insistence on quibbling over whether something is in a "readily accessible form" makes no sense in light of the mechanism that Facebook (and similar sites) were (and often still are) using to get your e-mail contacts: by logging in /as you/.

Re: Larry Page Calls Out Facebook For Lack Of Social Data Portability

#39

Post by justinschuh »

saurik wrote: post #38
justinschuh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how that's at all relevant. Yes, of course you need to be logged in to export your Gmail contacts, but none of that implies that they're being "scraped" or retrieved in anything other than a readily accessible form. The simple fact is that Google has supported this kind of contact export for several years. Facebook has long benefited from it, but explicitly prohibits anything comparable on their end (i.e.…

If you handed my website your Facebook username and password in the same way that users were handing Facebook their Gmail username and password, I could easily pull a list of all of your friends. The point here is that your insistence on quibbling over whether something is in a "readily accessible form" makes no sense in light of the mechanism that Facebook (and similar sites) were (and often still are) using to get…

Seriously? You're actually trying to make this argument? Sorry, but it's not worth my time to debate this with someone so disastrously ignorant as to think he can scrape Facebook profiles without getting throttled, banned, blocked, and litigated to hell and back.
Post reply on HN