-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2008/05/16/mike-arrington-is-right-facebook-is-wrong/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Arrington got arrogant on Gilmore, he kinda always does in my opinion.
Good show though, thanks.
you think you should be able to take my photos to another network if you desire?
you think you should be able to take my photos to another network if you desire?
I'd like the idea of taking friends to some other network or app. But I would still like to control my own data. And I'm find with my friends seeing my data on another app if I am in fact connected with them. Otherwise I'd rather not have that. I hope I'm making sense here.
It is also interesting to see that you guys argued heatedly, but it is not personal. I know many people that would be very upset with the other when disagreeing like you did. As usual, excellent follow-up.
But they're not. They want to give the data to people who help them and hide it from people who would use it to compete. They want to be open, but only when it directly benefits them.
In the meantime they'll selectively enforce and change the rules for their own benefit.
It's their right to control access to the site. It's the holier-than-thou hypocrisy that annoys the hell outta me.
I want you to think back to a post you did after a meeting with facebook on Data Portability issues. In that post you stated that facebook explained to you that the issues are hard to solve.
Which means that yes Facebook will make mistakes and so will Google and etc.
But, which mistake has greater damage:
1. Facebook failing to block someone and thus someone loosing their data/identity to fraud or etc
or
2. Facebook making a mistake in blocking someone or company and than correcting the mistake later.
Sorry Robert, I like you but I trust facebook's expertise in this before yours as it seems that even when they goof its a lessor of two evils.
I don't think so - that sounds like invasion of privacy (not that we have any anyway). I don't want you (or any system to allow folks the "usage" of my personal information in "any other system" you so desire.
My info is my info - is not yours. If you think you will be using the my info in "any other system you so desire" then there should be a disclaimer in your blog that discloses that.
In any case, privacy is something that people are willing to give up for a free t-shirt. (Paraphrased)
It’s stark evidence that evil is both real in a strategic sense, and it’s a stark demonstration why evil is such a useful concept from an economic perspective. It allowed us to predict, for example, Facebook’s behaviour pretty nicely.
Now, there’s a big problem with Facebook’s move. The endgame of competitive dynamics in this space is straightforward: the least evil, most open platform - by necessity - wins. Walled gardens lose - hard, fast, and decisively. That’s a simple, inevitable outcome of network economics - and no amount of artificial competition, a la blocking tactics, can change it.
That’s why Google’s built an open platform on open standards: because it can explode the value of network effects in this space. From a strategic point of view, Facebook’s already lost this war (hard) - it’s just a matter of time until the dynamics inevitably play out.
Today we have technologies to turn it upside down. Instead of copying all our data to every application and network, let the applications come to our data.
I call that data hosting. It's not as easy to build things with this model, but they sure are a lot better for you after you build 'em.
http://ideas.4brad.com/data-hosting-instead-dat...
I'm not the only one thinking about this. The question is, can the dream be real?
I'm giving up on Facebook.. ;-)
However if the prb is there Facebook is totally right.. Music!
| Private Nightmare
|
| There is a problem of privacy speculation,
| Someone is too much aggressive..who take position? Who?
| Who take position, including authority, is totally right..
| The prb of user personal profile is damning a fake..
| Good appetite to the evil..
Think to a Windows Cardspace approach for example.
(I'll confess, I've not listened to the podcast - yet.) But here is my Passionate take on this whole thing...
Note: I am advising a start-up that is currently seeking funding that seems to understand that portability of ones data lies in the hands of the person GIVING the data.
That said, if you friend me, I should then have a series of setting to choose how much "portability" Im giving you with my data. Am I accepting a freind connection within the originating system / network only? Do I permit you to take my name and relation status with you to another network? Do I permit you to take my contact info, my photos, and even the social graph of freinds who have permitted "open sharing"?
I see it this way since it all boils down to the nature and strength of the relationship between the two individuals. I also see a the creation of what I am calling "PERSONA". This goes beyond a friend, or work contact, but takes into account the many roles I live within my life.
Family, Father, Business Owner, Community Leader, Home Owner (HOA), Little League Coach, Fitness Enthusiast, Collector, Spam Vigilante.
With each persona, i see a slightly different tweak to how I would permit use of my information within your social graph - and giving you permission to what personas.
For example, it may not be appropriate for my little league social graph to blend with my spam vigilante social graph.
I know it sounds complex on the surface, but to me, it really is the only right way.
I stumbled upon this when a former colleague of mine refused to connect to me in online open networks like linkedin. He is a privacy alarmist, which he has every right to be, I finally convinced him to create an "online persona" that we could use instead, thus protecting his true identity, and giving me the benefit of his accolades.
To this very day, when I google his name, there are ZERO results - and thats exactly how he wants it.
In the end, I think more people would be apt to engage in social networks if the had more control over their information - and how others could use that information - including the option to create anonymous personas further giving them privacy and the ability to participate at the same time.
Please include me in future discussion as I am ar from new to this theory or concept. Thanks.
Allan Sabo
Alti Success Strategies
Experts at Integrating Social Media and Internet Marketing
While drafting my response, yours came up - you and I are thinking the same kind of thing when considering the tactical-practical of how to do this the right way -- err, not "right", but in the most beneficial way.
We should talk.
Allan Sabo
Alti Success Strategies
Experts at Integrating Social Media and Internet Marketing
(Even the privacy/data portability pro's from various standards bodies seem to see it that way!)
As for the data privacy itself, the expectation that your (video/image/etc.) data should somehow be safe in FB is quaint, ANYTHING can currently be downloaded out of Flash players, etc. or taken as screen captures (there are FF plugins for the former and Camtasia, etc. for the latter). This will be true unless a prevention of this were built into your operating system.
In the case of a Vista follow-on, judging from MSFT's track-record, you're talking years away... so you might as well get used to it now: If you put it out there, it's pretty much gone/out there forever. Pictures, videos, everything...
I strongly agree with Scoble on the Email address issue: Since FB's messaging doesn't use it, the only reason a thinking person could have left it showing on their profile is for others to use it in some sort of Email client. It's not for decoration, though FB got close by making it into a GIF :), presumably to protect us from our "friends" copy pasting it?!?!? Silly...
Now what is true is that FB should have a much better messaging system, and the recent addition of chat is no substitute. What it should do is allow those email notifications about "xyz sent you a message on FB" it sends out to be replied to within one's own email client. To do this, use a one-time key, avoiding any email addresses having to be used at all.
Note how Craigslist handles the anonymous email thing for it's ads, they disintegrate again when no longer needed. Something like that would at least make sense. It would allow a temporary channel that can be turned back off.
If you have a (regular) email address, that creates a channel to send you messages. In the case of “old school” email, it is actually quite hard to turn that channel back off, other than killing the entire account. Blocking can mostly only occur at your end through filtering rules, etc. (sure your Internet Provider or Hosting Company might do a bit of it as well, but they actually tend to overreach). So if someone “possesses” your email address, that’s pretty much it…
The basic email protocol was always incredibly weak from a security standpoint, since the sender is not even authenticated, much less the question of whether the recipients had really given permission to be contacted.
Think about it: By giving out your email address, anyone can now claim to be you in the eyes of the email protocol. I always laugh when I get the occasional spam that claims to have been sent from my own address.
Or when someone cries over privacy when using email. If you want privacy, don't use it. Period. It was never secure. Only in people's illusions...
The Google guacamole website example for Friend Connect was fairly innocuous. However, what happens if my "friend" on facebook joins a different website, say Nazi's unite. And... as a result, I get pulled into that publisher's website and social network. I think I'd be upset, etc. and even if I un-friend my "friend" the damage has already been done in many respects. I believe that this is the type of concern that Facebook sees at the moment.
I believe that this affects them much more than MySpace for two reasons:
1) Facebook's users are highly authentic. You are not talking about exposing Avatars, real names, personalities and lives are involved.
2) Facebook is most likely to become a cross-over network catering to both personal life and business networks. So segregation of data and visibility is a big deal for them.
Rather than bash Facebook, I'm surprised folks are not taking them at their word that they are trying to solve this very hard problem. The knee jerk reaction seems to be "they're wrong." Well, who are you to say this, and what skin do you have in the game, in the sense of the impact of getting this wrong?
How about acknowledging their concerns, and checking up on their progress to arrive at a workable solution?
I think its fairly clear that there was minimal outreach from Google to Facebook before Google's announcement. So I'd recommend validating both side's concerns and applying pressure to both to arrive at a solution.
Speaking of concerns, I've got one of my own. Why is everyone so eager to instill Google as the master centralized broker of on-line identities? Unlike Open Social, Google already knows far too much about people's on-line behavior. I'd like to see something like Friend Connect be implemented with a federated approach, not unlike DNS. This will also keep Google honest.
I wouldn't be surprised if you see Google providing incentives for adSense publishers who use FriendConnect... (or penalities for small websites who use a competitor to FriendConnect). Before you know it, your every move will be tracked online and tabulated by Google. This is bad for privacy, bad for competition, and bad for innovation.
I say -- let social networks compete on their merits and openness, but lets not bring in a broker overlord, when in fact none is needed. I'm hoping Facebook holds out on participation until Google agrees to relinquish its centralized broker role. Then we all win.
Instead of phoney Mac love casts, you actually get some real knock down drag out arguments.
Sweet!
The only problems are:
(1) Facebook hasn't implemented such a checkbox.
(2) If that checkbox existed, almost no one would ever click it.
The first is Facebook's issue... they can't or won't add the checkbox. The second is Robert Scoble's issue... you *know* most people will never click the box, so you keep looking for ways to justify doing what you want in the absence of permission, and third-parties that will help you do it.
Please Google, rename Orkut to something more commercial and take it out of beta NOW!!!1!
Before it is too late...
The interesting question is whether I can port my friend's data into my choice of venues for my personal use, and whether the providers of that service can then re-monetize that data stream. Facebook is right to protect their business model, but wrong to try to calaim ownership of my data.
But then I'm a data protability advocate, and working in health care that's a good thing for you since I'm working on the inside to ensure that your medical data is yours.
The interesting question is whether I can port my friend's data into my choice of venues for my personal use, and whether the providers of that service can then re-monetize that data stream. Facebook is right to protect their business model, but wrong to try to calaim ownership of my data.
But then I'm a data protability advocate, and working in health care that's a good thing for you since I'm working on the inside to ensure that your medical data is yours.
http://chrissaad.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/mike-...
So...There's only one dilemma left. On the one hand, I feel strongly proximity data (who your friends are, who you are having one-to-one chats with) shouldn't be scrapeable and exportable.
That's what happened to get ppl in SL mad at the SL data guy who tracked 96 m chats and broadcast who was chatting with whom or even merely next to whom and broke up relationships, etc. That was in a 3-D world. But that doesn't obviate the point, since SL is where we are prototyping all the social media apps in fact.
So on FB do I want someone else to see who I've friended? Well, no. That is, I should have to opt into that, no? But...how will I ever find friends to fill up the news feed with interesting stuff if I can't mind my friends' friends and see their graph? I just don't have a solution to this. I'd simply like to be able to click a radio button on each friend "show in my network" or "don't show in my network".
Good Lord, that's arrogant and dense. There is nothing inherently evil in walled gardens whatsoever. In fact, open is often the destructive and evil thing. Walled gardens protect a lot of things that in fact people want protected.
There's a difference between the kind of data portability that means I as the user can take my social graph and my data (which I worked so hard to craft) and use it somewhere else (or release it to the world), and the kind of data portability that means anyone with an API can come and mine my relationships for their own purposes. Especially if those relationships were created under the guise of a walled garden, only to be opened up without my explicit consent.
"Data Utopia" is not here today. Every social application user must use their own judgement when giving their person information out to web sites on the Internet.
Here's the full blog post: http://bloghh.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/data-pri...
It's not a simple problem. It will require thoughtful solutions!
Were you kinda hot in the early 90s?
Where the hell was Doc on this call ?? If ever there was a time for the voice of reason, this was it. ;)
ps. MA's concept about someone's business card coming to me with some sort of implicit contract is utter paranoid bullshit. It's up to him to decide who he hands it out to.
Money controls the world!!!
I think you should be able to take your friend's info that you have access in Facebook, *provided* that is for your eyes only. However, in another system, what guarantees are there for your friend that this is the case.
So my short answer is yes to Scooble: 1 and 2 should be accessible through social data aggregation.
So many times I had to log in to facebook to look up someone's new email address or phone number - and each time i manually copied that piece of information to my outlook (so it would be synched to my iphone) so i won't have to go through this inefficient & long process next time i wanna call him. automating it is simply trivial.
Then again, this isn't an issue that's started with Facebook - for years most sites have had options to scan your address book and send invites to all your contacts, even though the address book is even more private than your information in a social network.
The real issue here is one of identity, and connecting your identities to those of people you know - and then attaching certain usage rights to those connections. A differential is needed - I may be friends with people from my forums on Facebook, but I don't want them seeing some photos of me and my family. That's my choice and I shouldn't have it taken away from me just because I use Facebook as a means of contacting people.
Why are the sites holding objects for us not in the discussion? Well, those sites know their role, providing a tool for us to input our data for our own use. They provide services so that we can connect to others, but I'm in much more control of the data I put there.
Social networks, on the other hand, somehow think they can control that data...while using spin to make it seem like we are in control.
Link (including Arrington attack on Scoble):
http://techleaders20.blogspot.com/2008/01/micha...
Robert is too much of a nice guy to fight fire with fire, and is trying to find other tactics with Arrington, it appears, to get his points across.
What kind of soap do you use?
1. If it's me personally I don't hand those over to other people. TO ME a relationship with you is more important than anything else and if I do anything to ruin that relationship I have with you that'll just bring a pox on my business.
BUT:
2. When you hand your business card out you lose all control of what happens with that email address. Sorry, but Arrington and you are totally wrong on this one. You don't have the right to tell me "you can use Outlook but not Gmail." And, yes, you ARE taking a risk that I'll sell your email address to a spammer or do something else that you'd find nasty. I've had people take my email into a public discussion list, which spread my email address beyond people I might care to give my email to. There's also no way for you to control that.
Which is the reason I put my email up on my public blog. I figure that way I don't have to worry about these issues since everyone will have access to my email address and I'll just build systems to separate the good messages from the bad, which isn't hard to do.
"From a strategic point of view, Facebook’s already lost this war (hard) - it’s just a matter of time until the dynamics inevitably play out."
The Net is like water at worst and grease at best. It WILL flow. It DOES need a container. Google is saying, we don't need to contain it. FaceBook may be making the wrong container. But some container IS needed, for sure.
@brad
http://ideas.4brad.com/data-hosting-instead-dat...
Good Man Brad, have you nailed the issue or what? We need more of you around here.
My take is on the issue of abstraction. We are playing with a dirty liquid using our bare hands. We THINK we would be able to soap it off later. Maybe we would, maybe we WON'T. There needs to be some sort of abstraction which allows us to dissociate ourselves from our avatar if things don't pan out as planned. The problem is how to get all the benefits of networking without having to open up fully by having some sort of an "avatar" layer.
How can you separate the social graph from email addresses (personal data) when the only key we can use to match up profiles across sites is email addresses? How could I import my social graph from Facebook into Orkut without giving Orkut access to my friends' email addresses?
Erik
Clearly, FaceBook is in the wrong.
just because I let a girl hold my hand at the movies doesn't mean I want to let her hold my hand at the pub with the boys, or after my football game, or when I'll trying to court another girl.
Friendships are contextual...just because I give you my email in facebook does not mean you can assume I will want you to have it in another social contex.
1. Graph - of course this should be open, it is really just a list of the people I know. Why should facebook, or anyone else, be able to say I am allowed to be friends with someone on their site, but not somewhere else.
2. Friends' data - two points here.
First, by friending you and putting my data on Facebook (or whatever other site) I am agreeing to allow you to "use" that data, but not make any of it public to other people... I friended you, not your other friends. Which leads to my second point.
Second, by posting my information on a site that we connect on, it is assumed that I am familiar with how that site functions (i.e. my data is used), implicitly giving you permission to use it IN THAT WAY. However, if you take my personal data elsewhere, I may not know how it is being used and therefore have NOT given you permission to use it in other ways. (Plaxo's spamming issues of the past being an example). *disclaimer - plaxo is much better now.
3. Our actual data - hopefully this is a given. We should have control how of our content, only allowing it to be put where we want it. However, I believe once I have published content somewhere, I should be allowed to pull that content into other locations - do you agree?
Ian
ian-ellis.com