-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2008/01/03/unintended-advantages/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
danja
44 comments · 4 points
-
polizeros
52 comments · 1 points
-
AndyBeard
69 comments · 4 points
-
Zachary Adam Cohen
35 comments · 8 points
-
dbarefoot
40 comments · 3 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
World-brand-building mistakes France’s entrepreneurs make
2 weeks ago · 181 comments
-
The best and worst thing Twitter did in 2009: RT
3 days ago · 24 comments
-
2010: the year SEO isn’t important anymore
1 week ago · 67 comments
-
iPhone developers abandoning app model for HTML5?
1 week ago · 52 comments
-
A new addition here: the Meebo bar
2 days ago · 8 comments
-
World-brand-building mistakes France’s entrepreneurs make
http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/01/03/facebook-bl...
Of course, 99.99% of people that have friended you wouldn't care if you scraped their email address and phone number (I certainly don't) and used it in your personal address book. But they might be more cautious if, say, you wanted to put it into another social networking service.
Think of it this way: putting your phone number on your blog doesn't give people the right to take that number and use it in any way they wish, does it? Similarly, giving you access to my information on Facebook may not mean that I give you carte blanche to take it elsewhere.
Well, the social media Internet is in its infancy and unfortunatly Facebook is doing the wrong thing, blindly thinking they are protecting their turf and user data. But in a social network the data belongs to everyone. When you friend someone you are telling them "I trust you with my contact information."
Haven't the shiny new technology companies learned the old school business rule number one? "The Customer IS ALWAYS RIGHT!"
GIVE SCOBLE THE DATA!
Don´t know if they may overview (from a strategic viewpoint) what am bs clusterf*ck they did to themselves with it.
And so I actionly have to give the CSB right, with this strong kinda business-mind they may get rid of a lot users (which in return is their value, the xyz mio. ppl signed up there)
I ll bet they´ll come after you, with a personal appreciation and so on (all stuff), when their public relations chief gets aware. So probably in the next 12 hours.
to me this is another strong evidence, that I shall not give my personal information in the hand of a company, but to the ppl I want them to have - perhaps using a structure provided by a company =.D
In the same sense, even though you pay for electricity, the electric company doesn't let you just throw a few generators into their grid for your own use. There are ways to do it and methods for interoperable power.
I'm supportive of the notion of getting at one's own data, but just now, my thought went to whether it was the method, not the goal.
Firstly, "wear and tear" or whatever you want to call it is included in the cost of using S3.
Secondly, you're assuming that because S3 can support that server load then automatically Facebook should support it.
Should someone who pays for access to a professional forum site expect my little, free forum on my own server to handle the same load as the one they pay to access, then?
Ummmmm... S3 is storage. Running a script which pulls info from a database is not the same thing.
Try to get your photos back out of Kodak Gallery or Snapfish. :) This data portability debate isn't new, it isn't going away, and I'm glad someone's amping up the volume.
If I take a photo, or write a blog post, or describe my network of friends - that's MY data! Why on earth businesses don't get that, and why consumers put up with it, I'll never understand.
This was the same line of reasoning AT&T used to justify their monopoly on the American telephone system. "We can't just let anyone plug anything into the telephone network -- what if it had the wrong voltages? It would threaten the stability of the telephone network."
Eventually they were persuaded that as long as there was a published STANDARD for interfacing to the network, people other than Western Electric could actually make telephones and -- gasp! -- SELL them to people (instead of renting them for a lifetime), and as long as the phones worked according to the same electrical standards as Ma Bell's, they wouldn't be a threat to the network.
In this case the situation is even simpler. All Facebook has to do is throttle requests on the server side. Perhaps they let you download info on 10 friends at full speed; then they put in a 1-second delay between page requests for the next 100 friends; then a 10-second delay between page requests for the next 1000 friends, etc. ad nauseum. They can adjust the delay so that downloading data presents no appreciable impact on their resources. OR they can adjust it so that Robert's script takes an annoyingly long time to complete.
Point is that this is something Facebook, with their mega-billion-dollar valuation, could be coding up on the SERVER SIDE, instead of alienating their users.
Easier to piss off users, I guess? Writing code is hard. ;-)
GIVE SCOBLE THE DATA!
Hey, if we are gonna start chanting and pumping our fists in the air, I suggest something a little more catchy, like FREE SCOBLE'S DATA!
FREE SCOBLE'S DATA! FREE SCOBLE'S DATA! FREE SCOBLE'S DATA!
Yeah, that has a nice ring to it. Now where did I put my pitchfork and torch...
Posted items - RSS
Notes/blog - RSS
Events - iCal/ics
Your status updates - RSS
Friends status updates - RSS
All of the above plus photos of contacts are also accessible via the platform.
Facebook is not the data whore people make it out to be. It can improve but so can everyone.
Try deleting a message, six months later if someone replies to your message, the "deleted" message comes back!!! Nothing is being deleted, just hidden!
I've had a few friends temporarily deactivate their accounts. It's sort of creepy. It's as if they never existed. But then, ta-da, they come back, and it's as if they were never gone--except that there's a strange gap in posts on their wall.