Comment by trevelyan
16 years ago
What does Facebook's motives have to do with anything? The question under discussion is whether a random stranger who can convince one of my friends to sign up for a virtual pet should suddenly be able to spam me.
Facebook has good reasons not to open their social graph -- and Google's lecturing them about noblesse oblige on this front is silly. Google should make decisions about its data portability policy based on its own needs. If they don't like this kind of access close the API. Keeping it open but shrill and insensible like this is amateur.
While I understand your point - businesses should act in ways that benefit themselves. I think that is simply a recipe for a business to succeed, but it is a short-sighted one. I think the guideline which Google is putting out is better for the system as a whole, our economy, and the end user. And that seems to be - businesses should act in ways that benefit themselves and their users. The fact that what Google is really saying do what is good for your end-users (and us) is irrelevant in terms of my support of their stance.
None of the existing companies have to let you leave freely or support the movement of your data, but to a large extent they have been willing to and it has benefitted the end users, the economy, and the web, in the form of new start-ups, new mash-ups, and interesting ways to view and share the data you've put into other systems. If one company wants to benefit from that sharing, but not return the favor, I think consumers ought to call them on it. The unfortunate fact that most users don't understand the effect means that other companies are going to have to make them aware, and Google is taking that step.
I hope they succeed, but it isn't because I think Google needs the graph access: it is because in the end it will benefit the end user in general and us (hn/new startups) to do so.
What does Facebook's motives have to do with anything? The question under discussion is whether a random stranger who can convince one of my friends to sign up for a virtual pet should suddenly be able to spam me.
That is, indeed, the question under discussion.
But the question that should be under discussion is whether I should have the ability to toggle an "e-mail" field alongside the 18 other fields of information that Facebook allows me to expose to apps when a friend decides to sign up for a virtual pet. Facebook encourages me to share my pictures, my status updates, my location, my birthday, etc., with apps that my friends use, yet doesn't even allow me to choose whether to share my e-mail address.
For my protection, my ass. If that ability didn't go against their business interests, you can bet there'd be an option to allow that.
If googles philosophy is data openess they wont close their API, but instead they can warn their users about something that non of them knows.
As for what you say is the question under discussion, as somebody said over here, facebook can perfectly distinguish between a user exporting his contacts and an app trying to scrap personal info. They wont do it because they dont want anybody to export his relationships (in email adresses terms) so that they can rebuild their social graph out of their webpage. Facebooks leverage is users, and that action would make possible for users to migrate.
In any case, facebooks behaviour only damages users ability to control their data (or at least have a backup of it)